The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1864-03-31

\ Nohip""y'
| During the progress of the work by the
Navigation Company there was certified to
II at different times, by the State, 2o5 ass, ,73
100 acres, viz: Ell ar'sedazaa 10 .Ha
| May 18th, 1855 2 p5 SIS, ,s5s 10 acres
May 9th, 1856 @ 116,o36 81 acres
This was the condition Of tn, lands above
the Forks when in 1853 a settlement was
agreed upon by the State and the Navigation
Company. There at that tune only remain
ed h0. .6l9 acres Of the lands that had been
certified and approved to the State by the
Commissioner of the General Land Office.
BY the terms Of this settlement this was to
be conveyed by the State to the company,
and deeds or p,tcnts for this and the land
which had been before certified to the COM
Ipany but for which It had not as yet received
deeds, making in AL s66, 169 acres, of this
number but So, 367 acres were below the Rae
coon Forks---the balance, 212 ZAP. acres, be-
ing above the Forks. This and the $3.50
sold by the State prior to the contract with
the company is the land the title to which
is in controversy between the Railroads and
the grantees of the State.
This conflict Of title arises as follows: To
May, 1855, Congress granted to the State Of
Iowa in trust the odd numbered alternate
sections for six sections in width along the
line of certain proposed Railroads, to aid in
their construction. Three Of these roads
crossed the Des Moines River Tmproveme ent
Grant of 1S46, above the Forks Of the river
In July of the same year Of the Railroad
grant, 1856 the State accepted this grant and
trust, and granted the same to certain Rail-
road companies, providing thst any Of the
said companies accepting the grant should
take the same with the conditions imposed
and membranes specified therein. At this
time it was fully believed that the River
grant was not limited to the Raccoon Forks,
hut that it extended to the northern bound
ary of the State, and no conflict Of title be-
tween the River Grant and the Railroad
grant was at that time thought of.
But in the beginning Of the year 1860 the
Supreme Court of the United States in the
agreed case of Litchfield vs. the Dubuque r
r. Co., decided that the River grant was
limited to below the Raccoon Fork; the con
sequence being that the title to the 2Tl,57l
, -.-.a- above the Fork that the State had
granted was rendered invaTd. ue~v ~,
reads now claim that by virtue Of this deci
sion it leaves their grant of 1856 the only
valid prior grant to the River lands included
: within their respective lines Of road above
the Fork. Tn other words, they set up q
technical right to these lands, and insist up
on their clsims against the graz les of the
State, and the question now is shall then
to reimburse her grantees out Of her own
Treasury OF else leave them remidiless, OF
shall we resume all the lands granted to the
Railroads, which it is entirely competent fol
us to do, they having failed to comply with
the conditions OF the grant, and thereby per-
feet the title Of the State grantees Of the Riv.
er lands, and then re-grant to the Railroads
the remainder which will be all we intended
to grant them in the grant of 1855. and all
they expected to receive, as will show you
before conclude nv remarks.
(Mr. Stiles here proceeded to argue At
length to show that the Railroads did not
expect to get the River lands, and that the
State did not intend to grant them, ard then
proceeded as follows y
From these facts it must be clear to every
impartial mind that ii was certainly never
intended either by the Federal or State Gov
srnment that these grants should ever inter
fere with each other; that the Railroad grant
Of 1855 should trespass upon or conflict with
tie River Improvement grant Of 1S46 made
ten years before. The Government had
treated these lands as included in the River
Improvement grant Of 1s46, and had certi-
fled 2T1. 900 acres thereof to the State prior
to the Railroad grant But II is alleged that
the Government authorities had upon one or
two occasions held otherwise; this viii ad
nit; but the general course had been to rec
ocnize the grant as extending above the
Fork The following officers SO treated and
decided it.: re a-gd ga ss
Mr. Young Commissioner of General Land
! Office in 1s4s,
Mr.. Walker, Secretary Of the Interior in
I1s49. 'a3 is
Mr. johnson. Attorney General in 1850.
Mr.. Stuart, Secretary of the Interior in
1851.
Mr.. McClelland, Secretary of the Interior
/ in 1853. cw .5fma ,fF
And to crown all. these lands were cor :
tified to the State in 1853. and in May,
1855. Caleb Gushing. IS Attorney General,
gave it as his oninion, that while he believ-
Ell the Grant did notlextend above the Rae
coon fork. vet that with regard to the lards
that had been certified and approved to the
State, the lands now in controversy. there
could be no question that this certfication
and approval had been done by competent
authority, aud bound the Government.
that it could not be undone by, and was
finalitv upon the Government This opin-
on seemed to set the matter entirely at
rest, 80 far "a the lands that had been GER
ti6ed and approved to the State was cor
cerned, and on the 9th Of June following.
before the Legislature met to accept the
Railroad Grant, Mr. McCleand. Secretary
Of the Interior announced that he would be
governed ny the opinion of Attorney Cen
eral Gushing. f aH
cS., Ii L. zkl,x- hat tha ANf