Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1889-02-22
The Second Round
Between President and the Des
Moines River Bill
ENDS EXACTLY LIKE THE FIRST.

Bill Sleeps the Sleep-Synopsis of the
Message-The Territorial Bill All Right
-Edmunds and Hoar Have Little
wordy wsr-The Days Work IN Con-
gress-Oapital Briefs.
WASHINGTON CITY, Feb. 22.-The presi-
dent yesterday returned to the house without
approval the bill for the r1sief of settlers on
the Des Moines river lands In his message
accompanying the bill, the president says:
1This bill is to all intents and purposes iden-
teal with the senate bill passed in the first
session of the Forty-ninth congress, which
| failed to receive executive approval My OBJ
tections to that bill are all applicable to the
bill herewith returned and q careful re-ex-
proposed legislation has further satisfied me
Of their validity and strength The trouble
proposed to be cured by this bill, grew
out of the Indebtedness and con-
sequent contradictory construction by
the officers of the government of a
grant Of land made in 1916 by congress to the
state of Iowa then territory for the pur-
poss of aiding in the improvement of the Des
Moines river. This grant was accepted on
the 9th day of January, ls47 by the state OF
Iowa, as required by act of congress, and
soon thereafter the question arose whether
the lands granted were limited TO those which
adjoined the river in its course northwesterly
from the southerly line of the state to point
called the Raccoon fork, or whether such
grant covered lands so adjoining the river
through the territory, and both below and
above the Rsccoon fork
IhA DrpS1aDt then rafara ot la,7c-fb m tho
various acts of congress and decisions of the
interior department on the subject, and quotes
the provisions of the bill under consideration
He then continues:
"One result OF this legislation, If consum-
mated and If effectual, would be to restore to
the United States, as part OF tue public do
main, lands which more than twenty five ago
the government expressly granted and sur
rendered, and which repeated decisions of the
supreme court have adjud red to belong by
virtue of this action of the government to
other parties. Another result would be- not
only to validate claims to this land which our
highest judicial tribunal has solemnly de-
clared to be invalid, but TO actually direct the
issue of patents III confirmation of said claims
Still another result would be TO oblige the
government of the United States to enter the
courts ostensibly 10 assert and protect it's title
TO said land while in point Of fact it would
be used to enforce private claimst the same
and unsettle private ownership
at is by no means certain that this pro
posed legislation, relating 20 subject pecu-
liarly within the judicial function, and
which attempts TO disturb rights and inter
ests thoroughly entrenched in the solemn ad-
judication OF our courts, would be upheld.
In any event, It seems to me that it is an inn
proper exercise Of legislative power an inter
ference with the determinations of a co-or-
dinate branch Of the government, an arbitrary
annulment OF a public grant made more than
twenty-five years ago, an attempted destruc.
ton OF vested rights, and a threatened i'm
pairment or lawful contracts.
"The advocates Of this measure insist that q
point in favor of the settlers upon these lands
and important In the consideration OF this
bill, Is found In the following language Of the
constitution OF the state OF Iowa, which was
adopted in 1857: The general assembly shall
not locate any OF the public lands which have
bean or may be granted by congress to this
stats, and the location Of which may he
given TO the general assembly upon lands
actually settled without the consent Of the
occupant
"The state under its constitution was per-
fectly competent TO take the grants of 1861
to 1862. The clause of the constitution above
quoted, dea expressly with lands which
have been or may be granted by Congress to
the state and thus, Of necessity, recognizes
It's right 70 take such grants. This COM
Potency IN the state as q grantee was all that
was needed to create under the Joint resolu-
ton Of 1861, and the act of 1880, complete
divestiture OF the interests of the United
States In these lands. II must be borne in
mind, too, that prior to this time these lands
had been conveyed by the state OF Iowa In
furtherance Of the purposes of the original
congressional grants, and that the joint reso-
luton of 1861 and act of 1862 were really
made for the benefit of those who held under
grants from the state
AFTER these grants by the government il
had no conceru with these lands If, Ii any
stage of the proceedings, the general assem-
bly, o. Iowa was guilty Of any neglect of duty
or failed To act In accordance with the CON
stftution OF the state OF Iowa, the remedy
should be found il the courts OF that state
and it Is difficult to sse how the stu alton in
this aspect can be changed or improved by
the bill under consideration
~ am not unmindful OF the fact that there
may be persons who have suffered, or who
are threatened with loss, through reliance
upon the erroneous decisions of government
officials as to the extent OF the original grant
from the United States TO the territory OF
Iowa. / believe cases Of this kind should be
treated Ia accordance with the broadest senti-
ments OF equity, and that where loss Is
apparent, arising from real or
fairly supposed invitation of the gov
ernment to settle upon the lands men,
toned in the bill under consideration,
such loss should be made good But do not
believe that the condition Of these settlers
will be aided by encouraging them In such
further litigation as the terms of this bill In
vites, nor do l believe that in attempting
to right the wrongs Of which they complain
legislation should be sanctioned mischievoui
in principle, and in its practical operation
doing injustice TO others as innocent as they
and as much entitled to consideration