ound.

I have carefully examined the legislation upon the subject of this
grant, and studied the decisions of the court upon the numerous and
complicated questions which have arisen from such legislation, and the
positions of the parties claiming an interest in the land covered by
said grant, and I can not but think that every possible question that
can be raised, or at least that ought to be raised, in any suit relating
to these lands has been determined by the highest judicial authority in
the land; and if any substantial point remains yet unsettled, I believe
there is no difficulty in presenting it to the proper tribunal.

This bill declares that certain lands which nearly twenty-four years ago
the United States entirely relinquished are still public lands, and
directs the Attorney-General to begin suits to assert and protect the
title of the United States in such lands.

If it be true that these are public lands, the declaration that they are
so by enactment is entirely unnecessary; and if they are wrongfully
withheld from the Government, the duty and authority of the
Attorney-General are not aided by the proposed legislation. If they are
not public lands because the United States have conveyed them to others,
the bill is subject to grave objections as an attempt to destroy vested
rights and disturb interests which have long since become fixed.

If a law of Congress could, in the manner contemplated by the bill,
change, under the Constitution, the existing rights of any of the
parties claiming interests in these lands, it hardly seems that any new
questions could be presented to the courts which would do more than
raise false hopes and renew useless and bitter strife and litigation.

It seems to me that all controversies which can hereafter arise between
those claiming these lands have been fairly remitted to the State of
Iowa, and that there they can be properly and safely left; and the
Government, through its Attorney-General, should not be called upon to
litigate the rights of private parties.

It is not pleasant to contemplate loss threatened to any party acting
in good faith, caused by uncertainty in the language of laws or their
conflicting interpretation; and if there are persons occupying these
lands who labor under such disabilities as prevent them from appealing
to the courts for a redress of their wrongs, a plain statute, directed
simply to a remedy for such disabilities, would not be objectionable.