Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

BULLARD v. DES MOINES AND FORT DODGE RAILROAD.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA.

Argued May 4, 1887.- Decided May 23, 1887.

The joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress of March 2, 1861, 12 Stat. 251, relinquishing to the State of Iowa certain lands along the Des Moines River above the mouth of Raccoon Fork, did not operate to terminate the withdrawal of all the lands on that river above Raccoon Fork from entry and preëmption which was originally made in 1850, and which was continued in force from that time and of which renewed notice was given in May, 1860: that resolution was only a congressional recognition of the title which had passed to grantees of the State of Iowa, to lands certified to the State under the act of 1846, which certificates had been held by this court in Dubuque & Pacific Railroad v. Litchfield, 23 How. 66, to have been issued without authority of law.

In equity, in a state court of Iowa, to quiet title to land. The complaint set up a preëmption title. The respondent claimed under the act of July 12, 1862, 12 Stat. 543. The bill was dismissed, and on appeal the decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state. The complainant sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Edward Fitch Bullard, plaintiff in error, in person cited: Wolcott v. Des Moines Co., 5 Wall. 681; Dubuque & Sioux City Railroad v. Des Moines Valley Railroad, 109 U. S. 629; Doe v. Nicholls, 1 B. & C. 336; Crilley v. Burrows, 17 Wall. 167, more fully reported in the Letter of the Register of Iowa to the governor of that state in November, 1873; Hand v. Newton, 92 N. Y. 88; Homestead Co. v. Valley Railroad, 17 Wall. 153; Williams v. Baker, 17 Wall. 144; Bellows v. Todd, 34 Iowa, 18; United States v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378; Clements v. Warner, 24 How. 394; Terry v. Megerle, 24 Cal. 609 [S. C. 85 Am. Dec. 84]; Rector v. Gibbon, 111 U. S. 276; Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U. S. 330; Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. 210; Lytle v. Arkansas, 9 How. 314; Frisbie v. Whitney, 9 Wall. 187;

Opinion of the Court.

Wirth v. Branson, 98 U. S. 118; Simmons v. Wagner, 101 U. S. 260; Duryee v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 477; Wolsey v. Chap man, 101 U. S. 755; Ryan v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 382; Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad, 99 U. S. 48; Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U. S. 351; Weed v. Tucker, 19 N. Y. 422; People v. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 574; People v. Lacombe, 99 N. Y. 43; Slidell v. Grandjean, 111 U. S. 412; Rice v. Sioux City, &c., Railroad, 110 U. S. 695; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72: Newhall v. Sanger, 91 U. S. 761; Leavenworth, &c., Railroad v. United States, 92 U. S. 733; Mongeon v. People, 55 N. Y. 613; Vance v. Burbank, 101 U. S. 514; French v. Fyan, 93 U. S. 169, 172; Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 U. S. 447, 451; Ehrhardt v. Hogeboom, 115 U. S. 67; Lee v. Johnson, 116 U. S. 48; Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166; Bicknell v. Comstock, 113 U. S. 149; United States v. Fitzgerald, 15 Pet. 407; Cummings v. Browne, 61 Iowa, 385; Cross v. The B. & S. W. R. Co., 51 Iowa, 683; Smith v. People, 47 N. Y. 330; Harlem Railroad v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546; Perrine v. Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, 9 How. 172; Hart v. Kleis, 8 Johns. 41; Wendell v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. Ch. 344.

Mr. J. F. Duncombe for defendants in error submitted on his brief, citing: Wolcott v. Des Moines Co., 5 Wall. 681; Reilly v. Wells, not reported; Homestead Co. v. Valley Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 153; Williams v. Baker, 17 Wall. 144; Bellows v. Todd, 34 Iowa, 19; Dubuque & Sioux City Railroad v. Des Moines Valley Railroad, 54 Iowa, 89; Railroad Co. v. Fremont County, 9 Wall. 89; Railroad Co. v. Smith, 9 Wall. 95; Wolsey v. Chapman, 101 U. S. 755; Dubuque, &c., Railroad v. Des Moines Valley Railroad, 109 U. S. 329, 334.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the state of Iowa.

The case originated in a suit in equity, brought in the District Court of that state for the county of Humbolt by Edward F. Bullard, who is the appellant here. The object of the

Opinion of the Court.

bill was to quiet or remove clouds upon the title of the plaintiff to certain lands in that state, to which the defendant filed an answer and cross-bill, asking that its own title might be declared to be good and established by the decree of the court. The District Court of that county made a decree in favor of the defendant, which on appeal to the Supreme Court of the state was affirmed.

There were many questions considered in the state courts of which this court can take no jurisdiction. But the main question raised there, and the only one here, has relation to a subject which has been often considered by this court. It arises out of what is called the Des Moines River Land Grant, which was originally made by the Congress of the United States to the then territory of Iowa. A short history of the matters growing out of that grant, with some references to the decisions of this court, will simplify the complex record presented in this

case.

By the act of Congress of August 8, 1846, 9 Stat. 77, there was "granted to the territory of Iowa, for the purpose of aiding said territory to improve the navigation of the Des Moines River from its mouth to the Raccoon Fork, (so called,) in said territory, one equal moiety, in alternate sections, of the public lands, (remaining unsold, and not otherwise disposed of, encumbered, or appropriated,) in a strip five miles in width on each side of said river; to be selected within said territory by an agent or agents to be appointed by the governor thereof, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States."

Soon after the passage of this statute the state of Iowa created a Board of Public Works, to take charge of this river improvement, under a system of slack water navigation on that stream. The contract for the execution of the work came into the hands of a corporation called The Des Moines Navigation Company. The work progressed for a number of years, several dams and locks being built from the mouth of the river upwards, the means for paying the contractors coming solely from the sales of the lands granted to the state for that purpose.

These lands, as the work went on and the money was

Opinion of the Court.

needed, were certified to the state by the Secretary of the Treasury, and by it either sold to purchasers or conveyed to the contractors who did the work. The state made no appropriations and furnished no means from any other source than this for the prosecution of the enterprise.

So long as no request on the part of the state for the certification of lands lying above the mouth of the Raccoon Fork was made of the Secretary of the Treasury, no question arose as to the extent of the grant. Afterwards, however, when a demand was made upon that officer that such lands should be certified, he objected on the ground that the grant of lands did not extend beyond that point; that, as by the language of the statute making the grant it was "for the improvement of the Des Moines River from its mouth to the Raccoon Fork." it was not intended to grant lands lying above that point, although the same river ran through the entire length of the state, from near its northwestern corner in the territory of Minnesota to the southeast corner, where it flows into the Mississippi River.

This question became the subject of active negotiations and controversy between the state of Iowa, through its governor and members of Congress, and the Treasury Department, as well as the Interior Department, which was created during this time and succeeded to the charge of this subject. Meanwhile one of the secretaries certified to the state a part of the land in dispute, running to a certain range of townships above the Raccoon Fork. It may as well be stated here that the lands now in controversy were not among the lands so certified, but are among the odd sections lying north of those thus certified and within five miles of the Des Moines River.

On April 6, 1850, Secretary Ewing, while concurring with Attorney General Crittenden in his opinion that the grant of 1846 did not extend above the Raccoon Fork, issued an order withholding all the lands then in controversy from market "until the close of the then session of Congress," which order has been continued ever since, in order to give the state the opportunity of petitioning for an extension of the grant by Congress. This court has decided in a number of cases, in re

Opinion of the Court.

gard to these lands, that this withdrawal operated to exclude from sale, purchase, or preemption all the lands in controversy, and unless the case we are about to consider constitutes an exception, it has never been revoked.

In 1856 Congress granted to the state of Iowa, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of several railroads across that state from the Mississippi to the Missouri River, every alternate section, as shown by odd numbers, of the lands on each side of said roads, each of which, when the line was fixed, crossed the Des Moines River and ran through the lands which the state claimed had been granted to it for the purpose of improving the navigation of that stream.

Pending this controversy between the state of Iowa and the authorities of the United States as to the extent of the grant, a suit was brought by one of these railroad companies, that the question might be decided by this court. The case is reported as the Dubuque & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Litchfield, 23 How. 66, decided in 1860, and it was held that the grant did not extend above the Raccoon Fork. As soon as this decision was made, the state, through its congressional delegation, sought the action of the Congress of the United States to obtain the passage of an act, which would secure the grant to the state and its grantees in the full extent which they believed Congress had originally intended by the act of 1846. That the propriety of some action by Congress, and the demand for it was pressing, is obvious, when we consider that the Des Moines Navigation Company, under contract with the state, had spent large sums of money beyond what they had received from the state, and beyond the value of the lands certified to the state by the Secretary. The work, with all the materials and implements on hand, was suspended, and the danger of the works being swept away and ruined by floods in the river was imminent. The whole subject was before Congress, but, without waiting to dispose of it entirely, that body, by way of immediate relief, passed the following joint resolution, approved March 2, 1861, 12 Stat. 251.

"That all the title which the United States still retain in the tracts of land along the Des Moines River, and above the

« AnteriorContinuar »