or that are of the character contemplated by such act of Congress and intend to be granted thereby; but where lands embraced in such lists are not of the character embraced in such acts of Congress and are not intended to be granted thereby, the lists, so far as these lands are concerned, shall be perfectly null and void, and no right, title, claim or interest shall be conveyed thereby.
This statute would have covered the case completely, and made it my clear duty to recognize the certified lists as conveying title, even had the granting act not specifically provided for this and no other mode of conveyance.
And out of this state of facts you constructed the slanderous story that I had made a law of my own, for the benefit of railroad corporations, by which unearned lands could be surreptitiously put into their possession. As to the conveyance of unearned lands in that way, a little honest inquiry would have acquainted you with the fact that when, during my administration, a case in which unearned lands had by mistake been put upon such a list came to my notice, the list was at once cancelled, and the clerk responsible for the mistake promptly punished.
A word about my ruling, that when any of my predecessors had certified lands under railroad grants, their acts were final and conclusive, and binding upon me as their successor. This, too, you treat as an unscrupulous contrivance of mine. You are a lawyer, practising before the Departments. Are you so ignorant as not to know that while principles of administration and rules of practice and the like may be changed, the adjudications in any specific case by any one Secretary have always been held to be final and conclusive and binding upon his successors, unless new and essential facts be adduced which were not before the Secretary making the decision, or a new state of the law? Have you not ordinary sense
