Pacific Railroad Company, in which decision he said with regard to the certification of the lands:
The line of the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company (of which the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company is the successor) was definitely located prior to March 3, 1857, and upon the application of an agent of the State of Iowa, appointed by the governor of said State, the lands in question were on December 27, 1857, duly certified to the State for the benefit of said company. If there had been any irregularities in the selection and certification of these lands to the State and the granting of them by the State to the company, these were waived and all prior acts treated as valid.
In my decision I thereupon disclaimed jurisdiction over the lands, for the following reasons: “1. These lands were certified to the State by my predecessors, and their acts are final and conclusive and binding upon me as their successor. (United States vs. Bank of the Metropolis, 15 Peters; two Attorney-Generals opinions, p. 9, id. 464, etc.) 2. The certification of these lands invested the State with a complete legal title to the same (Duray vs. Hallenbeck), which was in all respects equivalent to patents.”
This is the devilish contrivance of mine to give to a railroad what did not belong to it. In my first letter I showed that the conveyance of lands by certified list is provided for by general statute, as it is also specially provided for by many of the granting acts. In an act amendatory of the granting act here in question it is spoken of as a matter of course.
What, then, is the trouble here? You say that in this case the certification was all wrong and worth nothing. Why? Because—I quote your own language—“the grant is in præsenti, and the title passed to all the lands in it by
