the grant itself.” Was not the road entitled to the lands in question? You affirm yourself that it was. You say expressly: “There is thus no controversy whatever about your action in recognizing as valid the certified lists referred to.” And “the certified lists referred to” were the only ones contemplated in my decision. The only trouble, in your own words, is “that the Act of 1856 does convey the fee simple title of the lands in dispute, and, therefore, that the lists which pretend to convey them are perfectly null and void.” And yet, “there is no controversy whatever about my action in recognizing as valid the certified lists referred to.” Your logic is too deep for this world. In the same breath you affirm that by my decision no land was given to the railroad to which it was not entitled, that I had concocted a devilish scheme to give to the road what did not belong to it by recognizing the lists certified to by my predecessors and that I did right “in recognizing as valid the certified lists referred to.” A man grown so blind in his fury as to box his own ears is always a ludicrous spectacle.
I might leave this matter here on your own showing, but will add for your information that certified lists have their use even when a land grant is made in præsenti. The grant usually refers to so and so many sections of land on each side of the road. The certified lists specify the sections and identify them by numbers according to the survey, and thus they become evidence of title attaching to specific tracts. It is in this sense that the Act of 1854 providing for conveyance of title by certified list applies to grants in præsenti like the one in question. The issue of specified lists is therefore not only a general practice, but a necessity where patents are not specially provided for or where the tracts granted are not specific ally identified in the granting act. This disposes of one-half of your letter.
