Page:History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century Volume 3.djvu/298

 where loss is apparent, arising from a real or fairly supposed invitation of the Government to settle upon the lands mentioned in the bill under consideration, such loss should be made good.

“But I do not believe the condition of these settlers will be aided by encouraging them in such further litigation as the terms of this bill invite, nor do I believe that, in attempting to right the wrongs of which they complain, legislation should be sanctioned in principle and in its practical operation doing injustice to others as innocent as they and as much entitled to consideration.”

The reasoning and conclusions of the President were correct and sound, as will be seen hereafter.

Senator William Evarts of New York, one of the most eminent lawyers of the country, in discussing the bill when it was before the Senate, said:

He then introduced a bill, similar to the one introduced by Captain Orr which passed the House in 1874, granting indemnity to the settlers whose titles had failed through the decision of the Supreme Court in the Riley and Crilly cases. The Navigation Company and its grantees were willing and anxious to join with the settlers in securing indemnity for those who had lost their homes, in order that their titles might be no longer questioned, but many of the settlers still had a hope that there was a chance to reverse the decisions of the courts which awarded the title to the Navigation Company. After the repeated confirmations of those decisions there was no good reason to believe that they would ever be reversed. The Evarts