ure of the interests of the United States in
these lands. It must be borne in mind, too, that prior to this time
these lands had been conveyed by the State of Iowa in furtherance of the
purposes of the original Congressional grants, and that the joint
resolution of 1861 and the act of 1862 were really made for the benefit
of those who held under grants from the State. After these grants by the
Government it had no concern with these lands. If in any stage of the
proceedings the general assembly of Iowa was guilty of any neglect of
duty or failed to act in accordance with the constitution of the State
of Iowa, the remedy should be found in the courts of that State; and it
is difficult to see how the situation in this aspect can be changed or
improved by the bill under consideration.

I am not unmindful of the fact that there may be persons who have
suffered or who are threatened with loss through a reliance upon the
erroneous decisions of Government officials as to the extent of the
original grant from the United States to the Territory of Iowa. I
believe cases of this kind should be treated in accordance with the
broadest sentiments of equity, and that 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 that 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
mischievous in principle, and in its practical operation doing injustice
to others as innocent as they and as much entitled to consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 32: See pp. 411-413.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 220, entitled "An act
granting a pension to John J. Lockrey."

It is stated that this beneficiary enlisted April 11, 1865, but it
appears from the muster roll of his company for May and June, 1865, that
he was a recruit assigned, but who had not joined. There is nothing
appearing on the record which positively shows that he ever reached his
regiment.

It is conceded that his real and nominal connection with the Army
extended only from April 11, 1865, when he was mustered in, until
August, 1865, wh