grantees. The report shall be made to the Governor before the first of August, 1872, and a copy sent to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from Iowa, with a memorial asking for relief for such settlers as have lost their lands as aforesaid.”
The Governor appointed as Commissioners Norman Hart of Webster, Charles Aldrich of Hamilton and John A. Hull of Boone counties. On the 25th of July the Commission reported to the Governor that it had found 1,032 claimants who would lose by the late decision 109,057 acres of land. That the value of the land was in the aggregate $902,777, and the value of the improvements on the land was $758,031, making a total value of the property of the claimants $1,560,808. The number of suits brought against the settlers then pending was reported at two hundred forty-five.
The Commissioners prepared the memorial to Congress giving a concise history of the case, in which they say:
“The United States has sold and granted preëmption and homestead rights to actual settlers on lands she claimed to own in Iowa, but which by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of William B. Welles vs. Hannah Riley, determined at the December term, 1869, were not public lands; hence the titles of such settlers have failed. This much said, we believe every friend of justice will extend to us a helping hand.”
Governor Carpenter in forwarding the memorial to Congress says:
“If a case has ever arisen since the organization of the Government, wherein land titles have become so involved by the action of the officers having the Land Department in charge, as to warrant Congress in securing the rights of innocent settlers and purchasers by appropriations of money, then no argument in addition to a simple statement of facts can strengthen and no reference to pledges of administrative economy can either weaken or dissipate the consideration to which these suffering claimants are entitled.”
“The annals of the Land Department of the Nation fail to furnish a full parallel to the case presented by these gentlemen. No other instance can be found in the records of that department where the misinterpretation of
