The Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company having failed to
complete the entire road from Sioux City to the Minnesota line, as
contemplated by the Act of Congress of May 12, 1864, c. 84, 13
Stat. 72, making a grant of public land in aid of its construction,
and as required by the statutes of Iowa, has not only received as
many acres of public land as it could rightfully claim under that
act, but has also received 2004.89 acres in excess of what it could
rightfully claim.
Grants of odd-numbered sections of public lands to aid in the
construction of railways imply no guaranty that each section shall
consist of 640 acres, nor any obligation on the part of the United
States to give other public lands to supply deficiencies in
reaching that amount.
Under the said act of 1864, the grant was made to the state as
trustee, and not to the railroad company, and the title under the
patent, when issued, vested in the state as trustee.
When lands are granted by acts of Congress of the same date, or
by the same act, to aid in the construction of two railroads that
must necessarily intersect, or which are required to intersect,
each grantee, when the maps of definite location are filed and
accepted, takes, as of the date of the grant, an equal undivided
moiety of the lands within the conflicting place limits, without
regard to the time of the location of the respective lines.
This suit was brought by the United States against the Sioux
City and St. Paul Railroad Company, pursuant to the Act of Congress
of March 3, 1887, providing for the adjustment of land grants in
aid of the construction of railroads and for the forfeiture of
unearned lands theretofore granted. 24 Stat. 556, c. 376.
Upon its appearing that from any cause lands had been
erroneously certified or patented to or for the use and benefit of
any company to aid in the construction of a railroad, it became the
duty of the Secretary of the Interior to demand the relinquishment
or reconveyance of such lands, whether within granted or indemnity
limits. If the company failed
Page 159 U. S. 350
for ninety days to comply with the demand, it was made the duty
of the Attorney General to institute proceedings for the
cancellation of the patents, certifications, or other evidence of
title issued for such lands, and for the restoration of the title
to the United States. § 2.
The decree from which the present appeal was taken quiets the
title of the United States, as against the Sioux City and St. Paul
Railroad Company, and Elias F. Drake and Amherst H. Wilder,
trustees in mortgages given by that company, to certain tracts of
lands in Dickinson County, Iowa, alleged to contain 800 acres, and
to other tracts in O'Brien County, in the same state, alleged to
contain 21,179.85 acres -- in all, 21,979.85 acres.
United
States v. Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad, 43 F. 617.
The railroad company claims title under an act of Congress
approved May 12, 1864, c. 84, granting lands to Iowa in aid of the
construction of railroads in that state, and also under statutes of
Iowa passed in execution of the objects of that act.
The United States claims that the company has received a larger
quantity of lands than it was entitled to receive under the act of
1864, and therefore can have no claim to the particular lands here
in controversy.
The relation of the parties to these lands, and the facts upon
which the question of title depends, are shown by the following
summary of the evidence:
By the above Act of May 12, 1864, Congress granted lands to the
State of Iowa to aid in the construction of two railroads in that
state -- one from Sioux City to the south line of Minnesota at such
point as the State of Iowa might select between the Big Sioux River
and the west fork of the Des Moines River, the other, for the use
and benefit of the McGregor Western Railroad Company, an Iowa
corporation, to aid in the construction of a railroad extending
from South McGregor, Iowa, in a westerly direction, by the most
practicable route on or near the forty-third parallel of north
latitude, until it intersected, in the County of O'Brien, the
proposed road from Sioux City to the Minnesota state line.
Page 159 U. S. 351
The grant was of every alternate section, designated by odd
numbers, but if it appeared at the date of definite location that
the United States had sold any granted section or part thereof, or
that any preemption or homestead right had attached thereto, or
that the same had been reserved by the United States for any
purpose whatever, the Secretary of the Interior was to select, or
cause to be selected, for the purposes stated in the act, from the
public lands nearest to the tiers of sections specified, so much,
in alternate sections or parts of sections, designated by odd
numbers, as was equal to the lands lost to the state in either of
the modes just stated. The lands thus selected were to be held by
the state for the above uses and purposes, and were not in any case
to be located more than twenty miles from the lines of the road to
be constructed. All lands previously reserved to the United States
by any act of Congress, or in any other manner by competent
authority for the purpose of aiding in any work of internal
improvement or other purpose, were expressly reserved and excepted
from the operation of the acts except so far as it was found
necessary to locate the routes of the roads through such reserved
lands. § 1.
The lands granted were "subject to the disposal of the
Legislature of Iowa for the purposes aforesaid, and no other," and
the railroad was to be and remain a public highway for the use of
the government of the United States, free of toll or other charge
upon the transportation of the property or troops of the United
States, as well as for the transportation of the mail at such price
as Congress should fix. §§ 3, 6.
The fourth section of the act was the subject of much discussion
by counsel. It provided:
"That the lands hereby granted shall be disposed of by said
state, for the purposes aforesaid only, and
in manner
following, namely,
when the governor of said state shall
certify to the Secretary of the Interior that any section of ten
consecutive miles of either of said roads is completed in a good,
substantial, and workmanlike manner as a first-class railroad,
then the Secretary of the Interior shall issue to the
state patents for one hundred sections of land for the benefit of
the road having completed the
Page 159 U. S. 3552
ten consecutive miles as aforesaid.
When the governor
of said state shall certify that another section of ten consecutive
miles shall have been completed as aforesaid,
then the
Secretary of the Interior shall issue patents to said state in like
manner, for a like number, and
when certificates of the
completion of additional sections of ten consecutive miles of
either of said roads are, from time to time, made as aforesaid,
additional sections of lands shall be patented as aforesaid
until said roads or either of them
are completed,
when the whole of the lands hereby granted shall be patented
to the state for the uses aforesaid and none other: . . .
provided further, that if the said roads are not completed
within ten years from their several acceptance of this grant, the
said lands hereby granted and not patented shall revert to the
State of Iowa for the purpose of securing the completion of the
said roads within such time, not to exceed five years, and upon
such terms as the state shall determine,
and provided
further that said lands shall not in any manner be disposed of
or encumbered except as the same are patented under the provisions
of this act, and should the state fail to complete said roads
within five years after the ten years aforesaid, then the said
lands undisposed of as aforesaid shall revert to the United
States."
The lands embraced by the act were to be withdrawn from market
as soon as the governor of the state filed or caused to be filed
with the Secretary of the Interior maps designating the routes of
the respective roads. § 5.
The last section of the act granted to the State of Minnesota
four additional alternate sections of land per mile -- to be
selected under the conditions, restrictions, and limitations
contained in a former act of Congress, approved March 3, 1857, 11
Stat. 195, c. 99 -- for the purpose of aiding the construction of a
railroad in that state extending from St. Paul and St. Anthony, by
way of Minneapolis, to a convenient point of junction west of the
Mississippi, in the southern boundary of the state, and in the
direction of the mouth of the Big Sioux River. § 1.
By an Act approved April 3, 1866, Iowa accepted the lands,
powers, and privileges conferred upon it by the Act of May 12,
Page 159 U. S. 353
1864, and so much of the lands, interests, rights, powers, and
privileges as were or could be granted and conferred in pursuance
of the act of Congress, for the purpose of aiding the construction
of the railroad from Sioux City to the Minnesota line, were
disposed of, granted, and conferred upon the Sioux City and St.
Paul Railroad Company, an Iowa corporation, to be hereafter called,
for the sake of brevity, the "Sioux City Company." That act
authorized the company to select and designate the point upon the
south line of Minnesota to which its road should be built. Laws of
Iowa, 1866, p. 143, c. 134, §§ 1, 2, 7.
By a subsequent statute of Iowa, approved April 20, 1866, it was
provided that the lands, powers, duties, and trusts conferred by
the Act of Congress of "July 12, 1864," were accepted by the state
upon the terms, conditions, and restrictions therein contained, and
that
"whenever any lands shall be patented to the State of Iowa in
accordance with the provisions of said act of Congress, said land
shall be held by the state in trust for the benefit of the railroad
company entitled to the same by virtue of said act of Congress, and
to be deeded to said railroad company as shall be ordered by the
legislature of the State of Iowa."
Laws of Iowa, 1866, p. 189, c. 144. The word "July" in that act,
inserted by mistake, was stricken out by an Act passed March 24,
1868, and "May" substituted, and the acceptance intended to be made
by the Act of April 20, 1866, was ratified and confirmed. Laws of
Iowa, 1868, p. 49, c. 42.
On the 17th of July, 1867, the Sioux City Company filed in the
General Land Office a map showing the location of its route from
Sioux City, Iowa, northwardly to the south line of Minnesota, a
distance of 83.52 miles. This map was accepted by the Interior
Department, and August 26, 1867, the odd-numbered sections within
the ten- and twenty-mile limits of the located line were withdrawn
from the market.
The company, commencing not at Sioux City, as was apparently
contemplated by Congress and indicated by the map of definite
location, but at the Minnesota line, began the construction of its
road in 1872, and completed it southwardly
Page 159 U. S. 354
in the direction of Sioux City, but only as far as Le Mars, in
Plymouth County, a distance of 56.13 miles. No road was ever
constructed by that company between Le Mars and Sioux City, a
distance of about twenty-five miles, although it did construct, in
1872, within the corporate limits of Sioux City, about two miles of
track, and erected there machine shops, depots, and roundhouses of
the value of $125,000, of which $30,000 were the proceeds of a
special tax levied and collected by that city under a statute of
the state.
In conformity with the act of 1864, the Governor of Iowa
certified, July 26, 1872, to the completion, in a good,
substantial, and workmanlike manner, as a first-class railroad, of
two sections of ten consecutive miles each, or twenty miles; August
10, 1872, of one section, or ten miles; February 4, 1873, two other
sections, or twenty miles -- in all, fifty miles or five sections
of ten consecutive miles each.
The Secretary of the Interior, as we have seen, was authorized
by the fourth section of the act of 1864 to issue patents for one
hundred sections of land as each section of ten consecutive miles
was certified by the governor of the state to have been properly
completed. Nevertheless, he issued to the state in the name of the
United States, for the use and benefit of the Sioux City Company,
patents for 191,464.04 acres, October 16, 1872; 205,374.76 acres,
June 17, 1873; 10,911.41 acres, January 25, 1875, and 160 acres,
June 4, 1877 -- in all, 407,910.21 acres. As one tract of forty
acres was patented twice, the real amount patented to the state was
407,870.21 acres.
If each odd-numbered section for ten sections in width on each
side of the road, within the terminal limits of the fifty miles of
road certified as completed, had contained the full complement of
640 acres, the utmost quantity which the Secretary of the Interior
was authorized to patent to the state on account of that fifty
miles of road would have been 320,000 acres.
Of the 407,870.21 acres of land patented to the state,
322,412.81 acres were conveyed by the state to this company, the
state retaining within its control the title to the balance;
namely, 85,457.40 acres.
Page 159 U. S. 355
The Legislature of Iowa, by an Act of March 13, 1874, directed
the governor to certify to the Sioux City Company, in accordance
with the provisions of the Act of April 20, 1866, any and all lands
then held in trust for its benefit. That act, however, only
required the conveyance of such of the trust lands held by the
state as the company was entitled to by virtue of the act of
Congress. For this reason, it is suggested, the governor did not
convey the 85,457.40 acres that remained after conveying to the
company the 322,412.81 acres of the 407,870.21 acres.
It was stipulated by the parties that the state has never
conveyed to the Sioux City Company the lands in Dickinson and
O'Brien Counties which are here in dispute and claimed by the
United States.
In 1878, the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company (to
be hereafter referred to as the "Milwaukee Company"), having
succeeded to the rights of the McGregor Western Railroad Company,
the other corporation named in the act of 1864, completed the
construction of the McGregor Railroad to a point of intersection
with the line of the Sioux City road at Sheldon, a town in Iowa,
between Le Mars and the Minnesota line. And in 1879, the Milwaukee
Company instituted a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States
for the District of Iowa against the Sioux City Company and others
for a decree determining the respective rights of itself and the
Sioux City Company in the lands at and near the point of
intersection, where the grants for the road from Sioux City to the
Minnesota line and the grant to the McGregor Company necessarily
came in conflict. That case came to this Court upon the appeal of
the Sioux City Company, and it was here adjudged: 1. that the odd
sections within the ten-mile limits of the Sioux City road, and not
within the ten-mile limits although within the twenty-mile limits
of the Milwaukee road, belonged exclusively to the Sioux City
Company; 2. that like sections within the ten-mile limits of the
Milwaukee road, and not within the ten-mile limits although within
the twenty-mile limits of the Sioux City road, belonged exclusively
to the Milwaukee Company; 3. that the lands
Page 159 U. S. 356
within the ten-mile limits of both roads belonged to the
companies in equal undivided moieties; 4. that the lands within the
twenty-mile or indemnity limits of both roads, and not within the
ten-mile or absolute grant limits of either road, the title to none
of which could accrue until selection was made for one road or the
other, should, in view of the situation in which the title had been
placed by the action of federal and state officers, be equally
divided between the companies.
Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad
v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, 117 U.
S. 406.
The principles of this decision were carried into a decree of
partition in the circuit court. From that decree it appears that,
of the 322,418.81 acres conveyed by the state under the Act of May
12, 1864, to the Sioux City Company, there remained to that
corporation 280,725.29 acres after deducting the lands set apart to
the Milwaukee Company.
It is necessary now to refer to certain facts in relation to the
line of road which the Sioux City Company located, but never
constructed, between Sioux City and Le Mars.
By an Act of Congress approved May 15, 1856 (more than eight
years before the grant in aid of the construction of the road from
Sioux City to the Minnesota line), a grant of lands was made to the
State of Iowa to aid in the construction of a railroad from Dubuque
to a point on the Missouri River at or near Sioux City. 11 Stat. 9,
c. 28. This grant was accepted by an act of the Iowa Legislature
approved July 14, 1856, and the lands were granted and conferred
upon the Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Company, which located its
line or route and filed its map of definite location with the
Secretary of the Interior. Laws of Iowa, 1866, Special Session, 1,
c. 1. And in 1870, that road was completed from Le Mars southwardly
to Sioux City by the Iowa Falls and Sioux City Railroad Company,
the successor of the Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Company.
In the year 1879, the Sioux City Company conveyed to the St.
Paul and Sioux City Railroad Company (a Minnesota corporation) its
roadbed, rolling stock, depots, depot grounds, and other property
and franchises in connection with its railroad,
Page 159 U. S. 357
and the latter company, in 1881, sold and conveyed the same
property and franchises to the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and
Omaha Railroad Company, which still owns and operates the road
constructed by the Sioux City Company north of Le Mars. The
last-named company has remaining no other property or assets,
except such land as may inure to it under the grant of Congress of
May 12, 1864, out of the lands patented to the state but not
conveyed to that corporation, all of which are pledged, so far as
that could be legally done, to secure the debts specified in the
mortgages in which Drake and Wilder were trustees. One of those
mortgages was executed August 26, 1871, the other February 5, 1884.
The original debts secured by the mortgages aggregated $2,800,000,
all of which has been paid off by sales of lands except
$660,000.
The preamble of an Act of the Legislature of Iowa, approved
March 16, 1882, referred to the Act of May 12, 1864, providing that
if the road from Sioux City to the Minnesota line was not completed
within ten years from the acceptance of the grant, the lands
granted and not patented should revert to the state for the purpose
of securing the completion of the road, and also to the statute of
Iowa of April 3, 1866, and after reciting the failure of the Sioux
City Company to complete, or cause to be completed, any road on the
line adopted therefor from Sioux City to Le Mars, or any road in
lieu thereof, it was declared
"that all lands, and all rights to lands, granted or intended to
be granted to the Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company by said
acts of Congress and of the General Assembly of the State of Iowa,
which have not been earned by said railroad company by a compliance
with the conditions of said grant, be and the same are hereby
absolutely and entirely resumed by the State of Iowa, and that the
same be and are absolutely vested in said state as if the same had
never been granted to said railroad company."
Laws of Iowa, 1882, 102, c. 107.
On the 27th day of March, 1884, the state passed another act, by
the first section of which it relinquished and conveyed to the
United States all lands and rights to land resumed and intended to
be resumed by the above Act of March 16, 1882, § 1.
Page 159 U. S. 358
By the second section of that act, the governor was directed to
certify to the Secretary of the Interior all lands not theretofore
patented to the state to aid in the construction of the Sioux City
road, the lands so certified to be deemed those above relinquished
and conveyed to the United States by the first section, "provided,
that nothing in this section contained shall be construed to apply
to lands situated in the Counties of Dickinson and O'Brien." Laws
of Iowa, 1884, 78, c. 71.
Pursuant to the latter act, the governor, on the 12th day of
January, 1887, relinquished and conveyed to the United States
26,017.33 acres of the 85,457.40 acres of land which, as already
stated, had been patented to the state for the benefit of the Sioux
City Company, but which were never certified to that company. Those
lands are in Plymouth and Woodbury Counties, and do not embrace the
lands in dispute.
The Sioux City road was so constructed as to form a continuous
line with the railroad of the St. Paul and Sioux City Railroad
Company, a Minnesota corporation, to aid in the construction of
which, from St. Paul and St. Anthony to the southern boundary of
that state, Congress made the grant of March 3, 1857. The latter is
the road referred to in the seventh section of the Act of May 12,
1864. Upon the construction by the Sioux City Company of the road
from the Minnesota line to Le Mars, that corporation obtained by
lease the right to run and operate its cars over the road of the
Iowa Falls and Sioux City Railroad extending from Le Mars to Sioux
City (and now operated by the Illinois Central Railroad Company)
from which time the Iowa and Minnesota corporations and their
grantees have continued to run and operate their roads as one
continuous line from St. Paul to Sioux City.
Part of the lands in controversy here were entered upon by
different persons between 1882 and 1885, claiming under the
homestead and preemption laws of the United States, and making
formal applications to enter such lands. Their applications were
rejected, but they appealed from those decisions, continuing to
improve and cultivate the lands under their claims, and, in some
instances, making valuable improvements,
Page 159 U. S. 359
and before the bringing of this suit, the Sioux City Company had
commenced actions in ejectment in one of the state courts against
the parties in possession.
In 1887, application was made to the Secretary of the Interior
on behalf of certain persons in O'Brien County, who had settled on
the lands in controversy, as well as on lands referred to in the
above partition decree, requesting suit to be brought by the United
States to assert its title to said lands. After argument before the
secretary by counsel severally representing the settlers as well as
the Sioux City and Milwaukee Companies, that officer -- Secretary
Lamar -- rendered an elaborate opinion in which the whole subject
was reviewed. 6 L.D. 50, 62.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing
language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
1. The lands now in dispute are part of the 85,457.40 acres
patented by the United States to Iowa for the use and benefit of
the Sioux City Company, but never conveyed by the state to that
company.
If the company has received as much of the public lands as it
was entitled to have on account of constructed road, may not the
lands in dispute (the time limited by Congress for the completion
of the entire road having passed) be regarded as "undisposed of"
within the meaning of section 4 of the act of 1864, and may they
not therefore be claimed by the government as belonging to the
United States? According to that section, if the two roads
named
Page 159 U. S. 360
in it were not completed within ten years from the several
acceptances of the grant, the lands granted and not patented were
to revert to the state "for the purpose of securing the completion
of the said roads within such time, not to exceed five years, and
upon such terms as the state shall determine." And the second
proviso was to the effect that said lands should not in any manner
be disposed of or encumbered except as the same were patented under
the provisions of the act,
"and should the state fail to complete said roads within five
years after the ten years aforesaid, then the said lands undisposed
of as aforesaid shall revert to the United States."
If the terms of an act of Congress granting public lands
"admit of different meanings -- one of extension and the other
of limitation -- they must be accepted in a sense favorable to the
grantor, and if rights claimed under the government be set up
against it, they must be so clearly defined that there can be no
question of the purpose of Congress to confer them."
Leavenworth &c. Railroad v. United States,
92 U. S. 733,
92 U. S. 740.
Acts of this character must receive such construction
"as will carry out the intent of Congress, however difficult it
might be to give full effect to the language used if the grants
were by instruments of private conveyance."
Winona & St. Peter Railroad v. Barney, 113 U.
S. 618,
113 U. S. 625.
"Nothing is better settled," this Court has said,
"than that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such
as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible, so
as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion."
Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S.
47,
144 U. S.
59.
Giving effect to these rules of statutory interpretation, we
cannot suppose that Congress intended that the railroad company
should have the benefit of more lands than it earned. As the lands
granted could only be devoted to the construction of the Sioux City
Road from Sioux City to the Minnesota line, and as the state,
holding the legal title in trust, has not disposed of and does not
intend to dispose of them for the purpose of completing that part
of the road located between Sioux City and Le Mars, we perceive no
sound reason why, within the meaning of the act of 1864, these
lands may not
Page 159 U. S. 361
be regarded as "undisposed of," and equitably the property of
the United States, if it be true that the railroad company has
received as much of the public lands as it was entitled to have on
account of constructed road certified by the governor of the state.
This was the interpretation placed by the state upon the act of
Congress, for by the Act of the Iowa Legislature of March 16, 1882,
the state, because of the failure of the Sioux City Company to
construct any road between Sioux City and Le Mars, resumed the
title to all lands that had not been "earned" by the railroad
company, and by the subsequent statute of March 27, 1884, it
relinquished and conveyed to the United States all lands and rights
of land resumed and intended to be resumed by a previous act.
It is apparent, therefore, that the fundamental question in the
case is whether the Sioux City Company, having failed to complete
the entire road from Sioux City to the Minnesota line, has received
as many acres of the public lands as it could rightfully claim
under the act of 1864? If this question be answered in the
affirmative, the company cannot complain of the final decree as one
to the prejudice of its substantial rights. Before considering this
question, it is necessary to examine certain propositions relating
to the quantity of lands to which the Sioux City Company was
entitled for constructed road.
2. On behalf of the company, it is contended that in
ascertaining the extent of the grant, we must assume that each
odd-numbered section in the place limits contained its full
complement of 640 acres, and that if any section contained in fact
less than that quantity, the United States was under a legal
obligation to make good the difference. Clearly the act of 1864
does not admit of this construction. The record shows that many
sections in the granted limits, as surveyed and marked, contained
less than 640 acres. The grant was of the odd-numbered sections for
ten sections in width on each side of the road, whether they
contained 640 acres or more or less than that quantity. The United
States did not undertake that the granted sections should contain
any given number of acres.
Page 159 U. S. 362
If it appeared at the time the line of the road was located that
the United States had sold or reserved any particular section, the
selection from the public lands nearest to the tiers of the granted
sections to supply that loss was limited by the act to the quantity
of lands actually in the section so sold or reserved. The court
below well said that there was no guaranty by the United States
that the quantity of land covered by the grant should equal any
fixed number of acres either for the construction of the entire
road or any portion thereof, and that the exceptions named in the
act clearly show that the company undertaking the construction of
the line of the proposed railway was to get only the quantity of
land that was ultimately found to be in fact covered by the
grant.
3. The company also contends that it was entitled to lands for
the whole number of miles of road actually constructed by it --
that is, for the fifty miles certified by the governor to have been
completed, and also for the fraction of six miles and a quarter
immediately north of Le Mars, which was never certified to the
Secretary of the Interior. We cannot assent to this construction of
the act of Congress. Congress evidently had in view the
construction of an entire road from Sioux City to the Minnesota
state line, and, to that end, the first section of the act of 1864
grants to the state every alternate section of land designated by
odd numbers for ten sections in width on each side of the road. But
that section must be taken in connection with the fourth section,
prescribing the mode in which the grant shall be administered. By
the latter section, it is provided that the state shall not dispose
of the lands granted except for the purposes indicated by Congress
and in the manner prescribed; further, that "said lands shall not
in any manner be disposed of or encumbered, except as the same are
patented under the provisions of this act." Now the manner
prescribed for disposing of the lands granted was that patents
should be issued to the state for one hundred sections of land for
each section of ten consecutive miles when the governor certified
to the completion of such section in good, substantial, and
workmanlike
Page 159 U. S. 363
manner as a first-class railroad. This was evidently the
interpretation given by the state to the act of Congress, for the
governor never certified to the construction of any section of road
less than ten consecutive miles in length.
It does not follow from this interpretation of the act that the
company could never get lands for a fractional part of constructed
road, less than ten consecutive miles. Provision was made for such
cases by the clause directing patents to be issued to the state as
each section of ten consecutive miles was constructed and was
properly certified by the governor
"until said roads, or either of them, are completed, when the
whole of the lands hereby granted shall be patented to the state
for the uses aforesaid, and none other."
In other words, for a completed road, the state should have the
full quantity of lands granted and found in odd-numbered sections,
with the right to select other lands to supply any losses in either
of the modes specified in the act of Congress. But the time never
came when the state could rightfully demand patents for the whole
of the lands granted. The road was never completed, and therefore
patents could not be legally issued except for one hundred sections
of land for each section of ten consecutive miles of road,
certified by the governor of the state to have been constructed in
the mode required by Congress. The result of this view is that the
Secretary of the Interior was without authority to issue patents
except for the five sections of ten consecutive miles each -- that
is, for fifty miles of constructed road certified by the governor
of the state. The state could not, without completing the road or
causing it to be completed, demand patents on account of the
construction of less than a section of ten consecutive miles. This
was the view taken by Secretary Lamar, who said that
"a careful consideration of the granting act convinces me that
there is no authority of law for patenting any lands on account of
the six and a quarter miles of road [immediately north of Le Mars],
and that no lands have been earned by the construction
thereof."
6 L.D. 51.
4. Another contention is that upon the issuing of the patents of
1872 and 1873 to the state for the use and benefit
Page 159 U. S. 364
of the railroad company, the title vested absolutely in the
company, and the lands were thereby freed from restraints or
alienation, from conditions subsequent, or from liability to
forfeiture. In support of this contention, reference is made to
Bybee v. Oregon & California Railroad, 139 U.
S. 663,
139 U. S. 674,
139 U. S.
676-677;
Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.
S. 360;
Wisconsin Central Railroad v. Price
County, 133 U. S. 496;
Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey, 142 U.
S. 241;
St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. Northern
Pacific Railroad, 139 U. S. 1,
139 U. S. 6. But
these are cases, as an examination of them will show, in which the
grant was directly to the railroad company, or in which the act of
Congress required that the patents for lands earned should be
issued not to the state for the benefit of the railroad company,
but directly to the company itself. In the case now before us, the
statute directed patents to be issued to the state for the benefit
of the company. So that, until the state disposed of the lands, the
title was in it, as trustee, and not in the railroad company.
Schulenberg v.
Harriman, 21 Wall. 59;
Lake Superior Ship Canal
&c. Co. v. Cunningham, 155 U. S. 372.
See also McGregor &s. Railroad v. Brown, 39 Ia. 655;
Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad v. Osceola County, 43 Ia.
321. In the case last named, the Sioux City Company was relieved
from the payment of taxes upon some of the lands patented to the
state for its benefit upon the ground that the legal title was in
the state, and the lands for that reason were not taxable. The
question is altogether different from what it would be if patents
for these lands had been issued, or if the state had conveyed them
directly, to that company.
5. The company also contends that any calculation of the
quantity of lands that the railroad company was entitled to receive
on account of constructed road, duly certified, must be on the
basis that it was entitled to lands in lieu of those awarded to the
Milwaukee Company in the common place limits of the two
intersecting roads. In this interpretation of the statute we cannot
concur.
The rule is well settled that when lands are granted by acts of
Congress of the same date, or by the same act, to aid in the
Page 159 U. S. 365
construction of two railroads that must necessarily intersect,
or which are required to intersect, each grantee (the map of
definite location having been filed and accepted) takes, as of the
date of the grant, an equal undivided moiety of the lands within
the conflicting place limits, without regard to the time of the
location of the respective lines.
Sioux City &c. Railroad
v. Chicago, Milwaukee &c. Railway, 117 U.
S. 406,
117 U. S. 408;
St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad v. Winona & St. Peter
Railroad, 112 U. S. 720,
112 U. S. 727;
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway v. Kansas Pacific
Railway, 97 U. S. 491,
97 U. S. 501;
Cedar Rapids &c. Railroad v. Herring,,
110 U. S.
27;
Grinnell v. Railroad Co., 103 U.
S. 739. In
Donahue v. Lake Superior Canal &c.
Co., 155 U. S. 386,
155 U. S. 387,
this Court said:
"The rule is that where two lines of road are aided by land
grants made by the same act, and the lines of those roads cross or
intersect, the lands within the 'place' limits of both at the
crossing or intersection do not pass to either company in
preference to the other, no matter which line may be first located
or road built, but pass in equal undivided moieties to each."
The grants for the Sioux City and Milwaukee roads were by the
same act. Of the granted sections in place limits common to both
roads, each company, having filed its map of definite location,
took, as of the date of the grant, an equal undivided moiety -- no
more. The equal undivided moiety granted for one road was not
granted, nor could it be used, for the other road. Congress knew
when it passed the act of 1864 that there would be an overlapping
of place limits at the required point of intersection of the two
roads, and the Sioux City Company, when it accepted the benefit of
the grant, knew that such must be the case. As the act did not
provide for a selection of lands for either road on account of the
undivided moiety of place lands granted for the other, we may not
assume that the right to such selection was intended to be
reserved. Lands lost to the Sioux City Company in one of the modes
named in the act of Congress, and for which other lands could be
selected, were lands granted for that company, not lands granted to
another company for a different road. The lands which the Sioux
City Company claims to have so lost --
Page 159 U. S. 366
namely, the undivided moiety granted, and subsequently awarded,
to the Milwaukee Company out of the common place limits -- were
never granted for the Sioux City road, but were never granted the
McGregor or Milwaukee Company.
This question was examined in 1887 with great care by Secretary
Lamar. The claim was made before him by the Sioux City and the
Milwaukee Companies that each was entitled to indemnity for the
lands which it claimed to have lost by reason of the grant for the
other company of an equal undivided moiety within the conflicting
place limits. The Secretary said:
"I am unable to conclude that such was the intention of Congress
in making the grant. To say that it was would be to say in effect
that insofar as the ten-mile limits of the two grants overlap, the
purpose of the granting act was to make what would amount to a
double grant. Each company got a moiety of the lands in
odd-numbered sections within the common granted limits. Now should
there be allowed to each company indemnity for the moiety lost by
grant to the other, a quantity of land equivalent to all the odd
and even numbered sections in said common granted limits would be
passed under the granting act. This, I think, could not be
justified by any proper construction of the act, nor can I conceive
it to have been intended by Congress. The grant was of a moiety for
each road within the common granted limits of both roads. This
accords with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of
St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad v. Winona & St. Peter
Railroad, 112 U. S. 720. Either this is
true or Congress, by the same act, twice granted the same lands. To
say that it did or intended to do this would be to say that it
acted unreasonably or without a proper understanding of what it was
doing. Now since indemnity is allowed only for lands granted and
lost from the grant, and since, in the common ten-mile limits of
these two roads, only a moiety was granted, it follows that neither
company has any legal claim for indemnity on account of the moiety
granted to the other."
6 L.D. 54, 62.
6. In the light of these principles, we come to the practical
question presented for determination, namely whether the
Page 159 U. S. 367
Sioux City Company, having failed to complete the road for the
benefit of which the grant was made, has received as much of the
public lands as it was entitled to receive under the act of 1864.
This is entirely a matter of figures.
As heretofore shown, the state patented or certified to the
railroad company 322,412.81 acres out of the 407,870.21 acres
patented by the United States. We have seen that, of the 322,412.81
acres so transferred to the company, 41,687.52 acres were taken
from the Sioux City Company and given to the Milwaukee Company by
the decree of the circuit court, pursuant to the mandate of this
Court in
Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad v. Chicago,
Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, 117 U.
S. 406. This, as has been stated, left the Sioux City
Company with title to 280,725.29 acres, which it has disposed of or
sold, and about which no question is made in this case by the
United States.
Was the company entitled to a larger quantity of lands on
account of the fifty miles of road certified by the governor of
Iowa to have been properly constructed?
We have said that the Sioux City Company was only entitled to
the sections as surveyed and as they appeared on the public
records, whether they contained more or less than 640 acres each.
Upon examination of the certified list of lands,
based on the
diagram originally furnished by the railroad company to the
Secretary of the Interior and transmitted by the General Land
Office to the local land office on the 26th of August, 1867, it is
found that the actual area of the odd-numbered sections within the
place limits of the Sioux City road,
excluding
odd-numbered sections within the conflicting place limits of the
two roads, contained only 247,476.85 acres, and the actual area
within the conflicting place limits of the two roads,
according
to the same diagram, was 70,705.29 acres. Of the latter
quantity, one-half, or 35,352.64 acres belonged to the Milwaukee
Company as its equal undivided moiety of the lands in the common
place limits. Apparently, therefore, if this diagram be taken as a
basis of calculation, the railroad company could have earned, on
account of the fifty miles of constructed road, only 247,476.85
acres outside of the conflicting
Page 159 U. S. 368
place limits and 35,352.64 acres within such limits -- in all,
282,829.49 acres, or 2,104.21 acres more than the 280,725.29 acres
actually received by it, and about which no question is here made
by the government.
But there are exhibits in the case, made part of the agreed
statement of facts, that lead us to a different result. In 1887,
the commissioner of the land office, having before him the question
of how much of the public lands the Sioux City Company was entitled
to receive, caused an accurate measurement to be made of the area
of the odd-numbered sections and parts of sections lying within the
grant made by the Act of May 12, 1864, for the construction of the
Sioux City road. The record shows, if that measurement be regarded,
that within the common place limits of the two roads there were
only 69,825.99 acres, of which the Sioux City Company was entitled
to one-half, or 34,912.99 acres, and that outside of the
conflicting limits, and within the place limits of the Sioux City
road, there were only 243,807.41 acres. So that, on the basis of
the measurement of 1887, the company could have earned for the
fifty miles of certified road only 278,720.40 acres -- that is,
less, by 2,004.89 acres than it has actually received and holds or
has sold.
The result is that, if the diagram furnished by the railroad
company in 1867 be followed, the Sioux City Company is entitled to
2,104.22 acres in addition to what it has received, whereas, if the
measurement of 1887, made under the direction of the land office,
be accepted, that company has received 2,004.89 acres more than
should in any case have been awarded to it.
We are of opinion that the measurement of 1887 should be taken
as the basis for determining the area of the odd-numbered sections
within place limits. In the agreed statement of facts, reference is
made to a list, certified from the General Land Office, of the
odd-numbered sections and parts of sections lying within the
conflicting place limits of the Sioux City and Milwaukee roads, and
it is agreed that that list is correct according to the limits laid
down on the map of 1887, "and correctly shows the area of each of
said tracts." In the agreed
Page 159 U. S. 369
statement of facts, reference is also made to another list,
certified from the General Land Office, and it is stated to be a
correct list of the odd-numbered sections and parts of sections
within the place limits of the Sioux City road outside of the
conflicting limits "and the areas thereof," as defined and
certified on the map of 1887.
These lists were objected to by the railroad company as
immaterial and irrelevant. But we do not perceive any good reason
why they are not competent as evidence -- as much so as the diagram
of 1867 and the lists based upon it. Surely it was competent for
the land office, when determining whether the Sioux City Company
was entitled to additional lands, to ascertain, by careful
remeasurement, the exact area of the odd-numbered sections covered
by the grant of 1864, and thus determine whether the map furnished
by the railroad company in 1867 was in all respects accurate. By
examining the maps of 1867 and 1887, it was easy to perceive in
what particulars they differed, and by proof to show which was
correct. But the defendant took no proof to discredit the map of
1887, and rests this part of the case upon the general proposition
that, after the lapse of so many years, the court should base its
decree on the map of 1867, which was accepted by the government and
was not questioned until the measurement of 1887 was made by the
General Land Office. This view is, of course, entitled to great
weight, and might be accepted if the determination of this question
of evidence and the acceptance of the measurement of 1887 would
affect the rights of third parties to specific lands. The matter to
be ascertained is the number of acres in each one of certain
sections the exterior boundaries of which are not in dispute. Now
it would seem that as between the United States and the railroad
company and for the purpose of ascertaining the quantity in acres
of public lands which the company earned or could have earned on
account of the construction of the fifty miles of road, the latest
official measurement of the area of the granted limits, not charged
to have been fraudulently made, may be accepted as the best, if not
conclusive, evidence.
It is said that a contrary view was announced in
United
Page 159 U. S. 370
States v. Hancock, 133 U. S. 193,
133 U. S. 196.
That was a suit to set aside a patent based upon a decree
confirming a claim to certain lands within specified boundaries.
The Court, following previous decisions, held that
"when a
decree gives the boundaries of the tract to
which the claim is confirmed with precision, and
has become
final by stipulation of the United States, and the withdrawal of
their appeal therefrom, it is conclusive not only on the
question of title, but also as to the boundaries which it
specifies."
That was a case in which the rights of third parties were
involved, and it is scarcely necessary to say that nothing we have
said is in conflict with the principle settled in it.
Our conclusion, then, is that the Sioux City Company, having
failed to complete the entire road for the construction of which
Congress made the grant in question, was not entitled to the whole
of the lands granted, but at most, only to one hundred odd-numbered
sections -- as those sections were surveyed, whatever their
quantity -- for each section of ten consecutive miles constructed
and certified by the governor of the state, and that
according to the measurement of 1887, which is accepted as the
basis of calculation, the railroad company had, prior to the
institution of this suit, received more lands, on account of the
fifty miles of constructed road certified by the governor, than it
was entitled to receive. Under this view, it is unnecessary to
inquire whether the particular lands here in dispute should not
have been assigned to the company, rather than other lands,
containing a like number of acres, that were, in fact transferred
to it, and which cannot now be recovered by the United States by
reason of their having been disposed of by the company. If the
company has received as much in quantity as should have been
awarded to it, a court of equity will not recognize its claim to
more in whatever shape the claim is presented.
It is proper to say in this connection that the United States in
its bill alleges that the excess of lands received by the company
was 1,288.13 acres. We have found the excess to be 2,004.89 acres.
The bill also states that the lands in Dickinson and O'Brien
Counties, here in dispute, aggregate 21,979.85
Page 159 U. S. 371
acres, and so the decree below assumes. The amount appears to be
21,692.18 acres, and it was so stated by Secretary Lamar. 6 L.D.
63. But these differences are immaterial on the present appeal, for
we adjudge that although the lands in dispute were patented to the
state for the use and benefit of the Sioux City Company, the latter
is not entitled to any of them, whatever may be the aggregate
quantity of acres. It is not claimed by the company that any of
these lands constitute a part of those actually certified to it by
the state.
7. The last contention of the appellants is that the claim of
the United States ought not to prevail against the trustees in the
mortgages executed by the railroad company, and which constitute
the only security for
bona fide holders of bonds secured
by those mortgages. The first of these mortgages was executed
August 1, 1871, before any lands were patented to the state and
before the railroad company had commenced the construction of its
road; the second, on the 25th day of February, 1884, long after the
Iowa Legislature, which had authority under the act of 1864 to
dispose of lands not earned, had declared the resumption by the
state of the title to all lands patented to the state under the act
of Congress and not earned, and more than fifteen years after the
railroad company accepted the act of the state that conferred upon
it the benefits of the grant.
In reference to this claim by the trustees in those mortgages,
assuming that they properly represent in this matter the holders of
bonds, it is sufficient to say that the Secretary of the Interior
was without authority to issue any patents to the state for the use
and benefit of the railroad company except for the fifty miles of
road certified by the governor to have been constructed in the
manner required by the act of Congress. The trustees and all
holders of bonds secured by the mortgages were bound to know the
extent of the secretary's authority under the act of Congress. The
utmost that the trustees could claim is that the mortgages covered
one hundred sections for each ten consecutive miles of road
certified by the governor of the state to have been properly
constructed. Lands to that extent have been received by the
Page 159 U. S. 372
company. The 85,457.40 acres of which the lands in dispute were
part, and which remained with the state after transferring to the
company 322,412.81 acres of the 407,870.21 acres patented to the
state for the use of the company, were not and could not legally
have been covered by the mortgages.
Upon the grounds stated in this opinion, we adjudge that the
decree below did not prejudice any right of the appellants, or of
either of them, and it is therefore
Affirmed.
