The grant of public land made to the Oregon Central Railroad
Company by the Act of May 4, 1870, c. 69, 16 Stat. 94,
"for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad and
telegraph line from Portland to Astoria and from a suitable point
of junction near Forest Grove to the Yamhill River near McMinnville
in the State of Oregon"
contemplated a main line from Portland to Astoria opening up to
settlement unoccupied and inaccessible territory and establishing
railroad communication between the two termini, and also the
construction of a branch road from Forrestville to McMinnville,
twenty-one miles in length, running through the heart of the
Willamette Valley, and it devoted the lands north of the junction,
not absorbed by the road from Portland to that point, to the
building of the road to the north.
The construction of the branch road, though included in the act,
was subordinate and subsidiary, and this Court cannot assume that,
if the promoters had sought aid merely for the subordinate road,
their application would have been granted.
The facts that the act of 1870 grants land for the purpose of
aiding in the construction of a railroad -- in the singular number
-- and that the Act of January 31, 1885, c. 46, 23 Stat. 296, does
the same do not affect these conclusions.
This was a bill brought by the United States against the Oregon
Central Railroad Company and the Oregon and California Railroad
Company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District
of Oregon, to quiet title to about ninety thousand acres of land in
the State of Oregon, and a cross-bill filed by the defendants to
quiet title to the same land in the Oregon
Page 164 U. S. 527
and California Railroad Company. The cause was heard on the
pleadings and a stipulation as to the facts, with accompanying maps
and documents.
On May 4, 1870, an act of Congress was approved (16 Stat. 94)
which is as follows:
"Chap. LXIX. -- An act granting lands to aid in the construction
of a railroad and telegraph line from Portland to Astoria and
McMinnville, in the State of Oregon."
"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled that, for
the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad and
telegraph line from Portland to Astoria, and from a suitable point
of junction near Forest Grove to the Yamkill River, near
McMinnville in the State of Oregon, there is hereby granted to the
Oregon Central Railroad Company, now engaged in constructing the
said road, and to their successors and assigns, the right of way
through the public lands of the width of one hundred feet on each
side of said road, and the right to take from the adjacent public
lands materials for constructing said road, and also the necessary
lands for depots, stations, side tracks, and other needful uses in
operating the road, not exceeding forty acres at any one place, and
also each alternate section of the public lands, not mineral,
excepting coal or iron lands, designated by odd numbers nearest to
said road, to the amount of ten such alternate sections per mile,
on each side thereof, not otherwise disposed of or reserved or held
by valid preemption or homestead right at the time of the passage
of this act. And in case the quantity of ten full sections per mile
cannot be found on each side of said road within the said limits of
twenty miles, other lands designated as aforesaid shall be selected
under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior on either side
of any part of said road nearest to and not more than twenty-five
miles from the track of said road to make up such deficiency."
"SEC. 2.
And be it further enacted that the
Commissioner of the General Land Office shall cause the lands along
the line
Page 164 U. S. 528
of the said railroad to be surveyed with all convenient speed.
And whenever and as often as the said company shall file with the
Secretary of the Interior maps of the survey and location of twenty
or more miles of said road, the said secretary shall cause the said
granted lands adjacent to and coterminous with such located
sections of road to be segregated from the public lands, and
thereafter the remaining public lands, subject to sale within the
limits of the said grant, shall be disposed of only to actual
settlers at double the minimum price for such lands,
and
provided also that settlers under the provisions of the
homestead act who comply with the terms and requirements of said
act shall be entitled, within the said limits of twenty miles, to
patents for an amount not exceeding eighty acres each of the said
ungranted lands, anything in this act to the contrary
notwithstanding."
"SEC. 3.
And be it further enacted that whenever and as
often as the said company shall complete and equip twenty or more
consecutive miles of the said railroad and telegraph, the Secretary
of the Interior shall cause the same to be examined, at the expense
of the company, by three commissioners appointed by him, and if
they shall report that such completed section is a first-class
railroad and telegraph, properly equipped and ready for use, he
shall cause patents to be issued to the company for so much of the
said granted lands as shall be adjacent to and conterminous with
the said completed [completed] sections."
"SEC. 4.
And be it further enacted that the said
alternate sections of land granted by this act, excepting only such
as are necessary for the company to reserve for depots, stations,
side tracks, wood yards, standing ground, and other needful uses in
operating the road, shall be sold by the company only to actual
settlers, in quantities not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres
or a quarter section to any one settler, and at prices not
exceeding two dollars and fifty cents per acre."
"SEC. 5.
And be it further enacted that the said
company shall, by mortgage or deed of trust to two or more
trustees, appropriate and set apart all the net proceeds of the
sales of the said granted lands as a sinking fund, to be kept
invested
Page 164 U. S. 529
in the bonds of the United States or other safe and more
productive securities for the purchase from time to time, and the
redemption at maturity, of the first mortgage construction bonds of
the company on the road, depots, stations, side tracks, and wood
yards, not exceeding thirty thousand dollars per mile of road,
payable in gold coin not longer than thirty years from date, with
interest payable semi-annually in coin not exceeding the [rate] of
seven percentum per annum, and no part of the principal or interest
of the said fund shall be applied to any other use until all the
said bonds shall have been purchased or redeemed and cancelled, and
each of the said first mortgage bonds shall bear the certificate of
the trustees setting forth the manner in which the same is secured
and its payment provided for. And the district court of the United
States, concurrently with the state courts, shall have original
jurisdiction, subject to appeal and writ of error, to enforce the
provisions of this section."
"SEC. 6.
And be it further enacted that the said
company shall file with the Secretary of the Interior its assent to
this act within one year from the time of its passage, and the
foregoing grant is upon condition that said company shall complete
a section of twenty or more miles of said railroad and telegraph
within two years, and the entire railroad and telegraph within six
years, from the same date."
Within one year from the passage of this act, the Oregon Central
Railroad Company filed with the Secretary of the Interior its
assent to the act, and prior to July 31, 1871, and February 2,
1872, filed in that department maps of survey and definite location
of its line of railroad, being a location from Portland to the
Yamhill River near McMinnville via a point near Forest Grove, and
from that point to Castor Creek, a point twenty miles towards
Astoria, and from Castor Creek to Astoria; the distances being
about twenty-six miles from Portland to Forest Grove, about
twenty-two and three-fourths miles from there to the Yamhill River,
and about one hundred two and one-half miles from Forest Grove to
Astoria. The lands adjacent to and coterminous with the entire line
of definite location were segregated and withdrawn from the
public
Page 164 U. S. 530
lands. Twenty miles of road from Portland, running due west and
terminating at a point near the Town of Hillsboro, in Washington
County, Oregon, were constructed, and about six miles more to a
point near Forest Grove, and from that point something over
twenty-one miles, running almost directly south to a point near
McMinnville in Yamhill County. The line was constructed on a curve
as it approached Forest Grove.
The Secretary of the Interior, on February 16, 1872, accepted
the first twenty miles as completed under the act, and on June 23,
1876, he accepted another twenty-seven and one-half miles as so
completed, being the distance from Hillsboro to a point near Forest
Grove, and from that point to McMinnville.
On October 6, 1880, the Oregon Central Railroad Company, for
value, sold and conveyed to the Oregon and California Railroad
Company all the title and interest which it had acquired in and to
the lands granted under the act, and all its road, franchises, and
privileges, but it was not admitted by the United States that the
Oregon Central Railroad Company had a legal right to make said sale
and conveyance. On that day, the Oregon Central Railroad Company
was insolvent, and went into liquidation, and the conveyance was
made to settle its business and dispose of its property. Neither of
these railroad companies nor anyone else has ever constructed or
equipped any portion or part of any railroad from the point near
Forest Grove to Astoria.
January 31, 1885, Congress passed an act, 23 Stat. 296, c. 46,
the first section of which is as follows:
"That so much of the lands granted by an act of Congress
entitled 'An act granting land to aid in the construction of a
railroad and telegraph line from Portland to Astoria and
McMinnville, in the State of Oregon,' approved May fourth, eighteen
hundred and seventy, as are adjacent to and coterminous with the
uncompleted portions of said road, and not embraced within the
limits of said grant for the completed portions of said road, be,
and the same are hereby, declared to be forfeited to the United
States and restored to the public domain and made subject to
disposal under the general land laws of the United States as though
said grant had never been made. "
Page 164 U. S. 531
July 8, 1885, the Commissioner of the General Land Office issued
to the local land office at Oregon City instructions for its
guidance under the Act of January 31, 1885, and a diagram showing
the limits of the forfeited lands, and that portion of the grant
which was not affected by the act. 4 L.D. 15. These instructions
were approved by the acting Secretary of the Interior. The diagram
showed that the road ran from Portland west to a point near Forest
Grove, where it turned almost at a right angle and ran south to
McMinnville. From that point two lines were drawn, one due north
and the other due west, both terminating at the twenty-mile limits.
The granted lands lying within the quadrant formed by these lines
and the twenty-mile limits, and also the indemnity lands within
said lines and the twenty-five-mile limits, were designated on the
diagram as "forfeited." The forfeited lands on the line from Forest
Grove to Astoria were also shown.
In November, 1885, the Oregon and California Railroad Company,
assignee of the Oregon Central Railroad Company, presented to the
land office a list of lands embraced within the territory claimed
in this suit to be forfeited to the United States, and tendered the
fees for locating the same, which were declined, and the list
rejected, upon the ground that the lands had been forfeited.
About the same time, there was filed in the Land Department a
petition of the receiver of the Oregon and California Railroad
Company praying that the instructions insofar as they applied to
the granted lands in said quadrant be revoked. This petition was
referred to the commissioner for examination and report, and a
report was subsequently submitted recommending "that the
restoration remain in force as per instructions of July 8, 1885,"
and transmitting a second diagram, "showing the accurate limits of
the grant." On April 5, 1887, the Secretary of the Interior passed
upon the matter of the application of the receiver, and held that
the road from Portland to Forest Grove, and from the latter point
to McMinnville, were to be treated as two distinct roads, the
limits of which should be adjusted separately. 5 L.D. 549. By that
adjustment, the quadrant northwest from Forest Grove
Page 164 U. S. 532
fell within the lands forfeited, which was in accordance with
the restoration of July 8, 1885.
Some of the lands claimed to have been forfeited to the United
States have been patented, and are in the actual occupation of the
patentees, or persons claiming under them, and other portions of
said lands for which patents have been issued are unoccupied, and
are wild lands, as is true of some of the lands claimed by the
United States, which have not been sold or patented, and are not in
the actual physical possession of any person or party.
The following is a sufficient reproduction of the diagram:
image:a
The circuit court, Bellinger, J., held that the lands within the
quadrant were included within the lands forfeited to the
government, and decreed accordingly. 57 F. 426. The Circuit Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this decree, and directed
a decree in favor of the Oregon and California Railroad Company. 67
F. 650. Thereupon the present appeal was prosecuted.
Page 164 U. S. 537
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after stating the facts in the
foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
If the Act of May 4, 1870, should be held to have authorized the
construction of a main road from Portland to Astoria, and that the
lands adjacent to and coterminous with such main road, on both
sides, were granted in order to accomplish that purpose, and also
to have authorized the construction of a branch from the main line
at a junction near Forest Grove, to McMinnville, then it would
follow that all of the lands available on both sides as far as
Forest Grove, and to an extent of twenty miles on each side, would
be absorbed in aiding to build the main line, and so of the lands
along the main line from Forest Grove to Astoria. And inasmuch as
the line from Forest Grove to Astoria and from Forest Grove at the
junction with the main line south towards McMinnville was, in its
general bearing at right angles to the main line from Portland to
Forest Grove, the line from Portland to Forest Grove would absorb
nearly all of the lands lying east of the branch line to
McMinnville, and a part of the lands lying east of the line from
McMinnville through Forest Grove, the point of junction, northward
towards Astoria. Hence but little could be earned for building the
branch line except the lands lying west of it and south of the
point of junction at Forest Grove, and none of the land lying north
of a line drawn from Portland through Forest Grove could be held to
have been within the contemplation of the act as donated for the
purpose of building a branch road from the junction to
McMinnville.
In this aspect, as no road was built from Forest Grove towards
Astoria, substantially all that was earned was the land lying
within the twenty-mile limits on each side of the main road from
Portland to Forest Grove, and the land lying west of the
McMinnville branch and south of a line drawn from Portland through
Forest Grove, and all of the lands lying in the quadrant north and
west of Forest Grove were unearned lands, and forfeited under the
Act of January 31, 1885. These lands
"are adjacent to and coterminous with the uncompleted portions
of said road, and not embraced within the limits of
Page 164 U. S. 538
said grant for the completed portions of said road."
But although a part of the lands lying east of this quadrant
"are adjacent to and coterminous with the uncompleted portions of
said road," yet they are "embraced within said grant for the
completed portions of said road," for they lie within the
twenty-mile limits of the completed portion from Portland to Forest
Grove.
The railroad companies contend that no such thing as a branch
road or a junction, in the ordinary sense of the word, were
contemplated, and that, having a right to build from Portland to
Astoria, and "from a suitable point of junction near Forest Grove
to the Yamhill River near McMinnville," they could treat the act as
if it authorized the building of a continuous road from Portland
via Forest Grove to McMinnville, without regard to the provisions
for a road beyond Forest Grove to Astoria; and, by constructing
their road with a curve at Forest Grove, could properly claim all
of the lands falling within twenty miles of this circuitous route
from Portland to McMinnville as intended to be granted for the
construction of such a road; and, having actually so built, that
they were entitled to all the lands lying within a quadrant
produced by a radius reaching twenty miles from the curve.
Secretary Lamar rejected this contention, and held that the Act
of May 4, 1870, contemplated two distinct roads -- a road from
Portland to Astoria, and a road from Forest Grove to McMinnville;
that the words "point of junction" were to be given their usual
meaning of a point where two or more roads join; that, had the
words of forfeiture, "so much of the lands granted . . . as are
adjacent to and coterminous with the uncompleted portion of said
road," been unqualified, the line dividing the forfeited lands from
those not forfeited would have been drawn through Forest Grove at
right angles to the unconstructed road at that point, and
terminating at the lateral limits of the grant, but that as this
would have thrown out of the grant large tracts of lands that were
opposite to the constructed portions of the road, Congress
qualified the words of forfeiture by adding, "and not embraced
with, in the limits
Page 164 U. S. 539
of said grant for the completed portions of said road," which
saved to the grant a full complement of lands granted for every
mile of road actually constructed, and the secretary remarked that
this view of the act was much strengthened
"when it is observed that the lands in said quadrant lie along
the uncompleted portion on both sides thereof, and could have been
earned, if at all, by that line."
The rule of construction applicable to the granting act is the
familiar rule that all grants of this description must be construed
favorably to the government, and that nothing passes but what is
conveyed in clear and explicit language.
Dubuque
& Pacific Railroad v. Litchfield, 23 How. 88;
Leavenworth, Lawrence &c. Railroad Co. v. United
States, 92 U. S. 740;
Slidell v. Grandjean, 111 U. S. 437;
Coosaw Mining Company v. South Carolina, 144
U. S. 562. And that the construction should be such as
will effectuate the legislative intention, avoiding, if possible,
an unjust or absurd conclusion, is also well settled.
In
Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad v. United States,
159 U. S. 349,
159 U. S. 360,
it was said by MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, speaking for the Court:
"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
Page 164 U. S. 540
intended that the railroad company should have the benefit of
more lands than it earned.
In the light of these principles, we have no difficulty in
arriving at the same result as that reached by the Secretary of the
Interior and by the circuit court.
The act declares that the grant is made
"for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad and
telegraph line from Portland to Astoria, and from a suitable point
of junction near Forest Grove to the Yamhill River, near
McMinnville."
This does not describe a road from Portland to the Yamhill
River, but a road from Portland to Astoria, and a road expressly
stated to be from a point of junction near Forest Grove to the
Yamhill River.
We are unable to see why any other than their usual meaning
should be attributed to the words "point of junction." "Junction,"
in the ordinary acceptation as applied to railroads, is the point
or locality where two or more lines of railway meet. Two lines of
distinct companies, or separate roads of the same company, or a
main line and a branch road of the same company, may have points of
union or meeting, styled "junctions," but this can hardly be
predicated of a single continuous road from one point to another.
If the act had not used the word "junction," and had defined the
line as running from Portland to Astoria, and to McMinnville via
Forest Grove, there would be more force in the suggestion that
Forest Grove was a point of bifurcation of one road, rather than a
point of junction of two roads, but the act was not couched in
those terms, and the word "junction" cannot be rejected, or wrested
from its obvious meaning.
As the road from Portland to Astoria and the road from Forest
Grove to McMinnville were to be constructed by and belong to one
company, and together constituted a single enterprise, they were
naturally spoken of as one railroad, as, in that sense, they were.
But this is of no special significance in the present inquiry,
which is whether, in view of the language of the act and the
purposes to be accomplished, a main road and a branch road were
provided for, in aid of which the lands were granted subject to the
adjustment applicable to two
Page 164 U. S. 541
roads. And the general rule is that
"words importing the singular number may extend and be applied
to several persons or things, words importing the plural number may
include the singular,"
as provided in the first section of the Revised Statutes.
Nor are we impressed with the argument that the title of the act
compels to another conclusion. The title is, "An act granting lands
to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from
Portland to Astoria and McMinnville in the State of Oregon." The
text of the act is:
"That for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a
railroad and telegraph line from Portland to Astoria, and from a
suitable point of junction near Forest Grove to the Yamhill River
near McMinnville in the State of Oregon,"
the grant is made. Insert the comma after Astoria in the title,
which appears after that word in the act -- and, for the purpose of
arriving at the true meaning of a statute, courts read with such
stops as are manifestly required --
Hammock v. Loan & Trust
Co., 105 U. S. 77,
105 U. S. 84;
United States v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624,
134 U. S. 628,
and the title is sufficiently comprehensive to fairly describe a
road from Portland to Astoria and a road to McMinnville as the
subject of the act. The title is no part of an act, and cannot
enlarge or confer powers or control the words of the act unless
they are doubtful or ambiguous.
United
States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358,
6 U. S. 386;
Yazoo & Mississippi Railroad v. Thomas, 132 U.
S. 174,
132 U. S. 188.
The ambiguity must be in the context, and not in the title, to
render the latter of any avail.
And so of the title of the Act of January 31, 1885. That title
is, "An act to declare forfeiture of certain lands granted to aid
in the construction of a railroad in Oregon," and the granting act
is referred to in the text by its title. We do not regard the use
of the singular number as persuasive of the intention of Congress
that, in the adjustment of the grant as affected by the forfeiture,
the fact that a main road and a branch road were provided for
should be ignored.
It seems to us quite clear that a main road was to be built from
Portland, the principal City of Oregon, situated on the
Page 164 U. S. 542
Columbia River, to Astoria, a port on the Pacific Ocean at the
mouth of that river, a distance of some one hundred twenty-eight
and one-half miles, being over one hundred miles beyond Forest
Grove, and a branch from Forest Grove to McMinnville, a distance
somewhat exceeding twenty-one miles. It is not denied that, as
stated in the opinion of the circuit court,
"four-fifths of the line of road from Portland to Astoria
traversed a rough and wholly unsettled district, but one known to
be rich in timber, and believed to be in iron and coal, with
considerable areas of agricultural land,"
while the twenty-one miles from Forest Grove to McMinnville ran
through "the heart of the Willamette Valley, and through the oldest
settled portion of the country." The opening up to settlement of
unoccupied and inaccessible territory and the establishment of
railroad communication between Portland and Astoria by the
construction of the main line were the obvious inducements to and
the primary objects of the grant, and the construction of the
branch, though included in the act, was subordinate and subsidiary.
The line, both main and branch, was wholly within the State of
Oregon, and we cannot assume that if the promoters had sought aid
merely for a road running from Portland by way of Forest Grove to
McMinnville, the application would have been granted.
The grant contemplated a main line which ran from Portland west
to the point of junction, and a branch from the point of junction
nearly south, substantially at right angles, and devoted the lands
north of the junction, not absorbed by the road from Portland to
that point, to the building of the road to the north, and while the
company was left free to construct parts of the road as might suit
its convenience, its action could not change the effect of the
grant or control its administration to the contrary of the manifest
intention of Congress.
On the twentieth of May, A.D. 1871, a map of definite location
was filed with the Secretary of the Interior, described in the
certificate of the company's officers as showing
"the location of the Oregon Central Railroad from the City of
Portland, Oregon, to the Yamhill River near McMinnville, a distance
of forty-seven and three-fourths (47 3/4) miles, and also
Page 164 U. S. 543
from a junction near Forest Grove towards Astoria to a point one
mile north of the summit of the range of hills dividing the
Tualatin from the Nehalem Valley, a distance of twenty miles, as
definitely fixed in compliance with said act of Congress."
Subsequently the company certified a map of definite location of
the road between Astoria and Castor Creek (the western point in the
preceding map), which was filed with the Secretary of the Interior,
and transmitted by him, February 2, 1872, to the Commissioner of
the General Land Office. The lands were withdrawn under both these
maps.
The first section of constructed road from Portland twenty miles
west to Hillsboro was accepted February 16, 1872. The second
section was accepted June 23, 1876. This was a section of
twenty-seven and one-half miles from Hillsboro via Forest Grove to
McMinnville, constructed on a curve thus described by counsel for
the railroad companies:
"The line of this section of the road runs from the twentieth
mile post for about two miles (for the most part upon indicated
curves) to a point a little south of the Portland base line, and
thence extends west about two miles -- almost entirely upon a
tangent until it passes Cornelius -- to a point about two miles
east of Forest Grove, when it begins to curve upon a radius of
8,564 feet (equal to about 1.6 miles) until it reaches about a
southwest by west direction, in which it runs upon a tangent 8,956
feet (equal to about 1.7 miles), passing the Town of Forest Grove
at a distance of about one-half or three-quarters of a mile. From
the end of this tangent, it again curves until it reaches a
southwesterly direction, and then proceeds on southerly by various
curves to the Yamhill River."
If these maps of definite location and the construction of the
road from Hillsboro to McMinnville via Forest Grove in the manner
described are to be regarded as an attempt to make a part of the
main road form Portland to Astoria and the branch a continuous and
single road from Portland to McMinnville, eliminating Astoria
altogether, and to entitle the company to claim all the lands
within the quadrant by reason of the construction of the railroad
on the above-stated curve, we can only say that that attempt was
unsuccessful,
Page 164 U. S. 544
and the rights of the government remained unaffected by the
course pursued by the company.
It is forcibly argued that the acceptance of the completed
section from Hillsboro to McMinnville amounted to a construction by
the Secretary of the Interior of the granting act as providing for
one continuous railroad from Portland via Forest Grove to
McMinnville. But we cannot accede to this view. At the time of that
acceptance, the entire line of both main and branch roads had been
definitely located and the lands withdrawn. It could not be
presumed that all the lands would not be earned or that a
forfeiture would be declared. Still less can it be supposed that it
occurred to the secretary that what the company was apparently
doing for its own convenience was being done with the design of
committing the department to the recognition of the untenable
position that the lands within the quadrant passed by virtue of the
building of the road to McMinnville. This was a matter not then
before the secretary for determination, and when it did arise, was
otherwise disposed of.
And this is true as respects the approval of the first map of
definite location. Such approval was
diverso intuitu, and
should be given no effect as contemporaneous construction. Under
that location, lands were withdrawn from Portland to Castor Creek,
as well as to McMinnville, and the overlap at the east of the road
to McMinnville was inevitable, and was not a loss to be made up
from lands belonging to other parts of the grant.
In the view we take of the grant, the termini of the main road
were Portland and Astoria, and of the branch the junction and
McMinnville. Lands lying north of a line drawn at right angles with
the branch at its northern terminus were not within the grant made
in aid of the branch. Lands lying west of a line drawn at right
angles with the main road at the junction were not within the grant
for the main road east thereof.
As heretofore remarked, however, some of the lands lying east of
the quadrant were not only coterminous with the uncompleted portion
of the main road beyond Forest Grove, but
Page 164 U. S. 545
were embraced within the limits of the completed road from
Portland to the junction, and therefore Congress, in the act of
forfeiture, was careful to save those lands from its operation.
There is nothing in the language used from which it can properly be
concluded that Congress intended to accept the theory of the
railroad companies that the circuitous route adopted in
construction entitled them to the lands in the quadrant because
thereby brought within the grant, or to do anything more than so
qualify the phraseology as to prevent an unintended forfeiture. So
far as the act operated as a legislative interpretation, it was in
harmony with the granting act as subsequently construed by
Secretary Lamar, and cannot be treated as proceeding on the theory
of prior construction, which we do not agree had been had. And
although the failure of the company to build beyond Forest Grove
towards Astoria left but one road, and that from Portland to
McMinnville, it would be quite inadmissible to make the defeat of
the primary object of Congress the basis of imputing to that body
the intention of narrowing the forfeiture declared for
noncompliance with the conditions imposed.
In
United States v. Union Pacific Railway, 148 U.
S. 562, the question before us was not presented. The
decision there was controlled by the determination that the whole
line was a continuous main line, and that the grant was not cut in
two by one company being authorized to contract with another for
the construction of part of the line and a proportionate share of
the grant. The whole line was built. Here, the grant for building
the line from Portland beyond Forest Grove to Astoria became fixed
by the location of the road, as did the grant in aid of the road
from the junction to McMinnville. The main line was not constructed
beyond the junction. The lands in controversy were not adjacent to
nor coterminous with the branch road between lines drawn
perpendicularly to its termini, were not coterminous with the road
from Portland to the junction, and were donated to build the
portion of the main line which was abandoned. The ruling in the
former case has no decisive bearing under the facts on this.
Page 164 U. S. 546
The decree of the circuit court of appeals is reversed, the
decree of the circuit court is affirmed, and the cause remanded to
that court accordingly.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD and MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS, dissent.
