Des Moines courier. ([Ottumwa] Iowa) 1848-1854, 1850-12-27
Opinion Of Attorney General
johnson, i'm regard to the
Dcs MOines River Grant.
Attorney Generals Office,
July 10, 1850.

july 10, lSoU'
SIR:-The questions presented in the
matter of the Des Moines Grant, made
to the Territory Of Iowa, by the act Of
Congress OF the 9Th of August, 1916,
upon which, under an appeal to your
pre- decessor from the decision of the Sec
| rotary of the Interior, he required the
opinion of this office, are-FrSf, what
is the extent Of the Grant; Seaond, had
1t been already finally adjudlcated, before
the decision appealed from. was made.
First--ls the strip, "fve miles 10
width on each side" of the Desnoines
River granted, limited in length to what
is called the Raccoon Fork, or is the
grant co-extensive with the length of the
river! The Grant is made by the FIRST
section of the act, and is in these words:
There be and hereby is granted TO
the Territory of Iowa, for the purpose
of aiding said Territory to improve the
navigation of the Des Moines River,
from lis mouth TO the Raccoon Fork, $50
sa!led), in said Territory. one moiety of
the public lands (remainng unsold and
not otherwise disposed of, encuSbered,
or appropriated, } in a strip five miles in
width on each side of said river; to be
selected by an agent or agents, to be APP
pointed by the Governor of said Terri
tory, subject to the approval of the Sec
rotary Of the Treasury of the United
States"
The Commissioner of the Land Office
and the Secretary of the Interior, think
that the Raccoon Fork is the limit OF
the Grant, and its northern terminus.
do not concur in this view. la my
opinion the fork is mentioned only as the
point TO which, from the mouth of the
river. the improvement of the navigation
of the river is to be made.
The true reading of the act | think is,
that the land granted is to run the entire
length of the river, within the then Ter
rilory of Iowa, and the object 10 be ac-
complished by it, the improvement of
the navigation up to the Fork.
The purpose is one thing; the extent
Of the grant another. 1t is by confound-
ing the two, in themselves, as stated in
the act wholly distinct, and considering
them as limiting each other, that the err
ror of the opposite construction consists.
They have in my Judgment nothing TO do
with each other. This will perhaps be
made the more obvious, by transposing
the language of the act. Place the terms
of the g ant first, and those of the pur-
pose of making it last, and the meaning
is apparent. 1t would then read
There be and hereby is granted to the
Territory Of Iowa, one moiety of the
public lands (remaining unsold, and not
otherwise disposed of, encountered or APP
propriated,) in strip five miles in width
on each side of the Des Moines River.
to be selected" &C., "for the purpose of
aiding said Territory TO improve the nav
igatlon Of said river from It's mouth TO the
Raccoon fork $50 called, in said Terrific
Try
If these were the terms of the grant
no doubt, think, could exist, that the
only limit was the river, and yet | can
not see that the meaning is not precisely
the same Of the terms actually adopted.
The river limits the grant, although a
portion of the river is only to be impro-
we'd. The other Interpretation requires
to maintain it, that you add to the words
adopted describing the extent of the
gran, '.five miles III width on each sile
OF said river" tie other words "lrom lis
mouth to the Raccoon Fork" previously
used but 10 describe the extent of the In
provement. Where is the authority for
such an Interpretation! When the words
of a statute are clear, 1t is contrary to ev-
cry construction, 10 supply others, on
the conjecture that they were accident
ally omitted. The inference, when
those used are unambiguous, is, that the
Legislature meant precisely, and only
meant what those impart.
/ But the third section strengthens
think my opinion npon the first. By
that it is provided THAT the said river
Des Moines shall be and forever remain
a pl bile highway for tie Government OF
the United States" &c. What is the
extent Of This stipulation! Is it, that the
highway on the river is restricted TO the
Fork, or co-extensse with the river!
think there can be no doubt that the lat
ter is the true meaning,-and if it be, il
is only because there is nothing to limit
the provision TO any portion of The river,
and yet the words are in this respect the
same as those used in the grant by the
first section.
1t is supposed that :his construction is
erroneous, because TO the report of the
committee of the House reporting the
bill before introduced and referred to
them, there is attached a letter from the
then Commissioner of the Land Office,
stating that it extended to the Raccoon
Fork. When the words Of statute are
doubtful, it is legitimate to refer to such
4 courooe of information RIM ,phara ~