Des Moines courier. ([Ottumwa] Iowa) 1848-1854, 1851-12-25

-
extends the whole length of the river, or
only. to that part which lies below The
Raccoon Fork.
4 The Raccoon Fork is mentioned in
stating the object of the grant.-the I'm
provement OF the Desmoines river; but it
is neither mentioned nor in airy way re-
ferred to, in stating the extent OF the grant.
The navigation Of The river is to be i'm
proved from its mouth to the Raccoon
Fork" but the grant is of moiety Of the
public lands ''in astrip five miles in width
an each side Of said river'--to wit: the
Desmoines river. There is no limitation
or restriction TO part Of the river, either
above or below the Raccoon Fork; and
the grant either extends the whole length
of the river, or it means nothing at all. /
speak Of the words OF the grant. If
there is any limit short ol the whole course
Of the river, it must be found not i'm the
language Of the law, but.in the nature Of
the case.
The object and the extent Of the grant
are not only very different things, but it is
important 10 notice that each has its ON
peculiar and express Limitation in the law.
The object or purpose of the grant is to
aid in improving the navigation of the riv-
er ''from its mouth to the Raccoon Fork"
The words are equally explicit in relation
to the extent Of the grant. 1t TO be a
inoiety, in alternate sections, Of the lands
in strip five miles wide on each side Of
the river, to be selected within The terri
! 'ha H.. l.
limit the grant to the lands on one side Of
that portion of the river which forms the
boundary between Iowa and Missouri
But in relation TO the extent of the two
strips of land, up and down the stream;
there is no other restriction or Limitation
whatever. The words and the only words
touching the question are "said river
the Desmoines riyer-which plainly COW
er the whole length Of the stream. When
the legislature has been thus careful TO
specify the bounds of the grant, am not
aware of any principle or rule of con-
struction which will authorize the courts,
or any one else, to add another limitation,
and say that the Raccoon Fork bounds
the grant.
| The reasoning against this view of the
question must proceed upon the ground
that there is necessary connection be-
tween the purpose and the extent of the
/ grant. But there is no such connection.
If the purpose had been TO endow COL
lege, support schools, or the like, and the
grant had been of strip of land five
miles wide on each side oil the Desmoines
river. no one would think Of limiting the
extent of the grant up and down tie
stream; but all would agree that il extend
ed from the mouth 10 the source. The
case is not altered, in point of principle,
by the fact that the grant Is maaae for a.. q.
purpose Of improving the navigation OF q
river. That did not make it necessary
that the lands should adjoin The improve
nent, or even that they should lie on any
part of the river. The same amount OF
aid might have been given by granting
lands lying elsewhere. II was for Con-
gress 10 say how and to what extent il
would aid in the Improvement. Lands
might have been given in another State OF
Territory: ard il given in Iowa, and on
the Devmoines river, il was for the legis-
lature to say how wide and how long the
"strip" should be; and whether the terri
tory should have all the lands ia the strip,
or only lnoiety, or some other portion oi
them. The strip might have been ten
miles wide, or only Que; and it might
have been extended beyond the source Of
the river, or been restricted tp lands either
above or below the Raccoon Fork
Clearly there is nothing in tho nature Of
the case TO control the plain and unequiy-
ocal terms in which the grant is made.
1t may be true that grants Of this par
ticular kind have usually been confined to
lands lying adjacent TO the improvement.
But that proves nothing against the plain
and unequivocal words Of this law. If
the lands had been in another State or
Territory, it would not do TO say that the
act means nothing, because it may be the
first instance in which such law he's
been made. But am told that this is
not the first case in which Congress has
aided in the improvement OF river by
|granting lands which did not lie in the
vicinity Of the improvement.
II the lands on both sides OF the river
in the whole extent were more than suf.
iicient in value to effect the improvement,
it would furnish very little, if any, ground
for limiting the extent Of the grant. Il,
would only prove that Congress had fallen
into ala error either in relation to the value
of the land, or the expense of the work
to be accomplished. But there is no room
for an argument on this head; for upon
the largest construction Of the grant there
will be but little over twelve hundred
thousand acres Of land, Of the value, at
the usual government price, Of about a
million and half Of dollars, while the
cost Of the improvement is estimated at
two millions six hundred thousand dollars.
| 1t is said that there is something in, or
attached to the report Of the committee TO
which this bill was referred before it be-
came law, which shows that tho CON-
,nittee thought the grant would not extend
above the Raccoon Fork of the river, If