Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1883-12-23
SEATTLE W. T.. SUNDAY MORNING. DECEMBER %. 1888

SEATTLE, w. T., sun
LAMBS ADJACEXr 70 TEE HOTTIE
I E8N PACIFIC.
| Tacoma Ledger.
Some time since the United State.
commenced suit against the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company for the 70
eovery of $4,000 as the stumpaQe value
OF logs and ties which had been cut or
Government land in Eastern Washing.
ton for the use Of the Northern Pacific
Company in building its road. The al
Legged trespaas having been committed
in Yakima County, which forms q par,
| OF the second Judicial District, the case
vas recently tried before Judge Hoyt al
Olympia. The Judge held that the
| word adjacent" IN the charter Of the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company
granting the right to cut timber on
public lands for use in the construction
OF the road, has wider meaning than
the word adjoining" and is synony-
nous With "n6tRhb0rin9" in its broad
ct sense. AZ the decision is an i'm
portant one, ~ the case 10 likely to Be
carried to the Supreme Court Of the
Territory, and even to the Supreme
Court OF tho United States, We append
the text Of Judge Hoyt's decision:
Under tho plsadinRs in these actions.
70, the only question for tho Court 70
6n0ff3A n en C<A H. >,x
ting OF certain timber BY the defend
county, was wrongful.
A part Of such timber was cut upon
lands covered BY tho land grant Of tho
defendant, Northern Pacific Railroad
Company, and the rest ON Government
land unaffected BY said grant. The con-
elasion to which have come in the
promises, however, make it immaterial
a. to which of these two classes of land
said timber was out upon.
The proof plainly shows that the tim
Der In question vas cut and taken for,
and used in, the construction of the
road Of said Northern Pacific Railroad
Company, and that tho source of the
supply from which is was obtained Was
nearer and moro accessible to that por-
tion of the defendants road upon which
It was used than any other from which
timber suitable for the construction of
said road could have been obtained.
These facts being conceded, the ques-
ton Is as to whether or not the lands
from which said timber was taken are
adjacent" to the line of said road,
within the meaning of section of the
charter of said railroad company, for,
il the lands are adjacent" section of
tho charter of said railroad company
gives it the right to take timber there
from, as was done, but. If they are not
50 adjacent" then it acquires no such
right under section of its charter.
Congress, in enaoting section Of de-
fendant's charter. saw fit to use the
word adjacent" and in determining
the intent Of this section We naust inves-
tiRate the meaning of the word "adja-
cent" as there used. Sometimes it has
a meaning given it which issynonymous
with the word adjoining, bat it is as
often applied in more extended sense,
az in the vicinity or the neiRhb0rhood
OF, while adjoining and contiguous are
never used in suoh enlarged sense.
Congress, then, having selected from
several synonymous words the one hav-
ing, az applied to the subject in the geo.
tion in (which it is used, the broadest
meaning and most extended sixnifica-
ton Of tho whole, must be held to have
inteu ded the broadest rather than the
moro restricted siRni6cation to be given
TO 1t In the Interpretation of said SEQ
ton, and therefore to hold that this sec-
ti0n restricted the defendant to lands
adjoining or contiguous to the line of
the road, would be CONTRARY to all rules
OF Interpretation, while if We apply the
usual rules We must hold that its rights
arc extended by this section beyond
lands adjoining or contiguous to it's line
OF road to lands anywhere in the vicin-
ity or neighborhoOd of its said line Of
road.
Was the land in question in the neigh
borh00d Of defeudant's line of road,
within the meaning Of section two?
The design Of this question was to al
low the company to take timber from
public lands to build its road, and when
We once concede that under this section
the defendant Is authorized to 20 be-
yond adjoining lands, a. the use of the
word adjacent" oompels us to do, it
must follow that tho use of the more en-
larged word was for tho benefit Of the
Northern Pacific Company, and it must
be 90 construed BY the court as to
effect the object of its enactment.
And We are Of the opinion that timber
land nearest to the line Of the road
must bs held to be neighboring timber
land, even though there may intervene
large tracts of land not timbered. II
this be 80, then under the facts Of these
cases, AZ above stated, the land from
which the timber in question was cut,
was in the neighb0rho0d of the line of
road where it was used, and, therefore,
adjacent" thereto within the meaning
Of section two of the charter of the de-
fendant, the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company. Besides, under the facts
proven in these GASES, the lands in ques-
ti0n would probably come within a
moro restricted use of the word ''adja-
cent" for the lire of defendants road
runs for several hundred miles through
= country almost entirely destitute of
timber, and the belt upon which this
timber in question was cut, vas the
first timber land near said road reached
BY it in the course Of it's construction;
therefore, though this timber be more
than one hundred miles from the line
Of defendants road, We are of the opin-
ion that il must under the circumstan.
ces be held TO be adjacent thereto -
within the meaning Of section tv0 Of
defendants charter.
The question Of what lands are ada
cent 70 the line of . railroad, % far "a
this inquiry 10 concerned, il Ons Of
mingled Law and fast, and must depend
upoa the particular circumstances OF
the oase. Moreover it being such Z
question Of mingled law and fact, il
Woald seem that the Court shoald give
0oane credit - the rulinQs of the Exeeu.
tive branch Of the 0ovesnment charged
With the control and disposal Of the
pablio lands, in relation thereto. And
% far ~ this Court has been able 4
examine the rulings Of this depart
msut thsy have always been In harmony
with the views above expressed.
| Il follows that the timber in questi0G
vas cut from lands adjaesnt TO the lin
Of road ef the defendant, NofthoeS
Pacific Railroad Company, within thl
meaning Of it, charter, and that IL
cutting aud removal for the puSpoas 70