, 1886-01-28

FNtG from SUPERIOR t. SO'uo rOlUt On
PUGET Souad. with a branch VIZ the
valley Of the C0iuml in river. 70 2
noint at or near Portland, Oregon.
Ihcra was no grant in thc act Of in
corporation for road from the last
named point to Puget Sound. Hence
there was no grant by the joint reso
luton 81 1910 for a road between
these points.
Again, the act OF incorporation was
amended by the joint resolution of
April 10. 1869, which expressly pro
ylded that no additional lands other
than for right of way was granted
for tho extention OF the road from at
or near Portland to Puget Sound.
The grants by the act of incOrpora-
ton as amended, thereof, not ONLY
do not include land for this extension,
but possibly declare that no such
grant Is made.
1t would doubtless have been com
pctent for congress to have made the
grant for 1870 which it refused in
1869, hut the intention to do so would
need to be very clearI ' expressed. Il
"rtaidly cannot be presumed that a
new grant was imposed upon the
intention Of congress by n mere
transportation of names in the
designation Of the lines of road for
which grants had already been made.
The grants remained as previously
fixed, and this appears to be the clear
Intendment of the law
] do not find that any formal de-
cision has ever been made bv this
department holding that the Joint
resolution OF May 81, 1870. embraced
a grant Of lands for the road between
the Columbia river and Puget Sound.
Withdrawals appear to have been
ordered upon the fling by the com
pany of maps of such road, but no
reason for SUCH Withdrawals has ever
been assigned, so far as I can discover
from the records Of this Office
| In the case Of Dubuque and Pacific
railroad company VS.. Litchtield (23
Howard p. SSl the supreme court
says; ''All grants of this description
are strictly construed against the
grantees; nothing passes but what is
conveyed in clear aud explicit Ian
guage, and rs the rights here claimed
are derived entirely from the act of
congress. the donation stands on the
same footing of a grant by the public
to private company the terms OF
which must be plainly expressed in
the statue; If not thus expressed they
cannot be implied"
Further, on quoting the language
of Lord Ellenborough, the court says:
IF the words would admit OF differ
ent meaning, it would be right to
adopt that which IS more favorable to
the interests of the public and against
| that Of the company. > The
reason Of the above rule is obvious;
parties seeking grants for private
purposes usually draw the bills max
ing them. If they do not make the
language sufficiently cqplicit and
clear to pass everything that is to be
passed, it is their own fault; while
on the other hand such a construction
has tendency to prevent parties
from inserting ambiguous language
for the purpose of taking by ingeni-
Gus Interpretation and insiauation
that which cannot be obtained by
| lJlilu anu cADItSSISc ttIllS.
To the same effect is the language
of the court in Holyoke company VS..
Layman Q5 Wall, p. 512), Railway
company VS.. Philadelphia Q01 U. s.,
p. $40, SlIdell VS.. Graudjean Ill L.
S, p. 81.
donations of the public domain
for any purpose are never to be pre-
Sumed. Those who claim against the
government under Legislative grants
must show clear title" Rice VS..
Sioux City, etc, r. II. Co, 110 U. S,
| sos.
As before stated in April, 1869,
congress emphatically refused to
give the company a grant of land
for line Of road from point in the
valley of the Columbia at or near
Portland to Puget Souud- Had con-
greas intended to make sueh grant
by the joint resolution OF May 3lst,
1870, it would have SO provided in
plain and unequivoeal language. 1t
did not do SO, and in view of all the
Legislation on the subject, and in the
| light of the decisions cited. | am of
opinion that the company has NO
grant for tha5 portion of its road
from a point III the valley Of the Co
lumbia at or near Portland, Oregon,
to Puget Sound, Washington terri
| tory.
Should this decision become final
in the department, the tract in ques
ton viii be subject to entry under
the public land laws of the United
States, when conflicting claims to
the land will be considered, Your
decision Is modified accordingly.
Notify all PARTIES hereof, allowing
the usual time for appeal. The resi-
dent attorney of the railroad company
will be advised by this Office. Very
respectfully. Nm. \. j. SPARKs,
Commissioner