Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-05-15

eat Il fhis Is traa. than ~ 80 sssfious
are nt.efig inccns staal With atch other.
IL - 1i&3RnlS AZ understand how tnfs
can he ssrig1slT Hrrsd We ta4a ALREADY
s1own & diI1Eeas lasl soore and opera
ti1n foF eaeh under the eonssra1fioa ~
have aaapled. They are nut repaauans
o. ineonsglenk ID The e,iEh1eat DEGREES.
Each ssAnda for its uWn paElicalar par.
pose. O. TIE ether baud, the opnslFno-
sion nontendea for By She cempany
uould violate we1 established rules e
onnslfnntion slmplE g disresard ths
plAiniy expFed inlent Of CONGRESS.
They tiAim that the $50 sections shouid
b tAkan tage.heF, and thar. % taken.
ali that Gonzfszs could do upan failure
e ne eompany - build the rad woula
be io sakn al necessary sleDR - compel
- oompIallon uitheuf power - foEislt
ths grant.
Rais position Is unienahIs anaar ahs
rules II construction hecausa. hrat. Il
1sszmes an ambiguity and gheu % ~
c1nciie i reiecss the usual and ordinary
aiGniheation af terms and phrases;
twice reads aa singular 4 word IN the
plural. and cnnsfrues furlher condi-
lion As IL ahs word further" uas
emltleds second, with references 70 q
simple tine condiiio viz, thai tho raad
should Be built b. July 4. 1875. L adds
ths senseloas EXPRESSES. provided she
same shall continue unhui.a one year,
third. i excludes all Of section from
rs relations and connections vita So
tion 8. and either rejects 4 entirely of
makes Il practically in0pefatlves f0arth,
il violates the manifest general intent o.
the eutiro acl and tne general policy 81
Congress prevailing e. the time In ~
speel 90 ihase grants.
Another consideration i 70 Be noticed.
The provision Of section h permissive
or direetoTy only. Congress may DO ali
necessary things. 40. Il - NOS manda-
tory, as Il Woald have been Il intended
a. the SOLE remedy for the breach 81 the
condition a. section s. So, too, i il
not exclusive Of osher remedies for TIE
bEesch. Congress nay IN that way
enforce the forfeiture o. may de- il 9TH
erWise.
We have been referred 70 some az
thoEities which are Supposed 10 sustain
tue forced construction Of the ass con-
tended for, has after the most oarafai
examinations Of them we ara unable TO
FeooQniz8 any doctrine contrary 10 that
We have adopted for eur guidance. Tho
strongest cited are undoubtedly the Gases
% the Episcopal Miseian ". Appleton
ct Il. "a Hass, $50 and Stanley ".
Colt g WALL. Il9l. they do not esiab.
lish any new doctrine or any principle
rspugnans 70 tie authority Of the long
line Of cases we have cited.
In the former the Supreme Court Of
Massachusetts,. speaking Of q voluntary
deed for charitable purposes, saS:
Although the words upon oondi-
ton II Q ConveSanoe of real &lato are
apt words 20 create q condition. any
breach OF which viii forfeit the estate,
yet they are not 70 b allowed shat effeot
when the intention Of the grantoE, 81
manifested By she whole deed, . other-
wise.p
And in the latter the Supreme Court
OF the United States, speaking Of q
devise for oeEtain charitable purposes.
say;
appropriate one 20 oonetitu % q oommon
law condition IN q dsed o. will; buf this
/ IL not the dxed and invariabia meaning
attached 10 Il by the Iaw in thess insirn-
meats. On the contrary, if gives way
10 the intent Of the parties Is gathered
from an examination Of the whole IN
stKument, 6cn
Tia prineipie announced By these de-
cisions il simply the universal rule Of
construction giving effect 20 the real
intent Of the parties 70 an instrument
when the same eaa be fairly asoeriained
from the language used. In other
words. that technical expressions and
phrases ordinarily yseld to a contrary
plainly expressed lnieuk But the prin
oiDle has no applicability 10 the ease
under consideration, for there is 10
intent, either expressed or 10 be reason-
ably implied, contrary 10 TIE technical
meaning OF the words upon condi-
ton" On she contrary. the set from
beginning 10 end displays In every line
q most deliberate. we'll considered and
matured intention 70 bcstog this
prinoely Gift without 90 oiroumaaribing
and limiting the company By these con-
disions as TO secure the object, aud every
object, Which Congress had IN view. Il
shows the cleaFest intention Ia the mind
Of Congress % create a condition sahse-
quent FORGETTING the grant for failnre 10
build the road within the prescribed Pc
Rod; and also other conditions subes-
Qusnt. putting il In the power Of Con
Rtesa, even after the road had been
built. 10 enforce she requirements Of
AHo ACT AouOUi9E tDe manner OF tt8 CON
struetion. In the judgment os your
committee there i n1t q word ID the
act indicative u an intent b limit OF
onrtail the teehnioAi words Of condition
used.
And aside from tho Language Of the
eel itself, i 4 incredible that Congress
could have inteaded ~ thia, probably
the largest and most yai1Abie great 81
lands ever made 20 4 railroad company
90 a State, to depart from TIE unifoim
and uninterrupted policy Of legislation
for years, and aloe the company b ap-
pnopFiate this vast bells Of the public
domain without restriction, ressrVation
or control Year cosnmitto8 aannot
subscribe 10 anoh q doctline, and can
ind no argument, sven plausible, %
Support Il. We are aiearly II opinion
that Congress intended 10 provide for
. forfeiture upon failure % build she
road within the prescribed period. and
that tbs language used vas abundauily
sufficient in law 70 accomplish that
intent.
TCoaclsadsd fomoTvor.l