Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-01-24

vas imposed upon the intention of Cor
gfess by mere trsnspo-iti N of nsuas Q
ntos designation Of the lines of road for
which grants had already been msd-.
Inc grants remained a1previoosly hred,
and this appears 10 be the clear intead-
mept Of tbs Law.
do not had that any formal decision
has ever been made by this Departmeu,
holding that the joint resolution of M.y
3lst, 1870, embraced a grant Of lands
Tor the road between the Columbia river
and Puget Sound. Withdrawals appear
70 have been ordered upon the fiiina by
the Company of maps Of sush road,
OF no reason for sach Withdrawals
has ever besn assigned, 80 far as
can discover from the records Of this
Office.
In the sase Of Dubaque and Pasifie
hsilroad Company 70. Litchfeld t23
ID ward, p. 8s). the Supreme Cosrt says:
All grants OF this description are
strictly construed against the grantees;
nsthine passes but what IL conveyed 10
clear and sxplioit Language. and ss the
rights here claimed are derived
entirely from the act OF Con-
Rress, the dsnation stands on
the same footing of Q grant by
the public TO q private company the
terms OF which must be plainly ex-
pressed 10 the statute IL not thus ex-
pressed they cannot be Implied"
Further. on quoting the Language of
Lord EilenborouRh, the court saws: II
the words would admit of different
meanings, it would be right to adopt
that which is more favorable to the in-
terests OF the publia, and against that
OF the company. The reason
OF the above rule il obvious, parties
seeking grants for private purposes usu-
ally draw the bills making them. II
they do not make the language suffi-
ciently explicit and clear to pass every
thing that 10 intended to be passed, il
In their own fault while on the OF her
band such q construction has q tsnden-
cy TO prevent psrties from inserting au-
biauous language for the purpose OF
taking by ingenious Interpretation and
insinuation that which cannot be eb-
taiued by pain and expressed tsrns."
To the same effect ID the language Of
the Court in Holyoke Company W. Ly-
man 10 Wall, p. 5l2), Railway Co. vs..
Philadelphia (fol q. s., o. 500. Slidell
-. Graudjean (lll u. g., .. 81.
donations of the public domain for
any pufpoes are never 10 be presumed.
Those Who claim against the Govern
mont ander legislative grants must
show clear title" Rlce va. Sioux City,
ETC.. X. Il. Co., Ito U. 3, 696. r &
A before stated in April, 1869. Con-
gress emphatically refused 70 give the
company . grant Of land for line Of
road from point In the valley OF the
Columbia River at or near Portland TO
Puget Sound. Had Congress intend ded
TO make such grant BY the joint resolu-
ton Of May 81. 1870. it would have 90
provided in plain and uneQaivocal Ian
suage. IL did not do 50, and in view of
all the legislation on the subject and in
in the light of the decisions cited. am
Of opinion that tbs oom oany has no
grant for taat portion of its road from
a point in the valley Of the Colombia
River at or near Portland. Oregon, to
Puget Sound IN Washineton Territory.
Should this decision become final in
the Department, the tract in question o
will be subject to entry under the pub
lio land laws Of the United States, when
claims to the land will be
Your decision 10 modified
accordingly. Notify ell parties hereof.
the usual time for appeal. The
attorney Of the railroad con-
pany will be advised BY this Office.
Very respectfully,
WM. A. ]. SPARKS,
Commissioner.