The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1894-09-22

on. The land omcerS In seeking 10
ascertain the end lines went back only
ten miles from the end Of the road, and
there stopped; and from that point ran
straight line to LAnse, whilst counsel
have thought proper to extend the said
straight line six miles further back to
point sixteen miles from L'Anse. utterly
ignoring the ten mile point, and now In
sist that the land officers did the same
thing. The fallacy OF this contention Is
made self evident by an examination OF
the diagram, and need not be further re-
! ferred to. / therefore hold that the ter
minal or end lines at L'Anse are proper
ly fixed, In accordance with the settled
rules and practice OF the land department
as stated In the cited decisions OF Secre-
tary Noble.
| The further contention OF counsel for
the companies can not be here given in
detail, but 1t is urged substantially by
them that said end lines should have
been fixed in accordance with the course
OF what is called by them the ''located"
| line instead of the constructed" line;
that said end lines should have been
drawn through point at the end of con-
structed line. at right angles with the
general course of the last ten miles, OF
the old location OF February IA, 1857,
reckoned from the point Of It's nearest
approach to L'Anse.
The two lines, II is apparent, differ
greatly in the general course of their APP
proach for the last ten miles towards
! L'ADse. The line on which the road is
constructed runs in direction west OF
north until it reaches L'Anse, whilst the
old location runs to point west and
south Of L'Anse, then turning, runs in
northeasterly direction to point south
of Keweenaw Bay, then turning, runs In
q northwest course, past the south end
OF that bay, on the way to Ontonagon.
This line docs not go to L'Anse, Its near
est point to 1t being about one mile west
of south therefrom; and the general d.
rection for the laSG ten miles OF Its APP
proacb to this nearest point, being nearly
due north course. A terminal line
drawn in accordance with this contention
would run nearly due east and west.
north Of the lands In controversy. which
would thus appear to be within the ter
minal line and opposite TO the construct
ed read.
This contention is claimed to be based
upon the provision Of the act OF 1871,
authorizing the HsughtoD and Ontonagon
Railroad Company to make resurvey
|
portion Of the road; provided that the
company shall be entitled to receive only
its complement Of lands for each lrile of
road constructed and completed W. y
within the limits heretofore assigned to
said line of the road.
As understand this act and the cited
proviso, 1t simply means that the COM
paDy is TO receive its complement Of lands
within the limits established when the
map Of definite location of February IA,
1857. was filed and accepted. In other
words, whilst 1t was permitted that the
actual road might, with the approval Of
the land department, be constructed
elsewhere the lands granted must be
taken within the limits of the grant as
first established, which were not TO be In
any respect changed because of new
location Of the line OF road. Under the
authority to make new location, IL
would, perhaps, have been competent for
the company TO have made II outside Of
the limits OF the old grant as was done
In the matter OF the grant for the Cedar
Rapids ami Missouri River Railroad Com
pany (see ITO u. s., 27,) at least there is
nothing In the act of 1871 prohibiting
such location outside Of those limits,
But for many good and sufficient reasons
which might be assigned. IL was not de-
sirable that the locus Of the grant, so
long ago established. should be- y aDged.
The company did not make very
radical change In the lire OF its location;
at least not to the extent OF going outside
OF the limits OF the grant as formerly es-
ia blished. Indeed, under the rulnos Of
this department. aud OF the supreme
court (sec Chicago, st. Paul, Minneapolis
Il Omaha Railroad company, and cases
cited therein. 9 l. d., 200. deviatioDs in
the actual construction Of the road from
the exact line marked on the map of
definite location, axe permissible, under
certain circumstances, provided tn" de-
Elections do not 20 beyond the limits of
the grant as located. Inssmuch as the
DULY change made was to adopt a shorter
and more direct route than that designat-
I'd originally. such change might have
been made without the previous authority
VI congress. ivan Wyck V. KDcvals, lO6
U s., 377) Therefore, the changes
made, after The passage Of the act.
neither considered as done under the
authority " that act or Otherwise, In no
,es Get changed or affected the rights
aud obligations of the company under
the original act and location. ana the
| VThuI uihy u duJusJtu u thOuVn no Sucn
change aas made. In any case, however
u must be r'colectpd lI9t the grantee
company Is only entitled 10 lands so far
as the same have been earned by con-
siruction; consequently, in the adjust
ment OF grant. it IN 81 DO held that 1t
does not extend beyosd the end Of the
constructed road, and AT that point the
end lines must De drawn. burlington
q No. River X. Il. CO.. 9 l., d., 539, 593;
Gulf q Ship lslaad r. r., 10 l.. d., 1861
The new location. is positively OF no
Importance further than by construction
Of the road thereon. 1t becomes '.the
measure by which the locality and guam
tity Of the grant Is to be ascertained and
determined" and furnishes the point at
the end whereof the terminal line is to be
fixed under the rules. (Ontonagon &
Brule River r. X. CO., 15 l.. d., 463, 475.)
The end line being thus properly es-
tablished at L'Anse at right angles with
the general direction OF the constructed
road, the lands In controversy are I'M
questionably outside OF that line, oppo-
site to the RECONSTRUCTED portion of the
road, and therefore of the class of lands
declared by the act OF congress to be
forfeited, unless protected from said
forfeiture by some other provision of the
act.