Kansas City daily journal., 1896-12-29
SANTA FE DECISION.
Continued From First Page.

tracts of 160 acres or less would evince a
disposition to destroy 1t as a railroad and
relegate it to its former condition as land.
All of the easements that a railroad has
revert to the original owner or his grantee
if the railroad ceases to be operated. AS
was forcibly said upon the argument of
this case, the acquisition of the right-of-
way or other real estate of a railroad
necessarily used in it's operation by the
purchaser thereof would not enrich him,
but render the company poor indeed" The
people of the state, depending upon rail-
road for the transportation Of passengers.
mails and freight, would be insufferably
inconvenienced If said chapter should be
held to include railroads, with no apparent
benefit resulting therefrom.
Counsel upon the part of the state. in
answering the argument that an enforce>
ment of said chapter would result in
the disintegration of the railroad of the
defendant corporation, suggests that the
provision in the statute requiring that the
real estate forfeited must be sold ''in par
GELS not exceeding 100 acres each may be
construed as directory only, and therefore
that that provision of the statute might
be wholly disregarded and the railroad sold
as IAN entire thing" The statute cannot
be so construed, because neither the fran
chise nor the personal property of the rail-
road company are to be included in the sale
provided for.
ures or affixing penalties must be strictly
construed. 1t is elementary that the pro-
visions of such a statute as chapter 3 can
not be broadened or extended. II a person
or corporation is to be deprived OF prop
erty for the violation of a statute, the
very words of the statute must be literally
observed. Within all the authorities, the
power to forfeit land or affix penalties can
not and ought not to be enlarged by ju
dicial Interpretation.
Further. it is the cardinal canon of con-
struction that the intent when ascertained
governs. and to that all mere rules of in
depreciation arc subordinate.
The letter does always express the in
tent. A thing which is within the letter
of the statute is not within the statute
unless it be within the intention of the
makers, and such construction ought to be
put upon it as does not suffer it 20 be
eluded.
We know from current history that the
mischief primarily sought to be remedied
by the enactment of chapter was the
prevention of the ownership of large tracts
of land in the state by aliens and the es
tablishment in this state of the oppressive
system of landlordism prevalent in En-
gland and other countries.
In the discussion attending the adoption
of the statute, property used by railroads
in the operation was not commented upon.
The movement of which the statute of 1891
was the expression and the result was not
a crusade against railroads. but was aimed
at aliens holding real estate. in the usual
acceptation of that term; that is, for
farming, grazing and other like purposes.
1t may be that there is reason for pro-
hibiting the investment of foreign capital
in the construction, purchase or operation
of railroads in the state, but there seems
to have been no discussion of such rea-
sons in the legislature, public speeches or
newspapers up to the time of the adoption
of the act in 1891. The statute took effect
on the Goth of May, 1891, and no action
has been brought, prior to the commence
ment of this one, to enforce any of its
provisions against railroads. 1t Is axiomat-
ic that statutes will be construed in the
most beneficial way, when their language
will permit the prevention of absurdity,
hardship or injustice resulting, and, also,
that public convenience and public interest
must be considered, if the statute Is in any
way ambiguous or doubtful.
Considering all of the provisions OF the
statute of 1891. in view of the well known
mischief intended to be remedied thereby,
and, especially in view of the express
terms Of the statute providing how real
estate forfeited must be divided into par
GELS and SOLD I am forced to conclude
that the term real estate" employed in
section and other sections of the statute
or any essential part thereof. The leg
islature did not intend to make the pro-
visions of the statute applicable to rail-
roads.
The result follows that the plaintiffs
petition in this case does not state n cause
of action. The statute fails to provide for
n forfeiture of railroads on account of
alien ownership of capital stock in rail-
way corporations, and no petition can be
formulated under the provisions of this
statute which should be sufficient to for
felt and sell the property of the defend
ant corporation, used in the operation of
its railroad.
In my opinion neither the letter nor the
spirit of the statute includes railroads
The. orders appointing a receiver, and
granting injunctions in aid thereof, will
be vacated and set aside.
The counsel of the parties will prepare
and file journal entry in accordance with
the views expressed in this opinion.