Year: 1877

not stand in the way OF Congress
making proper provision on the sub
.ject. Some provision was necessary
in order to place Nevada in this re-
spect on an equal footing with states
recently admitted. But the people
we're not interested in getting the
identical 18th and 36th sections in
every township. Indeed, it could
not be known until after survey
where these sections would fall, and
a grant of quantity put Nevada in as
good a condition as other states,
which had received the benefit of this
bounty. A grant operating at once
and attaching prol to the surveys by
the United States, would deprive
Congress of the power of disposing
of any part of the public domain un-
til there was segregation by survey
of the land granted. In the mean.
time further improvements would be
arrested, and the persons who before
the surveys were made had occupied
and improved the country would lose
their possessions and labor, in case it
turned out that they had settled upon
the granted lands. Congress was
rully advised of the condition of a
new community like Nevada; of the
evil ELECTS of such legislation upon
its prosperity, and of all antecedent
Legislation upon the subject of the
public lands within the bounds of the
proposed new state. In the light of
this information, and surrounded by
these circumstances, Congress made
the grant in question. That it is am
biguous is very clear, for the differ
ent parts Of it cannot be reconciled,
if the words used are to receive their
usual meaning. Schulenberg VS.. Har-
riman (2l Wallace, Az establishes
the rule that sunless there are other
clauses in statute restraining the
operation OF worls of present grant,
these must he taken in their natural
sense" This is correct rule, and
we do not seek to depari from 1t, but
there are words of qualification il this
grant.


And these words restrict the opera
ton of the words of present grant.
If their literal meaning be taken,
they refer to past transactions; but
evidently they were not used in this
sense, for there had been no lands in
Nevada sold or disposed of by any
act of Congress, and why indemnify
the state against loss that could not
occurl There could be no loss, and
there was no occasion of making pro-
vision for substituted lands if the
grant took effect absolutely on the
admission Of the state into the Union
and the title to the lands then vested
in the state. Congress cannot be
supposed to have intended a vain
thing, and yet it is quite certain that
the language of the qualification was
intended to pl otect the state against
loss that might happen through the
action of Congress in selling or dis
posing of the public domain. 1t
could not, as we have seen, apply
to past sales or dispositions, and to
have any effect at all, must be held
to apply to the future.


This Interpretation, although seem
ingly contrary to the letter of the
statute, is within its reason and spirit.
1t accords with wise public
policy, gives to Nevada all she had
any right to ask for, and acquits
Congress of passing law which in
its effects would be unjust to the
people of the territory. Besides, no
other construction is consistent with
the statute us a whole, and this alone
answers the evident intention which
the makers of it had in view, and this
was to grant to the state in pr@senti
quantity of land equal in amount
to the 10th and Both sections, the
grant to take effect when the status
of the lands was fixed 10y survey and
they were capable of Identification.
Congress, however, reserved until this
was done the power of disposition,
and If in the exercise of this power
the whole or any part of a 10th or
36th section had been disposed of,
the state was to be compensated by
other lands equal in quantity and AS
near as may be in quality. By this
means the state was Unidentified
against loss, and the people ran no
risk Of losing the labor of years.
While the state suffered no injury
Congress was left free to dispose of
the public domain in any way it saw
fit, to promote the interests OF the
people.


1t is argued that, conceding the
construction given this grant to be
correct, this defence cannot be sus-
tanned, because the land IN contro-
versy was not actually sold by direc-
ton OF Congress until after the sur
vey. This position ignores familiar
rule in the construction of statutes,
that they must be so construed AS to
admit all parts Of them to stand, If
possibIe.--Q Bouvier's Institutes, p.
AZ, sec. ~


The language used is, "sold or 9TH
erwise disposed of by any act of
Congress-" and the point made by
the plaintiff would reject part of