Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/451

 0., M. & ST. P. BY. CO. V. S. 0. & ST. P. B. 00. 439 �be done, certifiee! to the Sioux City & St. Paul Company the over- lapping lauds, the same now iu controversy, "subject, liowever, to conflicting claims." �John W. Carey, General Solicitor Milwaukee & St. Paul Kailroad Company, for complainant, with Thomas Updegraff and Melbert B. Carey, of counsel. �E. C Palmer and J. H. Swan,iov respondent. �Love, D. J. The grant iu «[uestion is to the state of lowa upon certain trusts clearly indieated by the terms of the granting act. If anything in both law and reason is unquestionable, it is that any con- struction of the grant or administration of the trust which should defeat the manifest purpose of the grantor ought, if possible, to be avoided. What was the purpose of congress in making the grant? Was it to secure the construction of one of the roads provided for, ■or both of them? It was manifestly the purpose of the grant to secure the building of both roads. The construction of one of these roads, and especially the shorter and less important of the two, would clearly have fallen far short of the end contemplated by con- gress. The grant was not a pure donation. Congress was induced to make it by certain considerations of benefit to the public and to the remaining lands. It is evident that congress gave the lands in aid of a project to connect the Mississippi river at McGregor with the Missouri at Sioux City by means of these two roads, — one some 250 miles in length, running from the east to the west; the other or.ly about 60 miles long, running in a different direction. There was to be a junction of these roads in O'Brien county. Without this intersection there would have been a failure to connect the two rivers, which was, beyond question, one of the principal objects of the enter- prise. If no road had been completed but the short Une from the state line to Sioux City all the chief purposes of the grantor would have been to a very great extent defeated. These purposes were — First, the general benefit to the state and people which would resuit from a through line between the rivers ; second, the sale of the gov- emment reserved lands at the double minimum price on both Unes through a country without timber or fuel to aid settlement ; third, the use of the roads by the United States, expressly reserved in the third and sixth sections of the act, for the transportation of troops, prop- erty, and the public mails. �It.is manifest that the non-completion of the greatly more impor- tant Une of road would have resulted in defeating the main purposes -of congress, and in a loss to the United States of certain: considera- ��� �