Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/379

 rant this conclusion because the modifying clause, “as shall be situated within this territory,” apparently, at first blush, applies to the word “ railroad,” immediately preceding, and is descriptive of the kind of railroad which the coporationcorporation [sic] must operate in order to come within the provisions of the act. If, then, this clause modifies the preceding word “railroad,” the remarkable conclusion would follow that the appellant, which operates a railroad “situated within this territory,” would be compelled to pay a tax on “all the gross earnings” which it might earn over its entire system. Such a construction of the statute would be absurd, We think the only true construction is that the clause modifies the words, “all the gross earnings,” and was intended to explain what those words meant. Striking out the unnecessary words for the sake of grammatical correctness, and transposing the modifying clause, we find that the statute, thus construed reads: “All the gross earnings arising from the operation within this territory of such railroad.” The gross earnings derived from such operation are the gross earnings on local business, for to construe them otherwise would be to impute to the legislature an intent to do an unlawful act. Any other construction would invalidate the statute, and we do not think there is any warrant for the court, by adopting an unnecessary conclusion, to annul! a solemn act of a co-ordinate department of government, passed in due and proper form. As under the gross earnings law all “property” situated in the territory owned by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company was exempt from taxation, these lands were exempt if they were “property” of the railroad company. If they were not “property” of the railroad company, they were exempt as lands of the United States. The complaint sets forth the proceedings by which the railroad company acquired title to these lands, if any it has, from the United States. If those proceedings were insufficent to vest a title in the railroad company, the title remained in the government. All titles to land in Dakota came from the government of the United States, and in the absence of a showing that the United States has parted with the title, the legal presumption is that the title remains in the government. Patterson v. Tatum, 3 Sawy. 170. Consequently, the lands described in the bill were