Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/394

 phrases may stand together, and both be given their fall foree and meaning. A construction of the phrase “under the direction of the secretary of the interior,” which would vest him with power to dispose of the indemnity lands after the right of selection had attached, or vest him with authority arbitrarily to refuse to recognize a selection made by the company in proper manner, upon a proper basis, of lands subject to the right of selection, or by neglect or refusal to approve the selections prevent the title to the indemnity lands from vesting in the grantee, would deprive the company of the right of selection. It would make the words “by said company” surplesage, and deprive them of any effect whatsoever. It is a principle of law that, in the absence of language expressly vesting in the grantee the right to locate a float, the right of location remains in the state. U. S. v. McLaughlin, 127 U.S. 428, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1177. In the Northern Pacific act this right of selection is, ia so many words, given to the grantee; and, the intention of congress to alter the ordinary rule being so expressly stated, the statute must receive such a construction as will give that intention effect. This construction is in accordance with the spirit of the act. As we have seen, the intention of congress was to give to the company a certain quantity of lands. Extraordinary care was taken to secure the successful execution of this intention. By the sixth section of the act provision was made for the reservation of the lands from sale, pre-emption, or entry, before or after they were surveyed, immediately upon the fixing of the general route of the road, and long prior to the time when the lands would be defined by filing the plat of definite location. “The object of the law in this particular is plain. It is to preserve the land for the company, to which, in aid of the construction of the road, it is granted.” Buttz v. Railroad Co., 119 U. S. 72, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 100; St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 139 U. S. 1, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. Six years later a second indemnity belt was provided, to be resorted to in certain contingencies, to secure to the company “the amount of lands per mile granted.” And it is inconceivable that congress, having taken such extraordinary precantion to secure to the company this quantity of land, yet intended to leave it within