Northern Pacific Railroad v. Sanders

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was' brought by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to recover from the defendants in error, th.e original defendants, the possession of section twentjvone, township ten north of range three west in the county of Lewis' and Clarke in the State of Montana.

The railroad company claims title under the act of Congress of July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 365 , c. 217, granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from Lake Superior to Puget Sound on the Pacific coast, by the northern route’.

The defendants do not assert title in themselves, but resist the claim of the railroad company upon the ground that, at the time of the definite location of the Northern Pacific Railroad and of the filing of the plat thereof in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, such “ claims” were made of record upon the lands in dispute as excluded them from the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company.

Congress granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company every'alternate section of public land, “not mineral,” designated by odd numbers, to the amount of twenty alternate, sections per mile on each side of the railroad line, as the company might adopt, through the Territories of the United States, and ten alternate sections per mile on each side of the railroad whenever it passed through any State, “ and whenever on the line thereof, the United States have full title, not reserved, sold, granted or otherwise appropriated, and free from preemption, or other claims or rights at the time the line of said road is definitely fixed, and a plat thereof filed in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office; and whenever, prior to said time, any'of said sections or parts of sections’ shall have been granted, sold, reserved, occupied by homestead settlers or preempted or otherwise disposed of, other lands shall be selected by said company in lieu thereof, under

The sixth section directed the lands to be surveyed for forty miles'in width on both sides of the entire line of the road after the general route was fixed and as fast as was required by the construction of the railroad, and provided that “ the odd sections of land, hereby granted shall not be liable to sale, or entry or preemption, before or after they are surveyed, except by said company, as provided in this act; but the provisions of the act of September, eighteen hundred and forty-one, granting preemption rights, and the acts amendatory thereof, and of the act entitled ‘An act to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain,’ approved May twenty, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, shall be, and the same are hereby, extended to all other lands on the line of said road, when surveyed, excepting those hereby granted to said company. And the reserved alternate sections shall not be sold by the government at a price less than two dollars and fifty cents per acre, when offered for sale.” § 6.

The amended complaint alleged that the railroad company duly accepted the terms and conditions of the act of Congress; that the general route of the railroad extending through the State of Montana was duly fixed February 21, 1872; that the land in dispute was on and within forty miles of such general route, and at that date was “ public land to which the United States had full title, not reserved, sold, granted or otherwise appropriated, and free from preemption or other claims or rights ”; that at the date of the passage of the act of 1864, as well as when said general route was fixed, no part of the land in controversy was “ known mineral land,” and

The defendants, in their answer, “ confessing that said premises did not contain gold or other precious metals in pay-, ing quantities or in such quantity as to make the same, or any part thereof, commercially valuable therefor, nevertheless say> as to the northeast quarter of section 21, that heretofore,to wit, on the second day of August, 1880, Theodore H. Kleinschmidt, Edward W. Knight, Henry M. Parchen, Charles K. Wells, George P. Peeves, David H. Cuthbert, Cornelius Hedges and Stephen É. Atkinson, each being then and there a citizen of thq United States, and each having theretofore filed upon a certain separate twenty acres on the northeast quarter of said section according ta the laws of the Territory of Montana, and the mining usages and customs then in force in the unorganized mining district in which said land was situated, and being then in all respects qualified to enter mineral land under

The answer alleged like filings, applications, etc., under the mining laws of the United States, as follows: By George P. Reeves, Helen H. Reeves, Laura O. Ballou, John W. Eddy,. Evelyn M. Eddy, Edward W. Knight, Theodosia M: Knight' and Anna Natolia King, August 12, 1880, upon twenty acres in the-northwest quarter of said section 21; by Theodore Kleinschmidt, Henry M. Parchen, David H. Cuthbert, Stephen E. Atkinson, Lucius I. Rosecrans, Emma M. Parchen, Mary M. Kleinschmidt and Annie E. Cuthbert, February 19,1881, upon twenty acres in the southwest quarter of the same section; and by Cornelius Hedges, Thomas A. H. Hay, Mary L. Guthrie, •Patrick Quinn, Louis A. Walker, William

Referring to the proceedings in the office of the county clerk and recorder of the county of Lewis and Clarke, Montana, in which county the premises are situate, and in the United States land office at Helena, the answer stated that they were in the form prescribed by law for the claim and entry of placer mining claims, and that thereafter, on the 4th day of August, 1887, the plaintiff presented to the said register and receiver a list of lands selected by it as having been granted 'by the act aforementioned, “to be approved to the end that the said premises in said list described might [be] certified to it for patent, which list includes said section twenty-one, but to approve said list or certify said lands to said company the said register and receiver and the Land Department of the United States refused because of the existence on the 6th day of July, 1882, of the foregoing claims to the same as mineral lands ” ; that on the 21st day of February, 1872, the plaintiff filed a map of the general route of its road in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office; that thereafter the Commissioner, under the directions of the Secretary of the Interior, duly prepared a plat showing that portion of the preliminary or general route of the Northern Pacific Railroad extending through the United States land district of Helena, and designated thereon lines showing the limits of the land grant to the plaintiff, for forty miles in width on each side of said line of general route; that on April 22, 1872, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the directions of the Secretary of the Interior, duly transmitted said diagram to the register and receiver of the United States district land office at Helena, with instructions “ to withdraw from sale or location, preemption or homestead entry, all the surveyed and unsurveyed odd-numbered sections of public lands falling within the limits of forty miles, as designated on this map” ; and that the said letter of instructions and diagram were received at the United States district.land office at Helena, May 6, 1872.

The plaintiff demurred to the answer and the demurrer

It appears from the above statement of the case :

That lands were expressly excepted from the grant made for the benefit of the Northern Pacific Railroad that were not free from preemption “ or other claims or rights ” at the time the line of the road was definitely fixed and a plat thereof filed in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office;

That the general route of the Northern Pacific Railroad was fixed February 21, 1S72, and its line of definite location was .established and á plat thereof filed on the 6th day of July, 1882;

That after the railroad company .filed its map of general route showing the limits of such route for forty miles in width on each side of its line, the Commissioner of the General Land 'Office, under the directions of the Secretary of the Interior, April 22,1872, transmitted a diagram of such route to the register and receiver of the land office at Helena, Montana, with a letter of instructions, directing the withdrawal from sale or location, preemption or homestead entry, of all the surveyed, and unsurveyed odd-numbered sections of public lands falling within the limits of forty miles as designated on that map;

That the lands in dispute are within the exterior lines of both the general and definite routes of the-railroad;

That prior to such definite location certain persons, qualified to enter mineral lands under the laws of the United States,' entered upon the possession of the lands.in dispute, and did “file,upon” them “as mineral lands,” applying for patents therefor, and conforming in all respects to the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, Title XXXII, relating to “ Mineral Lands and Mining Resources” ;

That the railroad company filed in the proper office a protest against the perfection of any entry of these lands as

That at the time of the definite location of the Northern Pacific Railroad, and of the filing of the plat and map thereof in the General Land Office, on the 6th day of July, 1882, the applications for these lands as mineral lands were pending and undetermined, the applicants claiming,, affirming and undertaking' to maintain before the proper office, that they were mineral lands of the United States to which they were entitled under their respective applications, and not lands in quality such as were described in the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company; and,

That on the 4th day of. August, 1887, the railroad company presented to the' register and receiver of the proper land office, for approval, a list of lands selected under the above act of Congress, to the end that they might be patented to it; but that officer refused to approve such list (which included the lands here in dispute) because of the existence, on the 6th day of July, 1882, of the above claims to the lands as mineral lands.

It does not appear from the record what became of the several applications set out in the answer to purchase these lands as mineral lands, nor whether the railroad company appealed from the decision made in 1887 by the local land office at Helena refusing to approve the list presented of lands claimed by it under the act of Congress.

We have seen that the act of July 2, 1864, under which the railroad company claims title, excluded from the grant made by it all lands that were not, at the time the line of the road'was definitely fixed, free from preemption “or other claims or rights”; and the demurrer to the answer admits that at that time there were claims pending in the land office, undetermined, to purchase these lands' as mineral lands, and such applications conformed in all respects to the laws of the United States then in force relating to mineral lands.

But it is said that no account is to be taken of those applications, for the reason that the present defendants, who had

Any other interpretation would defeat the evident purpose of Congress in excepting from railroad grants lands upon which claims existed of record at the time the road to be aided was definitely located. What that purpose was has been frequently adverted to by this court. In Kansas Pacific Railway v. Dunmeyer, 113 U. S. 629 , 639, 640/641, 644, which case involved the construction of an act of Congress exclud

This filing of the map of definite location furnished also the means of determining what lands had previously to that moment been sold, reserved or otherwise disposed of by the United States, and to which a preemption or homestead claim had attached; for, by examining the plats of this land in the office of the register and receiver, or in the General Land Office, it could readily have been seen if any of the odd sections within ten miles of the line had been sold, or disposed of, or reserved, or a homestead or preemption claim had attached to any of them. In regard to all such sections they were not granted.” Again: “ The company had no absolute right until the road was built, or that part of it which came through the land in question. The homestead man had five years of residence and cultivation to perform before his right became absolute. The preemptor had similar duties to perform in regard to cultivation, residence, etc., for a shorter period, and then payment of the price of the land. It is not conceivable that Congress intended to place these parties as contestants for the land, with the right in each to require proof from the other of complete performance of its obligation. Least of all is it to be supposed that it was intended to raise up, in antagonism to all the actual settlers on the soil, whom it had invited to its occupation, this great corporation, with an interest to defeat their claims, and to come between them and the Government as to the performance of their obligations. The reasonable purpose of the Government

In Hastings & Dakota Railroad v. Whitney, 132 U. S. 357 , 366, after an extended reference to-the authorities and to the uniform practice of the Land Department, the court concluded : “ For the foregoing reasons we concur with the court below that Turner’s homestead entry excepted the land from the operation of the railroad grant; and that upon the cancellation of that entry the tract in question did not inure to the benefit of the company, but reverted to the Government and became a part of the public domain, subject to appropriation by the first legal applicant-.”

In Whitney v. Taylor, 158 U. S. 85 , 92-93, where the contest' was between a railroad grant of public lands and a homestead entry of record at the time of the filing of the company’s map of definite location, the question now before us was again fully considered, and this principle deduced from the former cases: “Although these cases are none of them

Other cases are to the same effect as those to which we have above referred. Sioux City &c. Land Co. v. Griffey, 143 U. S. 32 , 34; Shiver v. United States, 159 U. S. 491 , 494.

The principles announced in these cases fully sustain the proposition that if the above applications, of record, to purchase these lands as mineral lands were “ claims ” within the meaning of the act of July 2, 1864, then the lands were excepted from the operation of that act, and could not have come under the grant to the railroad company even if, subsequently to the definite location of the road, the applications for them were finally rejected because of the fact that, they were ascertained not to be mineral lands.

It is necessary now to inquire whether the applications in 1880 and 1881 to purchase these lands as mineral lands were “claims” within the meaning of the act of 1864.

Here we are met with the suggestion that when that act was passed no statute of the United States provided for the purchase of lands as mineral lands, and that when the railroad company filed its map of general route in 1872, and when the surveyed or unsurveyed odd-numbered sections within the exterior lines of that route were withdrawn by .the land

It is quite true that at the time of the passage of the act of 1864 th'ere was no act of Congress under which a right or claim could be initiated to mineral lands. But as said by Mr. Justice Field in Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453 , 458, “ for eighteen years —from 1848 to 1866 — the regulations and customs of miners, as enforced and moulded by the courts and sanctioned by the legislation of the States, constituted the law governing property in mines and in water on the public mineral lands.” And on July 26,1866, before the general route of the Northern Pacific Railroad was fixed, Congress passed an act looking to a sale of the mineral lands of the United States, and declared them to be “ free and open to exploration and occupation by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become citizens, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law and the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts so far as the same were not in conflict with the laws of the United States.” 14 Stat. 251 , c. 262. But prior to the passage of that act certain important rights of miners had been recognized. In Broder v. Water Co., 101 U. S. 274 , 276, it was said-to be the established doctrine of this court that the rights of miners, who had taken possession of mines and worked and developed them, were rights which the Government had by its conduct recognized and encouraged, and was bound to protect, before the passage of the act of 1866. The act of 1866 was held to be a statutory recognition of the right to explore for mineral lands. That right was in nowise impaired, in respect of the lands in question, by the subsequent acceptance from the Northern Pacific Railroad Company of its map of . general route. And that act was supplemented by the act of May 10, 1872, c. 152. 17 Stat. 91 . The company acquired, by fixing its general route, only an inchoate right to the odd-numbered sections granted by Congress, and no right attached to any specific section until the road was definitely located and the map thereof filed and accepted. Until such definite

In this view — of the soundness of which we entertain-.no doubt — it would seem to be clear that the formal applications made in 1880 and 1881, under the statutes then and still in force, to purchase these lands as mineral lands, were “ claims ” within the meaning of the 'third section of the act of 1864. It was admitted by the demurrer that applicants made oath, before the proper officer, that they had discovered mineral thereon and had located the said quarter section as mineral land, and claimed the same as having valuable mineral deposits thereon. Upon the present record it cannot be said that those applications were not made in good faith. Whether the lands sought to be purchased as mineral lands were of that character was a matter for the determination, in the first instance, of the Land Department; and there was jurisdiction in that department to pass upon every question arising upon applications to purchase them as mineral lands. How then can it be said that such applications, filed and of record before the definite location of the road, were not “claims” Avithin the meaning of the act of 1864? As the lands in question were not free from those claims at the time the plaintiff definitely located its line of road, it is of no consequence Avhat

The only ground upon which a contrary view, can be rested is the provision in the sixth section of the act of 1864, that “ the odd sections of laird hereby granted shall not be liable to sale or entry or preemption before or after they are surveyed, except by said company, as provided by this act.” But this section is not to be construed without reference to other sections of the act. It must be taken in connection with section three, which manifestly contemplated that rights of preemption or other claims and rights might accrue or become attached to the lands granted after the general route of the road was fixed and before the line of definite location was established. Literally interpreted, the words above quoted from section six would tie the hands of the Government so that even it could not sell any of the odd-numbered sections of the lands after the general route was fixed — an interpretation -wholly inadmissible in view of .the provisions in the third section. The third and sixth sections must be taken together, and so taken it must be adjudged that nothing in the sixth section prevented the Government from disposing of any of the lands prior to the fixing of the line of definite location, or, for the reasons stated, from receiving, under the existing statutes, applications to purchase such lands as mineral lands.

Much was said at the bar as to the decision of this court in Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad, 119 U. S. 55 . On one .side it is said that that case construes the sixth section of the act of 1864 as excluding the possibility of any right being acquired adversely to the railroad company to an odd-' numbered section embraced by the exterior lines of the general route after that route had been established. On the other side it is contended that the only point necessary to be determined and the only one judicially determined in that case was that the defendant could not initiate a preemption right to the land there in dispute so long as the Indian title referred to in the opinion was unextinguished. Without stopping to examine these contentions, it is sufficient to say that

For the reasons stated, we adjudge that the lands in question were excluded from the grant of 1861 by reason of the pendency of record, at the time of the definite location of' the plaintiff’s road, of applications to purchase them as mineral lands, such applications being in the form prescribed by the acts of Congress that related to such lands, and undetermined when the company filed its map of definite location.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.