Page images
PDF
EPUB

"That 90,000 acres of land, to be selected and located as provided in section 4 of this act, are hereby granted to said State for the use and support of an agricultural college in said State as provided in the acts of Congress making donations of lands for such purposes."

Here is another congressional construction of the acts of 1862 and 1866. Idaho also received lands in lieu of the internal improvement grant. The admitting act, by section 12, further provided:

"That the State of Idaho shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose than as expressly provided in this act."

This was a specific limitation fixed by Congress. Section 10 of this act did not exempt Idaho from complying with the terms and conditions of the grant of 1862 and 1866, for she accepted the grant mentioned by act approved January 21, 1891 (S. L., 1890-91, p. 16).

Wyoming followed the course of Idaho and was admitted into the Union by act of July 10, 1890 (26 Stat., 222). In so far as the question under consideration is concerned, the same provisions were enacted. She also accepted the grants made by the Federal Government by the act approved January 10, 1891 (S. L., 1890-91, p. 332).

Utah was admitted into the Union under the enabling act of July 16, 1894 (28 Stat., 107). Her congressional representation was fixed at three. For agricultural-college purposes she received a grant of 200,000 acres, under section 8, without reference to her congressional representation. She also received lands in lieu of the internal improvement grant. Section 12 of this act in part provides as follows:

The said State of Utah shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose than as expressly provided in this act.”

Here was an express limitation and thereunder she was excluded from the grant of 1862 and 1866 without question.

Oklahoma was admitted into the Union under the enabling act of June 16, 1906 (34 Stat., 267). Her congressional representation was fixed at seven. Section 8 made a grant of all lands described as section 13 in certain Indian reservations therein named for educational purposes and made an allotment of one-third thereof for the use and benefit of an agricultural and mechanical college. No language is employed to indicate that this grant is in lieu of any other grants theretofore made by Congress to new States. Section 12 also makes a grant of lands for educational purposes whereunder Oklahoma received 250,000 acres for the use and benefit of an agricultural and mechanical college, the granting part of which is as follows:

"That in lieu of the grant of land for purposes of internal improvement made to new States by the eighth section of the act of September 4, 1841, which section is hereby repealed as to said State, and in lieu of any claim or demand of the State of Oklahoma under the act of September 28, 1850, and section 2479 of the Revised Statutes, making a grant of swamp and overflowed lands, which grant it is hereby declared is not extended to the State of Oklahoma, the following grant of land is hereby made to said State from public lands of the United States within said State, for the purposes indicated, namely," etc. As will be noted from this language, Oklahoma received lieu lands for the internal-improvement grant. No reference is made in making the grants for agricultural-college purposes to the number of her congressional representation, nor is it stated that said grants are made in lieu of the grant of 1862 and 1866. Neither is there any language employed that expressly limits the State of Oklahoma to the grants enumerated in the enabling act, nor that repeals or indicates an intent to repeal any law in conflict with this act. Oklahoma assumed that she was entering into the Union upon an equal footing with States theretofore admitted, and since there were no words either of limitation or exclusion as to other grants not mentioned employed by Congress in paving the way for her admission, she, by joint resolution approved February 23, 1910 (S. L., 1910, p. 264), accepted the benefits of the acts of 1862 and 1866 under the terms and conditions of this grant within the prescribed period for accept

ance.

The enabling act of Oklahoma also provided that the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona might be admitted into the Union as the State of Arizona. Section 34 of this act made a grant of certain lands to the proposed State of Arizona for educational purposes which included agricultural-college purposes, in lieu of the internal-improvement grant, swamp and overflowed grant, and saline grant in express terms, and made no reference to the grant of 1862 and 1866 either by way of limitations or exclusion, nor was there any repeal of

any law in conflict therewith. These two Territories failed to become a State under this act.

New Mexico and Arizona were admitted into the Union as separate States under the enabling act approved June 20, 1910 (36 Stat., 557). In making a grant of land for educational purposes which included agricultural-college purposes to New Mexico, section 7 in part provides:

"That in lieu of the grant of land for purposes of internal improvements made to new States by the eighth section of the act of September 4, 1841, and in lieu of the swamp-land grant made by the act of September 28, 1850, and section 2479 of the Revised Statutes, and in lieu of the grant of 30,000 acres for each Senator and Representative in Congress, made by the act of July 2, 1862, Twelfth Statutes at Large, page 503, which grants are hereby declared not to extend to the said State, and in lieu of the grant of saline lands heretofore made to the Territory of New Mexico for university purposes by section 3 of the act of June 21, 1898, which is hereby repealed, except to the extent of such approved selections of such saline lands as may have been made by said Territory prior to the passage of this act, the following grants of lands are hereby made," etc. In this section Congress expressly provided that the lands thereby granted were in part in lieu of the grants of 1862 and 1866 and other grants. Section 25, making similar grants to Arizona, is identical with this section. Here again was a congressional declaration and construction of the acts of 1862 and 1866 by the employment of language that can not be brought by any process of reasoning within the field of ambiguity. Since this language with reference to the grants of 1862 and 1866 was not used in the enabling act of Oklahoma whereunder it was proposed that these States should be admitted into the Union as one State, it is proper to assume that the proposed State of Arizona would have accepted the benefits of the grants of 1862 and 1886 by her legislature, as did the State of Oklahoma, and would have applied to the political authorities of the Federal Government for the effectuation of those grants. Arguments have especially been made and emphasized with reference to the cases of Oklahoma and New Mexico and Arizona in the former briefs filed in this cause.

By contrasting the case of Oklahoma with those of New Mexico and Arizona, which were admitted into the Union more than four years later and both of which received lands in lieu of the grants of 1862 and 1866, it is submitted, we have abundant proof that shows clearly and without possible question that Congress did not intend to exclude Oklahoma from receiving the benefits of those grants, else Congress would have so said in plain and unmistakable terms when lands were granted in lieu of other grants to Oklahoma, as it did in the cases of those States.

This brief review of these various acts of Congress whereunder new States were admitted into the Union subsequent to the acts of 1862 and 1866, in our judgment, clearly shows that said acts of 1862 and 1866 were recognized by the United States through its legislative department as subsisting law, binding upon the Federal Government when a new State had made full compliance with the terms and conditions therein prescribed with certainty. It also shows that in every case of these new States that they either received internal improvement lands without further action on the part of Congress, or lands in lieu thereof, by express provision, which by analogy supports the propositions for which we contend in this cause.

CONSTRUCTION.

That the acts of 1862 and 1866 substituting statutes, and that the various States admitted into the Union subsesuent thereto received the benefits of those grants thereunder, where lands were not given in lieu thereof, and not "by virtue of other and different provisions of law," as submitted by the honorable First Assistant Secretary of the Interior, is also clearly shown in the case of Wyoming Argicultural College r. Irvine (206 U. S.. 278), wherein was involved a controversy concerning the payment of the proceeds of land grants and congressional appropriations for agricultural college purposes. It will be borne in mind that in the case of Wyoming it was provided that she should receive 30,000 acres for each member of her congressional representation for agricul tural college purposes "as provided in the acts of Congress making donations of land for such purposes." The syllabus of this case is as follows:

"The land grants made for the establishment of agricultural colleges by the act of July 2, 1862 (12 Stat., 503), as amended by the act of March 3, 1883

(22 Stat., 482), and the permanent appropriations for the support of such institutions under the act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat., 415), were made to the States themselves, and not to any of the institutions established by the State (Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S., 291), and the disposition of the interest on the landgrant fund and the appropriation is wholly within the power of each State acting through its legislature in accordance with the trust imposed upon it by the acts of Congress, and an institution, although established by the State for agricultural education, can not compel the payment of any part thereof to it."

Here was a judicial construction placed upon the acts of Congress whereunder a grant of lands and appropriations was made for purposes of an agricultural college to the State of Wyoming, and it is not even intimated by this decision that she received such lands "by virtue of the provisions of other and different laws."

The only argument that can be made to support the construction given to the acts of 1862 and 1866 and that would be in favor of a strict interpretation by the honorable Commissioner of the Land Office and by the honorable First Assistant Secretary of the Interior, is not sustained by the settled legal rules applicable to the construction of public grants for public purposes. The rule followed by them applies to private grants, which are always construed strictly against the grantee and in favor of the grantor. In the case of Johnson v. Washington (190 U. S., 179), wherein was involved the question of land grants in support of common schools, we find this language:

"Now we remark that from the legislation by Congress nothing is clearer than that the policy of the Government has been a generous one in respect to grants for school purposes. (Cooper v. Roberts, 18 How., 173; Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S., 373; and cases cited in the opinion.) And, as was said by Mr. Justice Field in Winona & St. Peter Railroad Co. v. Barney (113 U. S., 618, 625), acts making grants are to receive such a construction as will carry out the intent of Congress, however difficult it might be to give full effect to the language used if the grants were by instruments of private conveyance. To ascertain that intent we must look to the conditions of the country when the acts were passed, as well as to the purpose declared on their face, and read all parts of them together.'"

In other words, public grants to effect public purposes are always liberally construed.

What was the condition in the State of Oklahoma at the time of her admission? Her case is without parallel in the history of State making. One-half of her area was not then subject to the burdens of government which are unavoidable under any scheme of organized society, nor was any part of this area subject to appropriation for public purposes. It is true Congress sought to deal liberally with her, yet when this condition is taken into consideration, when the purpose of Congress is declared on the face of the Oklahoma enabling act, and, finally, when all of its parts are read together, if we then speculate by interpolation of what was the intent of the congressional mind, would it not be more logical to say that Congress intended Oklahoma should have the benefits of the acts of 1862 and 1866 in addition to the benefits conferred when her star flashed across the emblazonry of our Union?

It is also a well-settled rule of construction that " a statute amended is to be understood in the same sense exactly as if it had read from the beginning as it does amended," and "that words are to be construed in their ordinary signification and every part of the statute, if practical, given a meaning in harmony with its other provisions upon the subject." (Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S., 400.)

Under this rule of construction, the acts of 1862 and 1866 would provide that each State then in existence would take thereunder 30,000 acres for each Senator and Representative in Congress, apportioned under the census of 1860, and each State admitted thereafter 30.000 for each Senator and Representative in Congress upon its admission into the Union, when acceptance of this grant was made within the time therein prescribed, which as to old States was fixed at three years, and as to new States within three years after their admission into the Union, and to provide the objects of this bounty within five years after such acceptance. Further legislation on the part of Congress concerning this bounty was not necessary to enable the States to avail themselves thereof upon the happening of the contingencies mentioned.

"The first resort with the view of ascertaining the meaning of a statute is to the language used; if that is plain there is an end to construction, and the statute is taken to mean what it says." (Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 238 U. S., 190.)

Tested by these settled and familiar rules of statutory construction, by what process of reasoning can it be said, without doing violence to these rules, that the terms of the Oklahoma enabling act excluded the State from the benefits of the acts of 1862 and 1866, because it was the intention of Congress to make such exclusion, when not a single word susceptible of such meaning was employed to express such legislative intent? We respectfully submit that such reasoning would indeed be metaphysical. We are unwilling to impute to Congress that it said what it did not intend to do, or did not say what it intended to do, when it breathed into life the Commonwealth of Oklahoma. On the contrary, we are willing to accept the meaning of the words used in this act in their ordinary signification and common acceptation, and thereby give force and effect to the act in consonance with the above-quoted rules of construction which have been announced and reannounced by judicial tribunals since law became the rule of action for the human family.

Nor are we able to concede that other States admitted into the Union subsequent to the acts of 1862 and 1866 received grants for agricultural purposes "by virtue of other and different provisions of law, "not dependent upon the acts of 1862 and 1866 for effectuation of such grants, where such lands were not in lieu thereof, for Congress expressly said that such grants were made to these new States upon the basis of their congressional representations at the time of admission, and “as provided in the acts of Congress making donations of lands for such purposes." The test of this feature of the cause at bar is, were these other provisions of law to which the honorable First Assistant Secretary refers, all sufficient to vest title to such lands granted in the respective States. Neither the legislative nor the judicial consruction of these grants sustain the all sufficiency of these other provisions, for such grants were not effectuated until the various States had expressed their assent to the terms and conditions of the grants as provided in the acts of Congress making donations of lands for such purposes." What acts? Indeed as required by the acts of 1862 and 1866, for these are the only acts making grants which come within the purview of the quoted language.

CONCLUSION.

The cause of education was recognized as a national institution by the Continental Congress by the ordinance of July 13, 1787, and thereafter the policy of the Federal Government in making donations of public lands for public purposes became fundamental. Article 3 of this ordinance provided:

"That religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

The generosity and the consistency of this policy are clearly shown by the public records of the Government. In commenting thereon Justice Campbell, in Eighteenth Howard, page 173, happily used this language:

"The constancy with which the United States have adhered to the policy in the various compacts with the people of the newly formed States and the care which Congress has manifested to prevent the accumulation of prior obligations which might interrupt it, fully display their estimate of its value and importance."

Indeed, this is the chief corner stone of our splendid American institutions. As a part of this policy every State in the Union at the passage of the acts of 1862 and 1866, making a grant for agricultural and mechanical college purposes, including those that were then in rebellion when their rebellious tendencies had been directed into paths of peace and more useful pursuits, and every State admitted into the Union subsequent thereto, either directly or indirectly, have received their share of this grant, except the Commonwealth of Oklahoma, which now asks the political authorities of the Federal Government to complete the purpose of Congress in its bounty to the States of the Union for this most beneficent purpose.

In view of this national policy and the congressional and judicial construction of the grant in question, and in view of the various provisions of the enabling act of Oklahoma, whereunder no limitation is found that would tend to exclude the State from the grant of 1862 and 1866, we are compelled to submit that the honorable Commissioner of the Lanl Office erred in his construction of the law in holding that it was the intent of Congress that the grants of land made by said enabling act to the State of Oklahoma for agricultural-college purposes were in lieu of the grant of 1862 and 1866 to which claim is now made by the State, and that it is not a fact that States admitted into the Union subsequent

to the acts of 1862 and 1866 received their share of this bounty under other and different provisions of law," as contended by the honorable First Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Accordingly the decision of the honorable Commissioner of the Land Office should be reversed, and the application of Oklahoma be sustained and granted.

The State of Oklahoma has complied with all of the terms and conditions of this grant, as required by the acts of 1862 and 1866, and now asks that she be given her share of this bounty of 210,000 acres of land or their equivalent, so that she may in truth and in fact take her station on an "equal footing" with her sister States in this great "family of Commonwealths." Respectfully submitted.

JAMES S. DAVENPORT,
WILLIAM W. HASTINGS,
CHAS. D. CARTER,
WM. H. MURRAY,

JOSEPH B. THOMPSON,
SCOTT FERRIS,

JIM MCCLINTIC,

DICK T. MORGAN,

On behalf of the State of Oklahoma.

Also a copy of the opinion rendered by the Secretary of the Interior, with letter.

(Said opinion and letter follow:)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, April 24, 1916.

"G" 82665-10, Oklahoma. Application of State of Oklahoma under acts of July 2, 1862, and July 23, 1866. Denied. Affirmed.

APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.

The State of Oklahoma applied to enter 5,760 acres of land in the Guthrie, Lawton, and El Reno land districts, under the acts of July 2, 1862 (12 Stat.. 503), and July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 208), and thereafter, on the 24th day of October, 1910, filed direct with the Commissioner of the General Land Office application for the issuance of land scrip under said acts in the amount of 204.240 acres, being the deficiency of its distributive share after the State has applied to enter and file upon all vacant, unoccupied public lands in the State of Oklahoma which are subject to entry under the acts above mentioned."

*

The commissioner rejected the latter application by decision of November 28, 1910, and from this decision the State has appealed.

The act of July 2, 1862, supra, provides in part as follows:

"That there be granted to the several States, for the purposes hereinafter mentioned, an amount of public land, to be apportioned to each State a quantity equal to 30,000 acres for each Senater and Representative in Congress to which the States are respectively entitled by the apportionment under the census of 1860. * * * That all moneys derived from the sale of the lands aforesaid by the States to which the lands are apportioned, and from the sale of land scrip hereinafter provided for, shall be invested in stocks of the United States, or of the States, or some other safe stocks, yielding not less than 5 per cent upon the par value of said stocks, and that the moneys so invested shall constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of which shall remain forever undiminished (except so far as may be provided in section 5 of this act), and the interest of which shall be inviolably appropriated by each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluling other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts.

* * **

By the act of February 14, 1864 (13 Stat., 47), the time for the acceptance of the provisions of the act of 1862 was extended, and it is provided "that any State or Territory may accept and shall be entitled to the benefits of the act" of 1862.

Although the caption of the act of 1862 refers to lands donated to Territories as well as States, and notwithstanding the provisions of the act of 1864, the

« PreviousContinue »