Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, St. Paul Railway Company v. Phelps…
“ We do not think it can be safely asserted that it has been a general policy of the United States government to restrict a grant made to a state, in aid of railroads, to lands within such state, where a part of the line of road extended into one of the territories. ”
Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, St. Paul Railway Company v. Phelps…
“ Again, it is settled law that railroad grants, such as the one under construction, are grants in praesenti, and take effect upon the sections of land when the road is definitely located, by relation, as of the date of the grant. Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336. Had this line of road been definitely located before the state of Minnesota was admitted,-that is to say, if the right of the road had attached to its granted lands while Minnesota was yet a territory,-would it be seriously contended for an instant that the land now in dispute did not pass under the grant? ”
Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, St. Paul Railway Company v. Phelps…
“ It is also conceded that congress has the power to grant to a state lands in another state or territory, to aid in the construction of a railroad wholly within its own limits. But it is argued that the positive and express provision of the law must give way, and be controlled by the presumption founded upon an alleged policy of the government; that congress, having in view the probable organization of Minnesota territory into a state, intended to restrict the grant in question to lands within the limits of such future state. ”
