Opinion of the Court.

said grant for the completed portions of said road." But although a part of the lands lying east of this quadrant “are adjacent to and coterminous with the uncompleted portions of said road," yet they are "embraced within said grant for the completed portions of said road," for they lie within the twenty mile limits of the completed portion from Portland to Forest Grove.

The railroad companies contend that no such thing as a branch road or a junction in the ordinary sense of the word was contemplated, and that, having a right to build from Portland to Astoria, and "from a suitable point of junction near Forest Grove to the Yamhill River near McMinnville," they could treat the act as if it authorized the building of a continuous road from Portland via Forest Grove to McMinnville, without regard to the provisions for a road beyond Forest Grove to Astoria; and, by constructing their road with a curve at Forest Grove, could properly claim all of. the lands falling within twenty miles of this circuitous route from Portland to McMinnville as intended to be granted for the construction of such a road. And, having actually so built, that they were entitled to all the lands lying within. a quadrant produced by a radius reaching twenty miles from the curve.

Secretary Lamar rejected this contention and held that the act of May 4, 1870, contemplated two distinct roads, a road from Portland to Astoria, and a road from Forest Grove to McMinnville; that the words "point of junction" were to be given their usual meaning of a point where two or more roads join; that had the words of forfeiture "so much of the lands granted as are adjacent to and coterminous with the uncompleted portion of said road," been unqualified, the line dividing the forfeited lands from those not forfeited would have been drawn through Forest Grove at right angles to the unconstructed road at that point and terminating at the lateral limits of the grant, but that as this would have thrown out of the grant large tracts of lands that were opposite to the constructed portions of the road, Congress qualified the words of forfeiture by adding "and not embraced within the limits

Opinion of the Court.

of said grant for the completed portions of said road," which saved to the grant a full complement of lands granted for every mile of road actually constructed, and the Secretary remarked that this view of the act was much strengthened "when it is observed that the lands in said quadrant lie along the uncompleted portion on both sides thereof, and could have been earned, if at all, by that line."

The rule of construction applicable to the granting act is the familiar rule that all grants of this description must be construed favorably to the government, and that nothing passes but what is conveyed in clear and explicit language. Dubuque & Pacific Railroad v. Litchfield, 23 How. 66, 88; Leavenworth, Lawrence &c. Railroad Co. v. United States, 92 U. S. 733, 740; Slidell v. Grandjean, 111 U. S. 412, 437; Coosaw Mining Company v. South Carolina, 144 U. S. 550, 562. And that the construction should be such as will effectuate the legislative intention, avoiding, if possible, an unjust or absurd conclusion, is also well settled.

In Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad v. United States, 159 U. S. 349, 360, it was said by Mr. Justice Harlan, speaking for the court: "If the terms of an act of Congress, granting public lands, admit of different meanings, one of extension and the other of limitation, they must be accepted in a sense favorable to the grantor. And if rights claimed under the government be set up against it, they must be so clearly defined that there can be no question of the purpose of Congress to confer them.' Leavenworth &c. Railroad v. United States, 92 U. S. 733, 740. Acts of this character must receive such 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.' Winona & St. Peter Railroad v. Barney, 113 U. S. 618, 625. 'Nothing is better settled,' this court has said, 'than that statutes should receive a sensible construction such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible, so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.' Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 47, 59. Giving effect to these rules of statutory interpretation, we cannot suppose that Congress

Opinion of the Court.

intended that the railroad company should have the benefit of more lands than it earned."

In the light of these principles we have no difficulty in arriving at the same result as that reached by the Secretary of the Interior and by the Circuit Court.

The act declares that the grant is made "for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from Portland to Astoria, and from a suitable point of junction near Forest Grove to the Yamhill River, near McMinnville." This does not describe a road from Portland to the Yamhill River, but a road from Portland to Astoria, and a road expressly stated to be from a point of junction near Forest Grove to the Yamhill River.

We are unable to see why any other than their usual meaning should be attributed to the words "point of junction." Junction in the ordinary acceptation as applied to railroads is the point or locality where two or more lines of railway meet. Two lines of distinct companies, or separate roads of the same company, or a main line and a branch road of the same company, may have points of union or meeting, styled junctions, but this can hardly be predicated of a single continuous road from one point to another. If the act had not used the word "junction" and had defined the line as running from Portland to Astoria, and to McMinnville via Forest Grove, there would be more force in the suggestion that Forest Grove was a point of bifurcation of one road rather than a point of junction of two roads, but the act was not couched in those terms, and the word "junction" cannot be rejected, or wrested from its obvious meaning.

As the road from Portland to Astoria and the road from Forest Grove to McMinnville were to be constructed by and belong to one company and together constituted a single enterprise, they were naturally spoken of as one railroad, as, in that sense, they were. But this is of no special significance in the present inquiry, which is whether, in view of the language of the act and the purposes to be accomplished, a main road and a branch road were provided for, in aid of which the lands were granted subject to the adjustment applicable to two

Opinion of the Court.

roads. And the general rule is that "words importing the singular number may extend and be applied to several persons or things; words importing the plural number may include the singular," as provided in the first section of the Revised Statutes.

Nor are we impressed with the argument that the title of the act compels to another conclusion. The title is: "An act granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from Portland to Astoria and McMinnville in the State of Oregon." The text of the act is: "That for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from Portland to Astoria, and from a suitable point of junction near Forest Grove to the Yamhill River near McMinnville in the State of Oregon," the grant is made. Insert the comma after Astoria in the title, which appears after that word in the act (and for the purpose of arriving at the true meaning of a statute, courts read with such stops as are manifestly required, Hammock v. Loan & Trust Co., 105 U. S. 77, 84; United States v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624, 628), and the title is sufficiently comprehensive to fairly describe a road from Portland to Astoria, and a road to McMinnville, as the subject of the act. The title is no part of an act and cannot enlarge or confer powers, or control the words of the act unless they are doubtful or ambiguous. United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358, 386; Yazoo & Mississippi Railroad v. Thomas, 132 U. S. 174, 188. The ambiguity must be in the context and not in the title to render the latter of any avail.

And so of the title of the act of January 31, 1885. That title is: "An act to declare forfeiture of certain lands granted to aid in the construction of a railroad in Oregon," and the granting act is referred to in the text by its title. We do not regard the use of the singular number as persuasive of the intention of Congress that, in the adjustment of the grant as affected by the forfeiture, the fact that a main road and a branch road were provided for should be ignored.

It seems to us quite clear that a main road was to be built from Portland, the principal city of Oregon, situated on the

Opinion of the Court.

Columbia River, to Astoria, a port on the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of that river, a distance of some one hundred and twenty-eight and a half miles, being over one hundred miles beyond Forest Grove; and a branch from Forest Grove to McMinnville, a distance somewhat exceeding twenty-one miles. It is not denied that, as stated in the opinion of the Circuit Court, "four fifths of the line of road from Portland to Astoria traversed a rough and wholly unsettled district, but one known to be rich in timber, and believed to be in iron and coal, with considerable areas of agricultural land," while the twenty-one miles from Forest Grove to McMinnville ran through "the heart of the Willamette Valley and through the oldest settled portion of the country." The opening up to settlement of unoccupied and inaccessible territory and the establishment of railroad communication between Portland and Astoria by the construction of the main line were the obvious inducements to and the primary objects of the grant, and the construction of the branch, though included in the act, was subordinate and subsidiary. The line, both main and branch, was wholly within the State of Oregon, and we cannot assume that if the promoters had sought aid merely for a road running from Portland by way of Forest Grove to McMinnville, the application would have been granted.

The grant contemplated a main line which ran from Portland west to the point of junction and a branch from the point of junction nearly south, substantially at right angles, and devoted the lands north of the junction, not absorbed by the road from Portland to that point, to the building of the road to the north; and while the company was left free to construct parts of the road as might suit its convenience, its action could not change the effect of the grant or control its administration to the contrary of the manifest intention of Congress.

On the twentieth of May, A.D. 1871, a map of definite location was filed with the Secretary of the Interior, described in the certificate of the company's officers as showing "the location of the Oregon Central railroad from the city of Portland, Oregon, to the Yamhill River near McMinnville a distance of forty-seven and three fourths (47) miles, and also