legislative construction as to the basis of participation in said grant by new States, and was a legislative declaration that the grant inured to a new State upon compliance with the terms and conditions thereof as prescribed by the granting act. Colorado also received her share of internal improvement lands without further action by Congress.

The States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington were admitted into the Union under the enabling act of February 22, 1889 (25 Stat. 676). Section 16 of this act is as follows:

"That 90,000 acres of land, to be selected and located as provided in section 10 of this act, are hereby granted to each of said States, except to the State of South Dakota, to which 120,000 acres are granted, for the use and support of agricultural colleges in said States, as provided in the acts of Congress making donations of lands for such purposes."

The congressional representation of each of these States was three, except as to South Dakota, which was four. The act further provided, in section 17:

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

By said section 17, all of these States received certain grants expressly in lieu of internal-improvement lands. Here in section 16 is another instance of congressional construction of the acts of 1862 and 1866, for the grants mentioned were made in accordance with certain acts of Congress "making donations of lands for such purposes," which can have reference to no other acts than those of 1862 and 1866, and here was also a limitation, in section 17, as to the possible assertion of any claims or demands by any of these States as to other public land grants. That it was necessary for these States to express their acceptance of these respective grants as required by the acts of 1862 and 1866 is clearly shown by their public records. Montana did so in specific terms by the act approved February 17, 1893 (S. L., 1893, p. 171); South Dakota by joint resolution "accepted the grant of land from the General Government" (S. L., 1890, p. 327); North Dakota 'accepted with all the conditions and provisions in said act contained," referring to the enabling act, by legislative enactment of March 8, 1890 (S. L., 1890, p. 471); and Washington by specific reference to the act of 1862 and acts amendatory thereof, by legislative enactment of March 28, 1890 (S. L., 1887-1890, p. 429). Idaho was admitted into the Union directly by the act of July 3, 1890 (26 Stat. 215), with her congressional representation fixed at three. Section 10 of this act provided as follows:

66

"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., 189091, 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 acceptance.

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 to 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 1866 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 is a substituting statute and that the various States admitted into the Union subsequent 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 Agricultural College v. 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 agricultural college purposes as provided in the acts of Congress making donations of land for such purposes.' The syllabus of this case is as follows:

66

"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 land-grant 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 provisious 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 construction 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."

Oklahoma came into the Union in 1907. It received land in lieu of the internal improvement grant and the swamp act grant, but no reference is made to the act of 1862 as amended in 1866. No language is used in the enabling act to except the State from receiving any other grant of public land, or to show that any land was received in lieu of the acts of 1862 as amended in 1866. The Legislature of the State of Oklahoma in 1910 passed a joint resolution accepting the terms of the grants of 1862, and the governor and the attorney general, representing the State, made application to the Secretary of the Interior for the amount of land the State was entitled to, and this case has been pending until recently a decision, which in substance is to the effect that whether or not the State of Oklahoma should receive the benefits of this grant, was a matter for Congress to decide, and if the State was to receive any benefits the same would have to come by an act of Congress.

Oklahoma, like West Virginia, Arkansas, and Colorado, had nothing in its enabling act relating to the grants of 1862 as amended in 1866. The State did not receive any land in lieu of this grant, neither was it excepted from the benefits of any grants except the ones relating to internal improvements and the swamp act grant.

Oklahoma is nearly a parallel case with the State of Colorado, in the same manner it comes to Congress nine years after it has been admitted as a State and shows that it did not receive the grant of 1866, and was not given any lands in lieu of the same, and asks that it now be granted in the same manner as all of the States admitted to the Union and who have received the benefit of this particular grant.

The Secretary of the Interior held in the Colorado case that the enabling act did not exclude it from the benefits of said act, and Congress recognized the State claim by passing the act of April 2, 1884. We also desire to call attention to page 8 of the report made on this bill and to the language used by the First Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in which he holds that the act of 1866 was a pledge and is ineffectual as a grant without further legislation. This is in line with the decision rendered in which it was held that it would be necessary for action to be taken by Congress in carrying out this pledge and is the procedure that had been followed by the State of Colorado.

We desire to state that the enabling acts of every State have been carefully read; that the reports made by the House and Senate committee in 1906 when the bill admitting Oklahoma was considered have been diligently searched; that every speech made on this subject in the Congressional Record and all records fail to show that it was the intention of Congress to except the State of Oklahoma from the provisions of this particular grant; and inasmuch as all are silent, and it has been held in the Colorado case, where the enabling act was silent as to this particular grant, that it did not take from this State the right to participate in this grant, and later on Congress by a special act did grant to this State 30,000 acres of land for each Representative and Senator in Congress when the same was admitted, that Oklahoma should be treated in this same manner.

This bill has been carefully considered by a special committee when a public hearing was held; later on it received a unanimous favorable report from the Public Lands Committee; and we are now asking that