“We have before said that the grant itself was _in præsenti_, and covered all the odd sections which should appear, on the location of the road, to have been within the grant when it was made. The right to them did not, however, depend on such location, but attached at once on the making of the grant. It is true they could not be identified until the line of the road was marked out on the ground, but as soon as this was done it was easy to find them. If the company did not obtain all of them within the original limit, by reason of the power of sale or reservation retained by the United States, it was to be compensated by an equal amount of substituted lands. The latter could not, on any contingency, be selected within that limit. * * * It would be strange, indeed, if the [indemnity] clause had been intended to perform the office of making a new grant within the ten mile limit, or enlarging the one already made. Instead of this, the words employed show clearly that its only purpose is to give sections beyond that limit for those lost within it by the action of the government between the date of the grant and the location of the road. This construction gives effect to the whole statute, and makes each part consistent with the other.” If it be thought, however, that such was not the intention of the legislators who framed the statutes, consolation can be found in the construction given to the clause inserted in every grant, substantially as follows: “And the said road shall remain a public highway for the use of the Government, free from toll or other charge upon the transportation of troops or other property of the United States.” It is declared by the Supreme Court that the purpose of that clause was to allow the Government the right to place its locomotive engines and cars upon the railroad tracks, and to use such tracks as a public highway. The court say: “We are of opinion that the reservation in question secures to the Government only a free use of the railroads concerned; and that it does not entitle the Government to have troops or property transported by the companies over their respective roads free of charge for transporting the same.” The section providing for the disposal of the lands, recited in full in the Missouri grant of 1852, has been construed as vesting in the State the right to sell one hundred and twenty sections of land, contained within a continuous length of twenty miles at any place along the grant, even though the road contemplated was never built; and the title acquired by purchase from the State is valid. And the clause with which the section referred to ends, to the effect that if the road be not completed within a certain time the lands shall revert to the United States, has been declared inoperative without further action by the Government, either legislative or judicial, looking to an enforcement of the reserved right.