U. S. 260, 275; Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Ely, 197 U. S. 1, 5. Of this defect of power in the companies and the defect of right in the possessors of the right of way, the act of June 24 was intended to be corrective. But of what time was it intended to speak-to the past or future?-to apply to that which was done, or that which was to be done? There is no doubt as to the answer in the case of agreements or conveyances by the company. The act is explicit that they are those "heretofore made" by the enumerated companies. There is no such qualifying word of the "title or ownership" "claimed as against" the corporation by adverse possession. Construction, therefore, becomes necessary, and the first rule of construction is that legislation must be considered as addressed to the future, not to the past. The rule is one of obvious justice and prevents the assigning of a quality or effect to acts or conduct which they did not have or did not contemplate when they were performed. The rule has been expressed in varying degrees of strength but always of one import, that a retrospective operation will not be given to a statute which interferes with antecedent rights or by which human action is regulated, unless such be "the unequivocal and inflexible import of the terms, and the manifest intention of the legislature." United States v. Heth, 3 Cranch, 399, 413; Reynolds v. McArthur, 2 Pet. 417; United States v. American Sugar Refining Co., 202 U. S. 563, 577; Winfree, Admr., v. Northern Pac. Railway Co., 227 U. S. 296. Surely such imperative character cannot be assigned to the words of the act of June 24; and the intention is not so manifest as to strengthen the insufficiency of the words. Indeed, all reasonable considerations determine the other way.

We have seen that the conveyances and agreements which were legalized were those theretofore made, that is, consummated acts of the company deliberately done to transfer its right. Can it be said that the adverse

possession which was to transfer the right was to be less complete, not ally adverse in fact and law, at once assertive of title and concessive of it? It is to be remembered that there was no sanction of a right to the possession of the defendant or possibility of a right by the railroad company's non-action. There was not a moment of time in which the railroad was called upon to act or lose its right; there was not a moment of time when the possession of defendant initiated an adverse right or constituted an adverse right. This being the situation, it is difficult to believe or certainly a belief is not compelled-that Congress intended to give to the past conduct of the railroad company a consequence it was not intended to have and did not have. A statute having such a result may incur the opposition of the Constitution. When such may be the result a different construction of the statute is determined. United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 408; Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 211 U. S. 407.

In Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596, the questions we are now discussing came up for consideration. We there expressed, in considering a statute of limitations whose literal interpretation would have had the effect of making it applicable to actions which had accrued prior to its passage, the rule against retrospective operation, the injustice and unconstitutionality of it. We said that a statute of limitations may affect actions which have accrued as well as those to accrue, and "whether it does or not will depend upon the language of the act and the apparent intent of the legislature to be gathered therefrom." But it was said that, even against a literal interpretation of the terms of the statute, "it will be presumed that such was not the intention of the legislature. Such an intent would be unconstitutional. To avoid such a result, and to give the statute a construction that will enable it to stand, courts have given it a prospective

operation." And three modes were pointed out as having been adopted by the courts: (1) to make the statute apply only to causes of action arising after its passage; (2) to construe the statute as applying to such actions only as have run out a portion of the time, but which still have a reasonable time left for the prosecution of the action before the statutory time expires-which reasonable time is to be estimated by the court-leaving all other actions accruing prior to the statute unaffected by it; and (3) the rule announced in Ross v. Duval, 13 Peters, 45, 62, and Lewis v. Lewis, 7 Howard, 776, 778.

The

Of the first two modes there was condemnation. third was approved. It was said of the first that it left "all actions existing at the passage of the act, without any limitation." Which would not be presumed as intended. The second was said to be founded on no better principle than the first, and was a more arbitrary rule than that, as it left "a large class of actions entirely unprovided with any limitation whatever, or, as to them, unconstitutional."

Speaking of the rule announced in the cited cases, it was said: "In those cases certain statutes of limitationone in Virginia and the other in Illinois-had originally excepted from their operation non-residents of the State, but this exception had been afterwards repealed; and this court held that the non-resident parties had the full statutory time to bring their actions after the repealing acts were passed, although such actions may have accrued at an earlier period. "The question is,' says Chief Justice Taney (speaking in the latter of the cases just cited), 'From what time is this limitation to be calculated? Upon principle, it would seem to be clear, that it must commence when the cause of action is first subjected to the operation of the statute, uniess the legislature has otherwise provided.""

Sohn v. Waterson was cited and its principle applied in Herrick v. Boquillas Cattle Co., 200 U. S. 96. A paragraph

in the statutes of Arizona prescribed a limitation of actions as follows: "Any person who has a right of action for recovery of any lands, tenements or hereditaments against another having peaceable and adverse possession thereof, cultivating, using and enjoying the same, shall institute his suit therefor within ten years next after his cause of action shall have accrued, and not afterward." Rev. Stats. of Arizona, 1901, par. 2938.

It will be observed that the language of the paragraph, as of the statute passed on in Sohn v. Waterson, or, it may be, the act of June 24 under review, literally interpreted, would apply to causes of action which have accrued. The Supreme Court of the Territory refused to give that effect to the provision, and "decided," as this court said, "that under no canon of construction or rule giving a retroactive effect to a new statute of limitations could paragraph 2938 be made to apply to this case." And, after considering all possible constructions of the statute expressed by the Supreme Court of the Territory, among others, that if it be construed as absolutely barring causes of action existing at the time of its passage, it was unconstitutional, citing Sohn v. Waterson, this court approved the views expressed and said that the court committed no error in determining that under no possible hypothesis could the limitation prescribed operate to bar the plaintiff's action.

The principle of these cases forbids a retrospective operation to be given to the statute under consideration. To do so would cause in a high degree the evil and injustice of retroactive legislation. As said by plaintiff's counsel, the possession of defendant prior to the statute "had no effect on the title, and was not, as between the parties, even a threat against it." And we are loath to believe that Congress intended by an imperative declaration of law, immediately operating, to give defendant's possession another character-one hostile to the title.

Defendant does not combat plaintiff's contentions based

on considering the act of June 24, 1912, as one of limitation. Indeed, the admission is "that prior to the passage of the Act in controversy, title by adverse possession could not be acquired as against the plaintiff in error in its original right of way grant, and it is further admitted that title could not have been acquired by adverse possession subsequent to the passage of the Act." Defendant does not regard the act as a limitation of the remedy but as amendatory of the charter of the company, an exercise of a right reserved in the acts of July 1, 18621 and July 2, 1864.2 The argument is, disregarding its involutions, that the right of way was not a right in fee but only a right to use, which was forfeited by non-use, and that the right which thereby reverted to the United States was, by the act of June 24, conveyed to those in possession of the land. And the exercise of the right reserved, it is contended, neither impairs any contract with the railroad nor divests its property. Nor does it come under the condemnation of being retroactive legislation, it is further contended. We need not follow the discussion by which these contentions are attempted to be supported. We meet them all by the declaration that Congress by the act of June 24 did not intend to exercise the power over the charters of the companies reserved to it. The exercise of such power would naturally only find an impulse in some large national purpose and would hardly be provoked by a desire to legalize the encroachments here and there on the right of way of a transcontinental railroad.

We are constrained to believe that when Congress intends to forfeit or limit any of the rights conveyed to aid that great enterprise, it will do so explicitly and directly

1 "Congress may at any time, having due regard for the rights of said companies named herein, add to, alter, amend, or repeal this act." 12 Stat. 497.

2 "And be it further enacted, That Congress may, at any time, alter, amend, or repeal this act." C. 216, 13 Stat. 356, 365.