In the case of Oregon and California Railroad Company v. United States No. 2, 1902, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government over a dispute regarding land grants given to railroad companies for constructing rail lines across public lands. The court held that these grants were conditional upon completion of specific sections of track within a certain timeframe and could be forfeited if those conditions weren't met by the company. In this particular case, it was determined that Oregon & California Railroad had failed to meet its obligations under such an agreement with respect to some portions of land granted to them in Oregon; thus they lost their claim on those tracts as per terms set forth by Congress when granting said lands initially.

In the dissenting opinion for Oregon and California Railroad Company v. United States No. 2, the justice argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. The dissenting justice believed that Congress had intended to grant land to railroad companies as a means of encouraging development in western states, not as a way to generate revenue for public schools or other government purposes. Therefore, he felt it was wrong for the court to rule that these lands should be sold at minimum price without allowing railroads any discretion over their use or sale price. He also disagreed with how broadly the majority interpreted forfeiture provisions in federal laws governing land grants, arguing they were only meant to apply when railroads failed to meet specific obligations rather than being used as general penalties for non-compliance with all terms and conditions of such grants.