What is the testator's intention for the remainder of his estate to go to the children of the deceased?

This reasoning is based upon the construction that the testator intended that the remainder was to go to the children of the deceased or their issue if predeceased by their parent, but I am of the opinion that the meaning intended by the testator was not that the residue should go to his children vesting the property in them subject to divestment if such child died before January 1, 1971, as in the Browne v. Moody case, but that his intention was to entirely postpone distribution of the residue until January 1, 1971, in order that his issue (be they children or grandchildren) as a class might benefit from it at that time and per stirpes as directed. The only statement of bequest is in the direction for payment and is as stated to his issue—children, if alive, and if dead, the issue of such child if such issue is alive at that time. This, in my opinion, means that the decision as to who would constitute the class would be settled on January 1, 1971.