Abbildungen der Seite

the government to require the warrant or material taken from the said lands of the Although the three years limitations for scrip to be lifted, and money or other United States in the ordinary clearing of commencement of criminal proceedings scrip, or warrant representing the exact the land, in working a mining claim, or have now elapsed, the question must be amount, to be laid in its place.

for agricultural or domestic purposes, or considered as of the date of their appliThis, especially after issue of patent, for maintaining improvements upon the cation, and their right determined accordwould involve confusion of records and land of any bona fide settler, or for or on ingly. titles without good or apparent reason. account of any timber or material taken or I think the applicants were subject to It is much simpler in practice to take the used by any person without fault or criminal prosecution at that date, and words of the statute in their natural sense, knowledge of the trespass, or for or on ac- were then authorized to enter the tracts and without disturbing the entry and title count of any timber taken or used with applied for; and therefore reverse your depapers, make the repayment as provided, out fraud or collusion by any person who cision, and allow the entry. by account with the treasury, with an en- in good faith paid the officers or agents of dorsement of the transaction upon your the United States for the same, or for or

CIRCULAR. records as in other cases under the same on account of any alleged conspiracy in

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, law, without reference to the question relation thereto. Provided, That the pro

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, whether the payment was made in money visions of this section shall apply only to

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 3, 1883. or in paper receivable as cash under the trespasses and acts done or committed, To Registers and Receivers U. 8. District Land law providing for its use. And such I and conspiracies entered into, prior to Offices, and to Special Timber Agents of the understand to be the true intendment of March 1, 1879; And provided further,

General Land Office. the act.

That defendants in such suits or proceed The first section of the act of Congress, 1. Wherever, therefore, the entry is ings shall exhibit to the proper courts or approved March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., p. 482), made by specific location, and wholly fails, officers the evidence of such entry and granting to railroads the right of way the scrip or warrant, being within the con- payment, and shall pay all costs ac- through the public lands of the United trol of your office, and not in fact satisfied, crued up to the time of such entry.” States, provides that any railroad company may be returned for proper location upon Section four provides that the act shall organized as therein described shall have cancellation of the former invalid entry. not apply to any of the mineral lands of the right to take from the public lands And this I understand is already the prac- the United States, and that no person who adjacent to the line of said road, material, tice, the case not being one falling under shall be prosecuted for or proceeded earth, stone, and timber necessary for the the repayment laws.

against on account of any trespass com- construction of said railroad." 2. But where the consideration is car- mitted or material taken from any of the In determining the rights of railroad ried into the treasury as cash, and can public lands after March 1, 1879, shall be companies under the foregoing provision, only be withdrawn by application under entitled to the benefit thereof.

you will be governed by the following inthe repayment statutes, it seems clear that This statute contemplates that persons structions: it must be repaid in the manner provided who committed trespasses on the public 1. Said provision refers exclusively to by the statutes, out of money in the lands (not mineral) prior to March 1, 1879, contemplated or unconstructed roads. treasury not otherwise appropriated. may secure themselves against criminal or Companies have no right to take timber

3. And in cases of excess, where they civil proceedings therefor by purchase of or other material under this act for refall within the provisions of the repayment such lands at the government price. pairs, fuel, or for the further improyement acts, the excess must also be repaid, as It appears that prior to March 1, 1879, of roads already constructed. provided by the law, out of such moneys. the applicants unlawfully cut timber on 2. The right granted to any railroad

This construction will harmonize the the tracts applied for; that civil suits company under this act, to take timber or whole law, and conduce to uniformity in were commenced against them for such other material from the public lands“ adthe practice of your office.

trespass; that they offered a certain sum jacent to the line of said road” for con

of money in satisfaction thereof, which struction purposes, is construed to mean TIMBER DEPREDATIONS. was accepted by this Department; that that, in procuring timber or other material COE AND CARTER.

the agreed price was paid in April, 1880, for the purposes indicated in the act, the

and the suits were withdrawn. There- same must be obtained from the public Timber TrespassCivil and Criminal Proceedinge.--In view of the facts, these parties are

after the government chad no further claim lands in the neighborhood of the line of allowed to enter under the act of June 15, upon them under civil proceedings; and road being constructed, and within the 1880.

were this the only question, the applicants terminal points of such road, if possible. SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFar- would have no right under that act. Not If, however, it should be found that the land, February 23, 1883.

so, however, as respects a criminal prose- material required in the construction of I have considered the appeal of Coe and cution for their acts. Section 1046, Re- such road cannot be procured from the Carter from your decision of April 15, vised Statutes, and the act of April 3, public lands in the neighborhood of, and 1882, rejecting their application to pur- 1876 (19 Stat. 32), provide that no per- within the terminal limits of such road, chase under the first section of the act of son shall be prosecuted, tried or punished then it is permitted that such company June 15, 1880, the S. of S. W. of Sec. for any offence—not capital—except for may obtain the material required outside 18, N. 1 of N. E. d, the N. Į of N. W. 1, crime arising under the revenue or slave- the terminal limits of the road under conand the S. E. I of N. W. & of Sec. 19, in trade laws, unless the indictment is found struction; such material, however, to be Tp. 11 N., R. 75 W., and the S. E. 4 of S. or the information is instituted within taken from such points as are most E. # of Sec. 13, Tp. 11 N., R. 76 W., Den- three years next after such offense shall accessible and nearest to the terminal limver, Colorado.

have been committed. These trespasses its thereof. This section provides, " That when any were committed in 1876 and 1877; but, 3. All duly organized railroad companies lands of the United States shall have been although their precise date does not ap- under this act, upon the filing and acceptentered, and the Government price paid pear, it is reasonable to suppose, in view ance of properly authenticated copy of their therefor in full, no criminal suit or pro- of the allegations of the applicants, that articles of incorporation and organization, ceeding by or in the name of the United some of them were committed within three and map of definite line of location, are States shall thereafter be had or further years prior to November 9, 1880, the date entitled (as provided in paragraph nummaintained for any trespasses upon, or for, of the application, and hence that, on that bered 2 of this circular) to take timber or on account of any material taken from date, they were not exempt from criminal from any of the public lands not othersaid lands; and no civil suit or proceed- proceedings, and were then authorized to wise reserved or previously occupied acing shall be had or further maintained for enter the tracts, in order to secure immu- cording to law, whether the same be min. or on account of any trespasses upon ornity therefrom.

eral or non-mineral in character.

4. In the procurement of timber or United States. (Le Roy vs. Clayton, 2 Saw- so, since neither the date of, nor the signaother material for construction purposes, yer, 493; Le Roy vs. Jamison, 3 Sawyer, tures to, the original instrument can be resuch company must, before causing the 369; Adam vs. Norris, 103 U. S., 591.) produced after a lapse of time such as has cutting or removal thereof, appoint in This patent bears upon its face a note occurred in the present instance. writing one or more persons as their duly purporting to be a note of cancellation, In view therefore of all the circumauthorized agent or agents, for that pur- and a subsequent note purporting to stances of this case, I must hold that I am pose. Copies of all such appointments must revoke the attempted cancellation. not authorized to comply with your rebe filed in this office for its information, in The courts held these proceedings as quest to issue a new patent for the Guadorder that such company may be held re- without authority and void of legal effect, aloupe Rancho. sponsible for any violation of the rules and and that the patent was not vitiated thereby. It is your further request, in event of regulations as herein prescribed, in relation Upon the general question of the au- such decision, that a new certificate be to the cutting or removal of timber or other thority of the Commissioner of the Gen- now written across the patent, withdrawing material from the public lands by such eral Land Office to issue second patents all prior endorsements. As the first enagent, or those employed by or under him. to correct defects in the originals, the dorsement has already been withdrawn

5. All such duly appointed agents have court, in Le Roy vs. Clayton, held that the by the second so far as one endorsement authority to employ others to procure Commissioner had such power in a proper can withdraw another, and as the courts from such public lands and deliver to case, with the consent of parties, and that have already declared in this case that them, for the use of such company, all he had power to determine whether the such endorsements are nugatory, I must material required for the purposes speci- application and evidence in a given in- decline to further complicate the matter fied in the act. It is immaterial whether stance presented a proper case for the ex- by making a new endorsement which such persons are employed by the day or ercise of that authority.

could have no utility, and for the making by the piece; but no authority can be given The question before me, then, is whether of which I possess no authority. by such railroad company to the general the circumstances of this case authorize

SECRETARY'S DECISION. public to cut timber from the public lands. the recall of the patent of 1870, and the is6. No railroad company organized ac- sue of a new patent in its place ? I do not

SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Mc Far

land, March 16, 1883. cording to the provisions of this act is understand that this is what you desire, entitled to procure, or cause to be pro- but rath that the parties w

In the matter of the Rancho Guadalupe, cured, either by itself or through any of resent wish to retain the original patent, from your decision of January 29, 1883,

you rep. California, I have considered the appeal its agents, any timber or other material and to receive also a new one free from from the public lands for sale or other dis- the endorsements which appear upon the refusing to issue a new patent for that

Rancho. posal, either to other companies or to the former. The latter proposition could not general public. be entertained. So long as a patent is out

In 1866 a patent was issued for this 7, The right to take timber from the standing, a second patent cannot issue to grant. The owner refused to accept it, public lands by such railroad company, or the same party for the same land. The upon the ground that it did not include

all the land to which he was entitled. its agents, is confined to such timber or jurisdiction of this office over the patent other material as is actually necessary in ceased with its issue, and must be re

Upon a new survey and further pro. original construction of same, and ceases acquired before it can be again exercised. ceedings, a second patent was issued when such road is open to the public for But if the parties were willing to surren

March 1, 1870, which included all the general use. der the patent of 1870, several obstacles to

lands claimed-being some ten thousand 8. In the procurement of such timber the acceptance of such surrender and the acres more than were in the first. from the public lands, none less than issue of a new patent would be presented

The owners of Rancho Laguna, an adeight inches in diameter is permitted to under the circumstances of this case.

joining rancho, obtained in 1873 a patent be cut or removed ; no waste or destruc- The affirmative ground upon which the covering some five thousand acres intion of timber is allowable, and the tops application is based, does not appear to me cluded in the Guadalupe patent of 1870. and laps of all trees must be cut and piled, to present a proper case for recall. It is This led to further controversy in this in order that the spread of forest fires not alleged by the parties that the patent Department and in your

office, and to ex

the may be checked thereby.

of 1870 does not include all the land tended litigation in the federal courts, All rules and regulations or instructions claimed by them. The United States has particulars of which it is not necessary to heretofore prescribed under said act of not asked that the patent be surrendered

recite. March 3, 1875, by this Department, incon- in order that one for a less quantity may

It is sufficient to say that the validity sistent with the provisions contained in be issued in its stead. There is no error in of the patent of 1870, and the right of the this circular, are hereby rescinded. the name of the grantee. There is no de Guadalupe owners to all the lands em

N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. fect in the present patent as a legal instru- braced in it, were fully established (Le DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, March 5, 1883. ment. Nothing appears in the case that Roy vs. Clayton, 2. Sawyer 493; Le Roy Approved : H. M. TELLER, Secretary.

goes to the substance of the title, or to the vs. Jamison, 3 ib. 369 ; Adam vs. Norris, possession of it by the proper parties.

103 U. S. 591) PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. If a new patent would convey or relin

In the course of the controversy the RANCHO GUADALOUPE.

quish nothing not conveyed or relin- following writing was made upon the face Second Patent.--So long as a patent is outstand- quished by the present patent, then the of the patent of 1870, viz..: ing, a second patent cannot issue to the same issue of a new patent would be a vain

“ Canceled. See decision dated June party for the same land. The jurisdiction of thing. If a new patent would convey or 12, 1872, of General Land Office, affirmed its issue, and must be re-acquired before it relinquish something else, then I should by the honorable Secretary of the Intercan be again exercised. not be authorized to issue it in the absence ior, March 26, 1873.”

“WILLIS DRUMOND, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER McFaNLAND to J. K. Redingion, of jurisdiction to reopen the whole case,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, April 10, 1873." Washington, D. C., Jan. 29, 1883. J. W. 'L. and to decide it anew upon its merits. I have considered your application for

“DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Nearly thirteen years have now elapsed

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, the issue of a new patent for the Rancho since the patent in this case was issued.

Washington, D.C., April 24, 1873." Guadaloupe. The existing patent bears If officers who execute a patent may,

"This cancellation, dated April 10, 1873, date March 18, 1870, and its validity as within a proper time, and under circum- is hereby revoked by order of the Secreagainst the United States, in the absence stances of sufficient moment, replace that tary of the Interior. sent to and received of proper proceedings to set it aside, has patent with another on account of some at this office on the 23d day of April, A. been affirmed by the Circuit Court for Cal-defacement of the first, it is manifest that D., 1873. ifornia and the Supreme Court of the their successors are not equally able to do "WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Because of such writing upon the pat- There can be no doubt about the power Further notice of the precise time when ent, it is requested that a new patent be of your office to issue a patent while an- the office at Las Cruces will be opened for issued.

other is outstanding, but it must issue to the transaction of public business will be In the cases referred to, not only was serve some legal purpose. This right was given by the officers of the district by the validity of the patent expressly de- recognized in the case in the Supreme publication. clared, but the particular effect of the Court (supra). The question raised was Given under my hand at the City of writing as affecting its validity was con- as to the validity of the patent of 1870, Washington, this sixteenth day of March, sidered. Mr. Justice Field said : “ The when one patent had already been issued, A. D. 1883. indorsements on the copy produced show viz., that of 1866. The court said: “It is but By the President: a revocation by the Secretary of the can- the common case of a grantor who, having

N. C. McFARLAND, cellation directed by the Commissioner ; failed to convey what he was bound to

Commissioner of the General Land Office. and if titles can be affected in this irregu- convey, makes another deed to correct the lar way, can be divested and re-invested wrong. The deeds are not in conflict. If

RAILROADS. by indorsements of the officers of the the power of the land office was exhausted

EBERLE VS. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD land office upon its records, the revocation by the first deed, it was only so as to the

Co. BRANCH LINE. is of equal validity with the cancellation.” land which it included.” I do not deem it necessary to discuss at The issuing of new or further patents

Sub Judice.-Statement of facts showing that

the tract in question was within a Mexican length the question of the power of your in certain cases is a matter largely in your

grant sub judice when the railroad grant beoffice to issue a second patent. Justice discretion; and I do not think this De- came effective. It does not pass to the railField, in LeRoy vs. Jamison (supra), un- 'partment should interfere with such dis- road company. doubtedly states correctly what the prac- cretion, unless it is apparent that some SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFartice should be ; he says, “ Cases may often wrong has been done or some substantial land, February 5, 1883. occur where a second patent would be right denied. As no such reason appears I have considered the case of Christian necessary to prevent gross wrong to the in this case, I affirm your decision, and W. A. Eberle vs. the Southern Pacific patentee." And he instances a supposed decline to direct you to issue a new patent. Railroad Company Branch Line, involvcase of a confirmation of three distinct

ing the S. W. of Sec. 7, Tp. 1. S., R. 10 tracts, but by mistake two only are pat


W., S. B. M., Los Angeles District, Caliented; then, he says, upon a proper pre

fornia, on appeal by the company from sentation of the fact, a second patent


your decision of November 17, 1881, in might issue for the omitted tract, or one Indemnity School Selections.-Such selections favor of Eberle. patent embracing the three tracts tocannot be made of double minimum lands

The tract is within the twenty miles gether.

within railroad grants, though the lands lost
were double minimum in price.

(granted) limits of the company's grant In the present application it is conceded SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFar- by act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. 579), that there is no error in the patent. It

land, March 12, 1883.

which became effective April 3d. ensuing, covers exactly the land claimed, and except as to the endorsements upon it, it is Governor of Florida,

I have considered the appeal of the the withdrawal for which was made May

10th ensuing.

from your decision in the usual and proper form. Counsel of March 18, 1882, denying the right of

The tract was also embraced within the for the application, in his brief referring the state to select certain specified tracts claimed limits of the Rancho Azusa (jurto the decision cited, says:

These ques; of double minimum lands aggregating idical possession whereof was delivered to tions have been thus finally, definitely and 2,240 acres, in lieu of a deficit of like one Luis Arenas, A pril 26, 1842), but was forever settled, *

and we are in quiet, undisputed possession of every acre in certain fractional townships. quantity of double minimum lands situate

excluded therefrom by the survey made

U. S. Deputy Surveyor Hancock, in the of the land included in our patent" (being

It appears that the State, per List No. year 1858, and approved by the Surveyor the patent of 1870). But, notwithstand- 2, dated June 20, 1881, selected the tracts General of California in January, 1860. ing all this, we are still without the clean in question as indemnity school selections One Henry Dalton (who had, under date patent which the United States should under the provisions of the act of May of December 27, 1844, purchased said

us The applicant does not propose to sur-the same because said lands are double grantee), having filed exceptions to the

20, 1826 (4 Stat. 179), but you rejected grant claim from render the patent of 1870 to be canceled, minimum in price by reason of their being correctness of such survey, the U. S. Disand take a new one in place of it, and

in within the granted limits of the Gulf and trict Court overruled and dismissed the that respect I think he is quite right. Not West India Transit Railroad Company, same, December 9, 1864. only bas the land described in the patent whereas the lands lost are only double

Subsequently, November 21, 1867, at a been adjudged to belong rightfully to the minimum in price.

re-hearing had before said court upon the patentee, but the instrument of conveyance, the patent itself, has been declared ance with the Departmental rule govern

Inasmuch as your decision is in accord-question of survey, the court dismissed

such proceedings " for want of jurisdicto be valid by the highest tribunal in the ing all cases of such selections, i affirm tion," and remitted the same to the Surland. the same.

veyor General. That officer having apThe issuing of a new patent would serve

proved another survey of said rancho no purpose, except that of having a cleanly

(made by U. S. Deputy-Surveyor Thompinstrument.

No principle is involved.

son), forwarded the same to your office Indeed, the issuing of a new patent would

[No. 885.]

for definite action,” such survey quite likely raise a suggestion or suspicion


taining in the aggregate 18,211.21 acres” of infirmity in the old one, which, as we OF THE REMOVAL OF THE LAND OFFICE FROM in excess of the Hancock survey, and emhave seen, does not exist. The courts in LA MESILLA TO LAS CRUCES, NEw Mex- bracing a number of settlement claims exsuch a case would not, under the practice

cluded from the latter. relating to specific performance either as Notice is hereby given that the Presi- It having thus become necessary to pubto private or public lands, compel another dent of the United States, by executive lish such survey, pursuant to the provisions conveyance. It would be a sufficient an- order dated March 10, 1883, has, pursuant of the act of July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 332), swer that the party already had had a valid to law, directed that the office for the sale your office accordingly, May 6, 1868, reconveyance of all the land he claimed. of public lands, now located at La Mesilla, manded the surveys with instructions to The writings upon the patent of 1870 are a New Mexico, be removed to the town of publish the Hancock survey of 1858. nullity; the one neutralized the other, and Las Cruces, in said Territory, on or before This survey was sustained by the Decanceled the cancellation. May 1, 1883.

partment, September 20, 1872, and ap




proved and patented by your office, May claim to be surveyed and a plat to be made by said Attorney (Quinby vs. Conlin, 104 29, 1876, to Dalton.

thereof." Section 2 prescribes: "That the U. S. 420), was duly considered and found Subsequently, August 16, 1878, how- provisions of the preceding section shall to be inapplicable, for it will be observed ever, he filed an application to purchase apply to all surveys and plats by the Sur- that the question at issue in the case cited under the 7th section of the act of July veyor General of California heretofore was a segregation survey made pursuant to 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218), certain lands made, which have not already been ap- the provisions of the 8th section of the alleged to have constituted a portion of proved by one of the District Courts of the act of July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218), which the original grant of Azusa, which lands United States for California, or by the Com- was held not to be subject to the provisembraced the tract in question ; but such missioner of the General Land Office: Pro- ions of the act of July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., claim was rejected by this Department, vided, That where proceedings for the cor- 332), whereas the survey involved in the May 24, 1881.

rection or confirmation of a survey are case in question was subject to the latter It further appears that under date of pending on the passage of this act in act, as shown by my decision therein. June 28, 1881, Eberle applied at the local one of the said district courts, it shall be oflice to make homestead entry of the lawful for such district court to proceed tract, but his application was rejected on and complete its examination and deter

MINERAL PATENTS ISSUED. the ground that the tract was within the mination of the matter, and its decree Since our last report patents have been aforesaid railroad limits. He appealed thereon shall be subject to appeal to the issued for the following mining claims : from this action, alleging that at the date Circuit Court of the United States for the the company's grant became effective the district in like manner, and with like effect,

ARIZONA. tract was sub judice, or in a state of reser- as hereafter provided for appeals in other

Cachise County. vation by reason of an unadjusted Mexi- cases to the circuit court, and such appeals J. B. W. Gardiner et al., S. Ext. Grand can grant.

may be in like manner disposed of by said Central Lode. By your decision you sustained such circuit court.”'

CALIFORNIA. appeal, and under authority of Newhall As the aforesaid surveys and plats

Amador County. vs. Sanger (92 U. S., 761), permitted theretofore made by the Surveyor-General J. L. Goodman, Gold Mountain Overplus Qtz, Eberle - to make homestead entry of the had neither been approved by any of the Mine. land accordance with his application.” U. S. District Courts of California, nor by

Calaveras Connty. It was shown by the aforesaid decision the Commissioner of the General Land W. A. Wallace et al., Lost Boy Qtz. Mine. of September 20, 1872, that “in 1865 the Office, at the date of the approval of the

Napa County. land excluded by Hancock's survey was act in question, and as the proceedings

0. S. Roney et al., Mountain View Quicksubdivided, the plats were filed in the local for the correction of said surveys were silver Mine. office, rights were acquired under State“ pending on the passage of this act in

Necada County. possessory laws, pre-emption filings were one of the said district courts," it is quite

Nevada Cy. G. Qtz. Mg. Co., Nevada Cy. allowed." This was pursuant to the pro- manifest in the light of such express pro- Extn. G. Qtž. Mine. visions of the act of March 3, 1853 (10 visions that at the date the railroad grant

Sierra County. Stat., 244), as now embodied in section became effective, the tract in question was

Wm. F. Hanley, Hanley Qtz. Mine. 2280 R. S.

claimed in the proper tribunal, to be part It thus appears that the said rancho was of a Mexican grant, and that that claim

COLORADO. surveyed in the year 1858, and that the was sub judice pending the adjustment of

Boulder County. lands excluded therefrom were surveyed the same.

Conrad Bardill, True Blue Lode. as public lands in the year 1865. Such Undoubtedly a tract of land embraced

Sidney P. Haines, Logan Lode. decision was in accord with the invariable within a Mexican or Spanish grant claim

Chaffee County. practice that obtained at the date thereof; at the date a railroad grant becomes effec

Geo. Partridge, Brighton Lode. but it should be observed that the rulings tive is excepted from the operation of the Robert N. Scott, Iron Lode. and practice have since changed by reason same, because such® tract cannot be re

Clear Creek County. of the Supreme Court decision in the case garded as forming a part of the "public cited by you.

Andrew Altro et al., Chicago Lode. lands” of the United States, as such term Chas. P. Baldwin, Central Indiana and HighIt will be seen from the foregoing state- is defined by the U. S. Supreme Court in land Laddie Lodes. ment of facts, that while the rancho in the case cited. (See Departmental decis- J. S. Barker, Hercules Lode. question was surveyed in the year 1858, ion of June 8, 1882, in the case of the At- Harvey Bradley et al., Edinborough and

White Pine Lodes. approved by the Surveyor General in 1860, lantic and Pacific R. R. Co. vs. William

John Brennan et al., Columbian Chief Extn. and Dalton's exceptions to such survey Fisher, 9 Land Owner, 80.)

Lode. were overruled and dismissed by the court, As before stated, the company's grant R. P. Dewey et al., Great Republic Lode. it is nevertheless a fact that the same became effective April 3, 1871, the Han- Jacob J. Elliott et al., Donna Juanita Lode. tribunal subsequently dismissed the whole cock survey of said rancho was not ap

Jas. A. Fisher, Wolverine Lode. proceedings upon the question of survey, proved and patented by your office until

Julia F. Gorsline et al., Troy Lode.

H. M. Griffin, Dividend Lode and Mill Site. and this for want of jurisdiction, and re- May 29, 1876, and Eberle applied to make Geo. W. Hall, Crocus and Hartwell Lodes. mitted the same to the Surveyor General. homestead entry of the tract June 28, Jos. B. Johnson, Jack Frost Lode.

having thus been virtually determined 1881. I am therefore of the opinion that Wm. H. Lane, Hillsdale Lode. by a court of competent jurisdiction that the tract in question was reserved from

Robert 0. Old, Argyle Lode. the case fell neither within ihe purview of the operation of the company's grant, and

J. G. Pohié, Mammoth Lode.

Chas. W. Pollard, Amy Lode. the acts of March 3, 1851 (9 Stat., 631), that the same formed a part of the public John Quinane et al., Rapparee Lode. nor of June 14, 1860 (12 id., 33), it was land subject to homestead claim when Springfield S. Mg. Co., Snowy Range Lode. therefore competent for the Land Depart- Eberle applied to enter the same as such. Harvey M. Thompson et al., Maple Leaf ment to exercise the jurisdiction conferred

Your decision is accordingly affirmed.

G. B. Weeks, Bonanza Lode and Mill Site. upon it by virtue of the provisions of the

Chas. F. Wells et al., Alert and Tippecanoe act of July 1, 1864 (3 ibidem, 332). The SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. R. Co. vs. EBERLE. Lode. first section of this act imposed upon the Survey.— The Supremc Court decision in Quinby

Custer County. Surveyor General of California the duty of vs. Conlin does not apply to this case.

Chas. F. Blossom et al., Shetland Lode. giving notice by publication, as specifically SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Mc Far- Lucille Cons. Mg. Co., Lucille and Protection prescribed, that he had, in compliance land, February 13, 1883.

Lodes. with the 13th section of the said act of Before I rendered decision in the case

Dolores County. March 3, 1851, "caused any private land in question, the decision in the case cited Chas N. Cox, Harriette Lode.






Gilpin County.
Silver Bou County.

Wm. H. Burge, Hayes and Wheeler Lode. Oliver P. Blain et al., Elba Lode.

Nos. 1163, 1212, 1223, 1248, 1249, 1254, 1260, 1266, 1270,

1286, 1296, 1297, 1299 to 1310 inclusive, 1312 to 1317 incluMichael Klein, St. Clair Lode.

Jas. R. Clark et al.,

Washington Lode. sive, 1319, 1321, 1322. Rara Avis G. and S. Mg. Co., Mill Site. Myron Hutchison, Travonia Fraction Lode.

Jno. Turner et al., Susan Mary Lode.

Chas. X. Larrabie et al., Magnolia Lode. Nos. 752, 1064, 1090, 1096, 1097, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1104, 1105,
Gunnison County.
Sarah F. Murray et al., Arctic Lode.

1106, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115.

Chas. F. Mussing brod et al., Linchburg
H. R. Morris et al., J. W. Manning Lode.

Nos. 718, 1086, 1219, 1359, 1400, 1401, 1439, 1443, 1444, 1475, H. D. Pearsall, Green Horn Lode.

John M. Stuard et al., Rock Island Lode.

1489 to 1501 inclusive, 1503, 1505, 1506. Ruby S. Mg. and Sm. Co., Buckeye Lode. Wm. H. Young et al., Badger State Lode.

Virginia City M. and S. Co., Mill Site.

Lake County.


Nos. 98, 99, 106, 109, 111, 112, 113, 115. Beecher Cons. Mg. Co., Grace Greenwood

Esmeralda County. and Hector Lodes.

New York and Palmetto Mg. Co., Diamond, Nos. 52, 91, 94, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 109, 118, 124, 130, 131, Jno. W. Gaynor et al., Snow Storm Lode. Pearl, President, and Treasurer Lodes.

198, 199, 231, 251, 264, 278, 281, 285, 286.

PUEBLO. Grand Rapids M. and S. Co., Himmala Lode.

Storey County.

Nos, 638, 701, 911, 1074 1075, 1091, 1098, 1103, 1104, 1105, John H. Martin et al., Modoc Lode. Jobn D. Murphy et al., Belle Vernon Lode.

H. M. Clemans, Santa Rita Lode.

1106, 1113, 1117, 1118, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1227, 1128, 1133 to 1138

inclusive, 1142 to 1146 inclusive, 1162, 1177 to 1180 inOliver C. Obey et al., Sierra Nevada Lode.

clusive, 1182, 1184, 1222 to 1225 inclusive.

UTAH. Wm. D. Sanders, Elk Horn Lode.

DAKOTA John Thompson et al., Brown Queen Lode.

Beaver County.

Ouray County.
Frisco Mg. and Sm. Co., Rattler Lode.

Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
Chas. D. Woodhouse et al., Esmeralda Lode.
C. E. Schoellkopf et al., Silver Blossom Lode.

The Allied Mines, Emily, Crusader, Hidden

Millard County.

LEWISTON Treasure, Norma and Talisman Lodes and Wallis Brady et al., E. P. H. Lode.

Nos. 32, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 52, 53, 55,56, 57, 60, 61, 63, 65, Three Mill Sites.

81, 82, 93, 138, 145, 146, 174, 179, 183 to 189 inclusive, 191 to Salt Lake County.

195 inclusive. Park County.

Robert C. Chambers, Utah No. 2 and Utah Abington Mg. and Mi'g Co., Lizzie Abington No. 3 Lode.

Nos. 31, 187, 195, 203, 204, 205, 207 to 222 inclusive Lode.

Black Barnet Cons. Mg. Co., Little Mary Welles Lode.
Haskell and Welles Utah Mg. Co., General


Jos, Marion et al., Winnamuck Lode.

Nos. 5813, 6479, 6842, 6871, 7164, 7622 7855, 8203, 8386, 81 Geo. W. Brunk et al., Second Advent and

8834, 9067, 9541, 10058, 10063, 11018, 11041, 11089, 11090, 11097, Mammoth Lodes.

Summit County.

11102, 11108, 11121, 11122, 11123, 11126, 11127, 11128, 11141 to

11146'inclusive, 11148, 11149, 11150, 11152, 11155, 11156, 11157, S. R. Gay et al. Mary Adair Lode. Jno. J. Daly, Ottawa Lode.

11158, 11160, 11163 to 11167 inclusive, 11169, 11171, 11173, Jacob Houghton, Crown, Emerald and Re

11174, 11175, 11177 to 11180 inclusive, 11185, 11187, 11188 liance Lodes.

Tooele County.

11191 to 11197 inclusive, 11199, 11200 to 11208 inclusive,

11210, 11211, 11214, 11215, 11217, 11218. Geo. Jess, Nesbitt Lode.

D. S. Marshall et al., Belfast Lode. Jervis Joslin et al., Belle Peabody Lode.

Wasatch County.

Nos. 2453, 3553, 3755, 40:28. 4530, 4538, 4514, 4545, 4575, 4831, Seth A. McLean, Little Johnnie, Mud Sill

4842, 4955, 5006, 5011, 5022, 5034, 5089, 5045, 5075, 5080, 5081, and Revenue Lodes.

Thos. Steed et al., Norris Lode.

5087, 5095, 5098, 5101, 5111, 5114, 5116, 5118, 5125, 5127, 5129,

5144, 5162 to 5165 inclusive, 5167, 5168, 5170,5171, 5175, 5176, August Riscle et al., New York Lode.

5178, 5179, 5183, 5184, 5187, 5189, 5191, 5192.
Pitkin County.

Nos. 2199, 2202. 2500 to 2516 inclusive, 2518 to 2526 inC. Markell et al., Jay Gould and Washington

clusive, 2529 to 2544 inclusive, 2546 to 2566 inclusive. No. 2 Lodes. Copp's LAND Owner for this month reports the

San Juan County.
following Homestead Patents issued and sent

Nos. 5657, 6549, 6693, 6706, 6738, 6764, 6768, 6807, 6822, 6824, to the below-named land-offices :

6825, 6828, 6830 to 6833 inclusive, 6835 to 6842 inclusive, Chicago Enterprise G. and S. Mg. Co., White

6846, 6847, 6849 to 6852 inclusive, 6854 to 6858 inclusive, Lode.


6861, 6862, 6863, 6865 to 6870 inclusive, 6872, 6873, 6874. Peter P. Kennedy et al., Gilmore Lode.

John Monroe et al., Many Spur Lode.
Nos. 340, 497, 648, 1197, 1497, 1504, 1722, 2077, 2110, 2146,

Nos. 1609, 2497, 2618, 2010, 2661, 2662, 2661, 2665, 2666, 2667, San Juan Cons. Mg. and Mig Co., Little 2105 2310.2973275; 2379: 2994; 22305; 236, 2358: 123805 to 2362 2669

, 2670, 272, 273, 2671, 275, 277, 2678, 2678, 2680, 2083, Giant Lode.

2394, 2395, 2399, 2400, 2405, 2407, 2408, 2409, 2411, 2412, 2413, Summit County.

2416, 2417, 2422, 2424, 2438, 2442, 2413, 2444, 2445, 2446, 2448,

2453, 2455, 2459, 2463, 2469, 2472, 2475,2477,2478,2481,2482,2484, Hays City and Wa Keeney Series, Nos. 18, 682, 732, 733, B. M. Arms et al., Sallie P. Lode.

2485, 2487, 2492, 2498, 2499, 2500, 2502, 2504, 2506, 2508, 2509, 734, 743, 748, 755, 759, 760, 779, 781, 789, 792, 795, 797, 801, 807, Clifton Cons. Mg. 0., Black Bess and Ouray 2539, 2541, 2542, 2543, 2551, 2556, 2566, 2568, 2570. 2510, 2512, 2513, 2514, 2519, 2527, 2530, 2532, 2533, 2534, 2535, 808 and 814.

Nos. 813, 821, 823, 826, 827, 828, 829, 831, 832, 839, 840, 841, Lodes.

844, 845, 847 to 852 inclusive, 854, 855, 856, 678, 860, 861, 862,

ARKANSAS. Chas. F. Cuno et al., Great Western Lode.

867, 868, 869, 870.

Wm. H. Eckbert et al., Saw Log Placer
Nos. 1872, 2668.

No. 3576.

LOUISIANA. Chas. L. Hall et al,, Elk Mountain Lode.

Nos. 317, 1738, 1760, 1829, 1836, 1841, 1859, 1866, 1889, 1893, 0. H. Harker et al., Hancock Lode.

1917, 1932, 1949, 1979, 1982, 1983, 2045, 2046, 2048, 2058, 2077, Nos. 242, 244, 315, 1232, 1240, 1245, 1248, 1313, 1314, 1316, J. B. Hoeing et al., Gulch Lode.

2085, 2113, 2187, 2228, 2232, 2234, 2241, 2242, 2264, 2291, 2341, 1318, 1323, 1333, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1345, 1347, 1374, 1977, 1381, John E. Iszard, Ætna and Vesuvius Lodes. 2404, 215, 217, 2425, 2432, 2444, 2448, 2449, 2451, 2456 2469, 1442, 1449 1451, 1452, 1453, 1457, 1462, 1463, 1961, 1470, 1471,

2342, 2347, 2348, 2353, 2359, 2362, 2364, 2371. 2375, 2400, 2402 1399, 1411, 1421, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, L. D. Kneeland et al., Matchless Lode. 2476, 2479, 2480, 2482, 2488 to 2492 inclusive, 2494, 2495, 2500, 1472, 1474, 1475, 1476, 1477, 1480, 1482. Lennox Mg. and Mi'g Co., Owosso Lode. 2512, 2515, 2518, 2521, 2529, 2540, 2545, 2553, 2559, 2571, 2574, 2583, 2594, 2599, 2604, 2606, 2617, 2630, 2636, 2638 to 2677 in

MICHIGAN. Lombard Mg. Co., Excelsior Lode.

clusive, 2679 to 2686 inclusive, 2754, 2839, 2875, 2876 to A. Mayer et al., Collina Lode.

2879 inclusive, 2882 to 2886 inclusive, 2888, 2889, 2890, 2892 Albert Mead et al., Ogden Lode. to 2913 inclusive, 2915 to 2923 inclusive, 2925 to 2930 in

Traverse City Series, No. 2265. D. A. Recen et al., Queen of the West Lode. clusive, 2932, 2933, 2935, 2937, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2944 to

MINNESOTA. Fred. W. Rose et al., St. Louis Boy and St. 2973, 2976, 2978, 2981 to 2985 inclusive, 2988 to 2999 inclu

BENSON. Louis Pride Lodes. sive, 3003 to 3020 inclusive, 3022, 3023, 3025, 3027, 3028.

Litchfield and Benson Series, Nos. 1646, 1647, 4373, Dan'l B. Webster et al., Crockett Lode. 3030, 3031, 3033, 3034, 3036, 3038, 3039, 3040, 3041, 3042.

4377, 4531, 4695, 4698, 4720, 4924, 4928, 5138, 5173, 5201, 5236, CALIFORNIA,

Laurence County.

Nos. 695, 858, 862, 867, 885, 897, 898, 899, 907, 911, 931, 940,
Nos. 226, 228, 231, 232, 234, 238, 240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 945, 948, 966, 978, 982, 986, 2018, 1019, 1031, 1038, 1052, 1053
Little Giant Gold My. Co. of Dak., Little 251, 255, 264, 268, 274, 275, 293, 307, 308, 346, 375, 407, 427, 494, 1055, 1058, 1062, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1078 to 1082
Giant Lode.
537, 584 to 598 inclusive, 600, 601, 602, 603.

inclusive, 1085 to 1089 inclusive, 1092, 1094, 1096, 1097, IDAHO.

1099, 1101, 1102, 1107 to 1110 inclusive. Washington County.

Nos. 185, 440, 467, 471, 475, 481, 482, 487, 503 to 509 inclu-
Levi Allen et al., Peacock Copper Lode.
sive, 511, 512, 513, 515, 516, 517, 518, 521, 522, 523, 524.

No. 2900.

No. 517.

No. 2452, in the name of Carl L. Wegner.
Jefferson County.

No. 1436.
Sam’l Neel et al., Free Gold and Pay Up

Nos. 1876, 2224, 2265, 2428, 3107.3114, 3150, 3259, 3279, 3563,


3583, 3584, 3611, 3683, 3707, 4149, 4387. Nos. 624, 1922, 2040, 2069, 2075, 2082, 2083, 2084, 2086, 2 088 New Ulin Series, Nos. 2431 and 4598 to 4607 inclusive. F. P. Sterling et al., Placer. to 2096 inclusive, 2093 to 2108 inclusive,

Nos. 4275, 4353, 4376, 4378, 4380, 4381, 4382, 4386, 4388, 4390,














« ZurückWeiter »