that he had complied with legal require- ficiently specific touching the exact extent Your decision is reversed; and inasmuch ments. He also filed his affidavit, cor- of the claimed limits of Los Nogales, to as the inquiry in this case has been diroborated by the joint affidavit of two enable my predecessor to decide whether rected to the ascertainment of what were other persons, setting forth that he is the the lots in question were in fact within the the lands, if any, within the claimed or identical person who filed declaratory same, he directed you, under date of Jan- exterior limits of Los Nogales Rancho at statement No. 22 for the premises; "that uary 29th last, to transmit as soon as prac- the date when the railroad grant became said declaratory statement was made out ticable office copies of the "petition, opin- effective, you will apply the findings in in the name of William Thompson through ion and decree of the U. S. District Court this decision to all cases that may arise a mistake committed by the agent em- for the Southern District of California, involving the railroad right. ployed to draw it up; and that this affiant rendered January 16, 1857, in the case of was not aware of the mistake in the name Maria de Jesus Garcia et al., confirming because he was unable to read or write the their title to the grant in question." AgreeEnglish language." ably to said direction, you submitted, by letter of the 15th ultimo, certain papers, among which were those specified.

This is a case of misnomer where the party has been ascertained, and such mistake in the name must be regarded as immaterial and as ground for merely a technical objection.

HOLLADAY VS. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY, BRANCH LINE.

Mexican Grant.-Specific Boundaries.-Where a Mexican grant is confirmed by specific and well defined boundaries-land claimed by the grantee outside such boundaries will not be excepted thereby from a railroad grant which took effect sub judice.

SECRETARY KIRKWOOD to Commissioner McFarland, April 18, 1881. (S. W. R.)

MISCELLANEOUS.

TOWN OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO. Status of the private land claim of this town.

Act of July 22, 1854.

COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Henry M. Atkin-
son, U. S. Surveyor General, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, July 10, 1883.
(J. R. D.)

In the matter of the private land claim of the town of Albuquerque, in New Mexico, No. 130, now before me, the following proceedings are shown by the record to have been had:

Upon examining the same I find that the court last aforesaid, by decree rendered January 16, 1857, after reciting that this cause having been heard upon appeal from the final decision of the "Board of U. S. Land Commissioners" by virtue of and pursuant to the provisions of the act of March 3, 1851 (9 Stats. 631), affirmed the deci- On the 25th of July, 1881, Breeden & sion of the said commissioners, whereby Hazeldine, Esqs., of Albuquerque, Attorthe title of the appellees, Maria de Jesus neys in behalf of Ambrosio Armijo and Garcia et al. (widow, and heirs at law of nine others, named and designated as José de la Luz Linares, who died seized" President" and "Commissioners," and of the Rancho Los Nogales), was con- (as expressed in their application) "divers I have considered the case of T. D. Hol-firmed; that the lands of which confirma- other parties not here named, as property laday vs. The Southern Pacific Railroad tion was made are to the extent of "one owners at this time in the town of AlbuCompany, branch line, involving lot 1 of square league and no more, and are known querque and its vicinity," filed their petisection 27, and lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of section as Los Nogales," being the same lands tion before you, under the 8th section of 33, twp. 1 south, range 9 west, S. B. M., which were granted to the said Linares on the act of Congress of July 22, 1854 (10 Los Angeles district, California, on appeal March 13, 1840, by Juan B. Alvarado, who Stat., 308), praying that the claim, consistby the company from your decision of was then Governor of California; that the ing of four square Spanish leagues, having April 27, 1880, holding that the lots in said lands are specifically described as fol- for its center the flagstaff and adobe monquestion were embraced within the claimed lows, to wit: "Bounded by the Rancho ument in the middle of the plaza or public limits of the Rancho Los Nogales, and named San José by the Arroyo or ditch square in the town of Albuquerque, might permitting Holladay to make pre-emption for the water which comes from the same be investigated by you and recommended filing for said lots. place by the Walnut Grove (con el rumbo to Congress for confirmation. inmediato a los Nogales) and by the ditch for the water which comes from the point of the hills towards Los Nogales, and for a more particular description of the said lands hereby confirmed, reference is hereunto had to the said grant, map and testimonial of juridical possession on file in this case."

By my predecessor's decision of June 19, 1879 (wherein the facts in the case are recited at length), Holladay's application to file a pre-emption claim for said lots was allowed, provided it should appear at the hearing thereby directed to be had, "that the tracts in question were, in fact, within the claimed limits of Los Nogales." It was also held in said decision that Upon the original diseño these streams the land embraced in the exterior-bounda- are found clearly delineated as " Agua qe ries of this grant was undoubtedly claimed, biene de San José" and "Agua qe biene de by the confirmees of the same until June la punta de las Lomas," respectively, cor20, 1871, when the final decree on survey responding to what are now shown by the was rendered, and that the survey in question having remained sub judice until a date subsequent to April 3, 1871, when the right of the road attached, the lands embraced in the claimed limits of the grant were not released from reservation prior thereto, and were not therefore public lands subject to the company's grant when it took effect, and did not enure thereto.

approved survey as San José creek and Phillips creek, uniting at the extremity of the claim and forming with the line of the Rancho de San José the three designated boundaries of Los Nogales according to the decree of confirmation. From the rendition of the decree it must accordingly be held that no lands not found within the intersection of these streams could be Thus its right to lands within the claimed treated or considered as within the claimed limits of Los Nogales having been deter- limits of the Los Nogales grant, nor could mined adversely, that question is no longer any survey of the same be extended on before this department for consideration. either side thereof. (See section 7 of the The hearing was had October 20, 1879, act of July 1, 1864, 13 Stats. 332). And pursuant to the direction in said decision as a matter of fact it appears that the contained. The testimony is to the effect that the witnesses know the lines of the said grant, and that the lots in question were within the claimed limits of the same. The testimony in question not being suf

lines of the public surveys were extended
over the adjoining lands in township 2
south, range 9 west, embracing a part of
the grant, and the plat was approved and
filed accordingly.

Under date of September 5, 1882, you made report of your examination of the case, setting forth the testimony produced, with your opinion holding the claim to be valid, and recommending its confirmation by Congress to the inhabitants of the town. Afterwards (the date of filing not shown) De Witt Stearns and Thomas G. Douglas, claiming to be honorably discharged soldiers of the United States, presented their petition to you, stating that they had filed their declarations with the Register at Santa Fé, of their intention to enter under the homestead laws, two specified sections (being part of the lands embraced within the limits of the private claim), which declarations, they say, were rejected by the Register, for the reason that the Commissioner of the General Land Office had withdrawn the land from entry, pending the adjudication of the private claim.

They state, in objection to your report, in substance:

That the hearing in the case of the private claim was ex parte, only the petitioners therein being represented.

That there are facts relating to the private claim, in addition to those introduced, which should be brought before you, to wit:

That all or nearly all of the two quarter sections which they sought to enter are

situated above the acequias, and have never been used for cultivation or grazing, being sand hills, not productive of any thing, and up to within two years regarded as of no value.

That about two years before, when there was a prospect that said land would soon have a value, several persons who are among the petitioners for the private claim, who had never before claimed beyond the acequias, went upon the sand hills, staked off the ground and claimed to hold it by virtue of assignments under the Spanish grant.

That there never was a grant from Spain to the town of Albuquerque of the dimensions and location set forth, as is made manifest by applying the laws of Spain relied upon by the petitioners for the private claim, for the reason that it would conflict with other towns or settlements situated less than five leagues away, and, therefore, within the prohibition contained in law VI., of Spain, cited by the original petitioners; and they specify the town of Pajarita and other settlements and grants as being within the prescribed distance:

That, as shown by the exhibits accompanying the original petition, the lands in and about Albuquerque, were held by Spanish grants from the crown to individuals in severalty: and that, by the Spanish law, lands granted in severalty, when once abandoned, reverted to the crown:

That the claimants to those lands in the original petition, hold by titles showing the proper metes and bounds, and such as the present laws recognize and the Courts are competent to protect:

That the two quarter sections referred to, were, at the date of the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, unoccupied and abandoned, and became the property of the United States, and ought to be subject to the petitioners' entry:

That the prayer of the original petition is indefinite, asking for title to an indefinite number of persons, and if granted will only complicate the titles to all the lands

in the tract:

A transcript of the record in triplicate, embracing the foregoing proceedings was transmitted by you to this office with your letter of Feb. 28, 1883.

Under date of March 12, 1883, John J. Johnson, Esq., of this city, as attorney for Stearns and Douglas, filed in this office additional objections "Against the opinion and report of the Surveyor-General," which have relation, as above purports to your decision upon the private claim.

One of said objections only, your "denying them" (the objectors) "the right to prove that said lands were uncultivated and uninhabited," has reference to your decision denying their petition for a rehearing.

I have considered the matter alleged as grounds for a rehearing, and am of opinion that they do not, as regards the substance of the application, bring the case within the rules.

The Surveyor-General is not required by the statute nor the instructions of the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, to give notice of the examination of private claims under foreign grants before him; and, as appears from the records, these examinations in his office have been uniformly ex parte.

In

The same was the practice as to claims of like character before the Land Commissioner in California, as far as related to adverse claims and outside parties. The Two principal matters are thus pre- Commissioner there as well as the Sursented for consideration: the appeal from veyor-General in New Mexico, was required your conclusion and recommendation ap- to decide upon the validity of the claims proving the private claim, and the appeal presented; but in neither case has that refrom your decision denying a rehearing. quirement been held to authorize the adFirst: The 8th Section of the Act of judication of contests between conflicting July 22, 1854, which authorizes and directs claims; consequently the giving of notice the proceedings before the Surveyor-Gen- to outside parties was not necessary. The eral, in cases of land claims in New Mexico, issue in both cases, is between the grant under grants from Spain or Mexico, makes claimants and the United States. it his duty "under such instructions as cases before the California Commission may be given by the Secretary of the In- the United States was represented by a terior, to ascertain the origin, nature, special agent appointed for the purpose. character and extent of all claims to lands, In the New Mexico cases the government under the laws, usages and customs of appears to have been represented solely Spain and Mexico. * * * He shall by the Surveyor-General. make a full report on all such claims as originated before the cession of the Territory to the United States * * *with his decision as to the validity or invalidity of each of the same * * * which report shall be laid before Congress for such action therein, as may be just and proper," etc.

I am not aware that an appeal from the report of the Surveyor-General in any of the numerous cases reported under this act, has ever before been attempted. A direct decision of this office or the Department as to the right of appeal, cannot therefore be referred to; but the language of the statute is plain, and precludes the idea of such an appeal. The SurveyorAnd thereupon they ask that the case General is required to ascertain the parbe reopened and reheard before you, and ticulars indicated, and make a full report that it may be decided by you to disallow thereof; which report is the matter to be the petition of the original petitioners on laid before Congress for such action the ground that they are sufficiently pro- thereon as may be just and proper. Contected in their vested rights by the present gress has called for no other action nor laws; and that you recommend to this of-expression from any one; and has reserved fice and to Congress, that the two quarter to itself the final decision upon the claim sections referred to are part of the public as reported. By prescribing specifically domain and subject to the claim and entry sought to be made by them.

On the 15th of December, 1882, you rendered your decision, reviewing the several allegations and arguments advanced, and denying the prayer of the petition:

And under the date of December 18, 1882, Messrs. Stearns and Douglas presented to you a petition, in which they "pray and appeal " to this office from your opinion and recommendation upon the original petition in the case of the private claim, and also from your decision rejecting their application for a rehearing.

that the basis of its action shall be the re-
port of the Surveyor-General, it has nega-
tived the supposition that such report can
be subject to revisions, modification or re-
jection, by any power or authority short of
its own. It has authorized no intermediate
tribunal nor agent to act in the premises.
The proceeding for appeal is not accom-
panied by proof of service on the opposite
party, as required by the rules.

Second: The rules provide that rehear-
ings "will be allowed in accordance with
legal principles applicable to motions for
new trials at law."

The land sought to be entered by the objectors is shown by the plat annexed to their petition for rehearing to be within the claimed limits of the private claim. The facts alleged that the two quarter sections referred to have never been used for cultivation or grazing, etc.; that about two years before, several persons among the petitioners of the private claim, who had never before claimed beyond the acequias, went upon the same, staked off the ground and claimed to hold it by virtue of assignments under the Spanish grant; and that said two quarter sections were at the date of the treaty of acquisition unoccupied and abandoned, would therefore, if proved, be immaterial and inadmissible. It may, in case of confirmation of the claim, be competent evidence towards determining the correct location.

The proof of the existence of other towns or settlements within the alleged five leagues limitation, and the claim that therefore there was no grant to Albuquerque of the demensions and locality claimed, would raise a question in the case not within your province to determine.

The Surveyor-General is by the statute required to report upon the origin, etc., of claims presented with his opinion as to their validity (which has been practically determined to relate to their regularity and genuineness), not to hear and determine contests between conflicting grants. It often occurs that there are overlapping grants, each regular and "valid" upon its face. In such cases, the duty of the Surveyor-General is to report upon each by itself, and according to its character, in his judgment, for genuineness; and such

has been the practice. The questions of priority and superiority of title are not passed upon by officers of the Executive Department, but are left to the proper judicial tribunals. This testimony would, therefore, be inadmissible if a rehearing should be ordered.

ment, etc.

The conclusions reached are:
1. That appeal does not lie to this office
from your report on the private claim.
2. That the appeal taken therefrom is
ineffective for want of notice to the oppo-
site party.

land confirmed did not embrace those in question, nor any portion of them; neither were they included in any survey made pursuant to the decree, nor previously. Subsequently they were surveyed by the United States, and, as already stated, 3. That the grounds alleged for re-hear- were selected by and approved to the ing do not sustain the motion for re-hearing. State of California. This action was evi4. That the motion for re-hearing is in- dently taken in the view that they were formal and invalid for want of notice to not at the date of survey in 1858, nor at the opposing party, and of the affidavit re-dates of selection in 1869, within the limquired by rule 78. its of the Los Nogales grant claim, but were public lands, and subject to disposal as such.

The inference drawn from what is claimed to be shown by the exhibits introduced before you by the grant claimants, could only be employed by way of argument to show that under alleged provisions of Spanish law, such a grant as you 5. That both appeals be dismissed. have reported could not have been made; The transcript in the case with the obthe lands in question being held by indi- jections, argument and accompanying viduals in severalty, subject to abandon-papers filed in this office by Mr. Johnson, and a copy of this decision will be transThe lands under town or community mitted to Congress in due course. grants, portions of them, at least, are set You will give notice to Messrs. De Witte off to individuals and held in severalty, Stearns, and Thomas G. Douglas, of this and are subject to transfer, abandonment, decision, and that I shall suspend action and in case of abandonment to be regranted. on the case at issue for twenty days from The exhibits referred to were part of the the service of such notice, to enable them testimony in the case as presented, and to apply to the Honorable Secretary of the doubtless received due consideration. Interior for an order in accordance with There is no allegation that they did not. rules 83 and 84, and advise this office of The prayer of the claimant's petition does the date of service of such notice. [July not give shape to the confirmation, if con- 17, 1883, the Secretary declined to interfirmation be made. That is within the con- fere in this case.-ED.] trol of Congress. A re-hearing would have no effect upon the prayer of the petition. But, aside from matter of substance, the objectors did not comply with the rules as regards form and practice.

Rule 71 provides that:

"The proceedings in hearings and contests before surveyors general shall, as to notices, depositions, and other matters, be governed, as nearly as may be, by the rule prescribed for proceedings before registers and receivers, unless otherwise provided by law."

Rule 76 provides that:

"Motions for re-hearings before registers and receivers * * * will be allowed in accordance with legal principles applicable to motions for new trials at law after due notice to the opposing party."

The petitions of the claimants is subscribed by their attorneys, whose residence is stated; but no notice is shown to have been given them.

VEJAR ET AL. VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Act of July 23, 1866.-Reasonable Time.-The
grantee who claims land by juridical posses-
sion outside his confirmed Mexican grant
must, under the act of July 23, 1866, purchase
the same within a reasonable time.

ACTING SECRETARY JOSLYN to Commissioner
Mc Farland, Sep. 13, 1883.
(F. L. C.)

SIR I have considered the case of Ri-
cardo Vejar et al. vs. the State of Califor-
nia, on appeal by the first named from
your decision of October 9, 1882, rejecting
their application to purchase under the
provisions of section of the act of July
23, 1866, certain lands in townships 1 and
2 south, range 9 west, S. B. M., Los An-
geles, California.

The application to purchase is based upon the averment that the lands applied for were within the claimed limits of the Los Nogales (Mexican) grant.

The State appears as contestant because nearly all the lands in question have been selected by and listed to it as indemnity school lands, and it has in turn sold and conveyed them by patent to individual

If that view was correct, then the present application to purchase has no legal basis. That it was correct does not appear to me to be a matter of doubt. The decree of confirmation settled the title, not as to a portion of the Los Nogales grant, but as to all of it. No land, therefore, not included within the boundaries named in the decree, could be treated or regarded as forming a part of the grant claim.

It is not claimed that the lands in question are within the limits of the confirmed grant, nor that the confirmation did not settle and fix the title to the grant as an entirety.

Per contra, it is admitted that they are outside the boundaries specified in the decree of confirmation, and were not included in any survey made thereunder; but the right to purchase is contended for on the ground that they were within the limits of the old juridical measurement of the grant, and were not affected by the decree of confirmation, but remained in reservation.

The boundaries of the grant as desig nated in the decree, and as shown by the approved survey, form a triangle, one side of which is the line of the Rancho San Jose, the second San Jose creek, and the third Phillips creek, the two creeks diverging from point of cofluence until they meet and intersect said line of the Rancho San Jose. This Department had occasion in its decision of April 18, 1881, in the case of T. D. Holladay vs. the Southern Pacific Railroad Company*, involving lands adjacent to those now in controversy, to discuss and decide the very question here involved, to wit, the effect of the decree confirming the title to the Los Nogales grant upon the lands exterior and adjacent to the boundaries of said grant as confirmed. That decision, after setting forth that the boundaries of the grant as delineated upon the original diseño correspond to those named in the decree and The lands were never within the limits shown by approved survey, uses the folI shall not at this time consider whether of the Los Nogales grant, and in no proper lowing language: "From the rendition the objectors have acquired a standing in or legal sense can it be said that they were of the decree, it must accordingly be held regard to the land in question, which en- within the claimed limits of said grant. that no lands not found within the intertitles them to appear in this case, their ap- The decree of confirmation which fixed section of these streams, (San Jose creek peals from the register's objection of their the title specifically defined the bounda- and Phillips creek,) could be treated as declaration being pending undecided. It ries and extent of the land granted. These within the claimed limits of the Los Nogais possible that the proceedings taken boundaries were natural and well known les grant, nor could any survey be ex

Rule 78 requires that: "Motions for re-hearings and reviews must be accompanied by an affidavit of the party or his attorney that the motion is made in good faith, and not for the pur-purchasers. pose of delay."

No affidavit containing the declaration required by the rule, or its equivalent, accompanies the petition for re-hearing or is found in the case.

would give them preference rights, in case the private claim should be rejected by Congress, or, if confirmed, the land should be found to be not embraced within it.

I concur in the conclusion reached by you, that the applicants have no valid claim under or by virtue of the 7th section of the act of 1866.

landmarks, and correspond to the boun-
daries named in the grant, including no
more, no less. The decree of confirmation
was entered January 16, 1857, and the

tended upon either side thereof."

I see no reason for holding a different

*Published herein,

view, and as the decree recognized the grant as applied for, by the original boundaries presented in the claim, and constituting the original description, no survey or other diagram having included more, the said boundaries must have governed prior to the confirmation as well as since. On this point I can not do better than to quote from U. S. Circuit Court decision in the case of Dodge vs. Perez, (2 Sawyer, 645,) which decision has reference to the same grant, and involves the identical question presented here, to wit, the rights of Vejar under the Los Nogales grant, and from which, though more than eleven years have elapsed, no appeal so far as I am aware has been taken.

In that case the judge says, "The language of the decree construed, being the exact language of the grant, so far as the question at issue is concerned, the construction of the decree is necessarily the construction of the grant. The boundaries of the grant were held to be two creeks mentioned in it, and laid down on the diseño, and the boundary of the San Jose rancho. The same construction was given to the grant examined by the light of the evidence by two district judges, who at different times decided the question, and by the justice of the Supreme Court assigned to the Circuit. * well-defined natural boundaries could not be disregarded without a manifest disregard of the language of the grant, the plain delineations of the objects on the diseño, and the testimony of witnesses as to the topography of the country."

* *

* These

But if it be assumed that the land in controversy was purchased in good faith under the Los Nogales grant, I can perceive no very strong equities in favor of the applicants as against the purchasers from the State, and I should hesitate to disturb the rights covered by patents and by long possession thereunder.

ment as to the legality and propriety of
the approval.

The title was thus passed to the State
under the forms of law and in accordance
with the law as interpreted by the officers
making the transfer.

There is therefore little room for equitable consideration of applicants' claim. Your decision denying their right to purchase is affirmed.

OMAHA INDIAN LANDS.

How and when these lands will be offered for

sale.

ACTING COMMISSIONER HARRISON to Hon. Chas.
F. Manderson, Omaha, Neb., Aug. 14, 1883.
(H. W.)

John Dupuy et al., California No. 2 Lode.
Chaffee County.

H. C. Bostwick, Gold Stone Lode and Mill
Site.

F. McClure, Rob't Wilson Lode.
Clear Creek County.

M. M. Chambers, Alpine Lode.
Chas. I. Dreifus, Cincinnati Lode.
Lebanon Ming. Co., Tom Ollive Lode and
Mill Site.

Custer County.

Chas. Goodnight, Franklin Lode.
Dolores County.
David A. Cook et al., Merrimac Lode.
Jas. B. Ross et al., Sinbad Lode.
Gunnison County.
Wm. T. Holt, Republic Lode.
Lake County.
Chas. J. Dold et al., Tucson Lode.
Chas. Hawks et al., Tip Top Lode.
John H. Reed, Alicante Lode.
Thos. F. Walsh, Dinero Lode.
La Plata County.
W. E. Webb et al., Allie Davis, Hercules,
Moonstone, and Red Rover Lodes.

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th inst., asking when the Omaha Indian lands will be offered for sale: "What will be the course of settlement and sale?" In reply you are advised that the act of August 7, 1882, provides for the sale of the unallotted lands lying west of the right of way granted by said Indians to the Sioux City and Marcus W. Rasbach, Bobtail, Boom and Nebraska Railroad Company. After the survey (if necessary,) and appraisement of Upper Union T. and M. Co., Esperanza, these lands, the Secretary of the Interior Pickard, Sampson and Sir John Lodes and Mill is authorized to issue proclamation to the Site. effect that the same are open for settlement under such rules as he may prescribe. At any time within one year after the date of such proclamation, each settler occupying any portion of said lands and having valuable improvements thereon, who is a citizen of the United States, or who has declared his intention of becoming such, shall be entitled to purchase for cash, the land so occupied and improved by him, not to exceed one hundred and sixty acres in each case. The Secretary may dispose of these lands on the following terms as to payment, that is to say, one-third to become payable one year from date of entry, one-third in two years and one-third in The applicants under the grant found three years from said date, with interest the lands already surveyed as public lands at rate of five per centum per annum; but at the date of the passage of the act of no portion of said land shall be sold at 1866; they saw them pass to the State, less than the appraised value thereof, and and from the State to its purchasers for in no case at less than two dollars and fifty The commissioners provalue; they saw these purchasers enter cents per acre. into possession and place improvements vided for by the above act, have been apupon the land, and yet their application to pointed and are at present engaged in appurchase was not presented until Septem- praising these lands, but I am unable to ber, 1872, six years after the passage of say when their labors will be completed, the act under which they claim, and two and no action can be taken in the matter or three years after the approval of the of issuing proclamations and instructions lands to the State. The act of 1866 speciuntil the list of appraisement is received fies no time within which purchase may be and approved by the Department. made, but, as indicated in Dodge vs. Perez (supra), the application should be made. within a reasonable time. The law does not contemplate that the privilege should be held open indefinitely, thus defeating the general policy of the Government as to the disposal and settlement of the public domain.

The patents from the State are regular

and valid on their face.

The selections were made by the State and approved to it by the proper officers, who acted on their discretion and judg-'

MINERAL PATENTS ISSUED. Since our last report, patents have been issued for the following mining claims:

ARIZONA.

Pima County.
Dana Harmon, Bradford, Delta and Salvation
Lodes.
the Morning Star Lode.
Morning Star Extn. Mg. Co., Extension of

E. B. Salsig et al., Forty-nine Lode.

CALIFORNIA.

Butte County.
C. E. Kusel, Elmwood Placer,

Ouray County.

John R. Curry et al., Belcher Lode.
Park County.

Thos. W. Duffy, Galveston Lode.
New Haven Mining Co., Modoc Lode.
Pitkin County.

Pitkin Co. Mg. Co. et al., Buckhorn No. 2, and Carbonate Chief Lodes.

Rio Grande County.
John R. Burrows et al., Empire Lode.
San Juan County.

Moline S. Mining Co., Fire King Lode.
San Juan and N. Y. M. and S. Co., Legal
Tender Lode.

Oscar F. Smith, Sr., Valley Forge Lode.
Sultan Mountain S. Mg. Co., Avalanche Lode.
I. X. L. Tunnel Co., Lucy Lode.
Summit County.

D. D. Belden, Bird, Little Chicago, Little
Ella and Louise Lodes.

Conara S. Mg. Co., A. B. Robbins, Hope and
Norse Lodes.

B. F. Follet et al., Batavia Lode.
Edward Lowe et al., Bob Emmett Lode.
J. McCreighton (Trustee), Gold Fish and
Red Lion Lodes.

Frederick Ware et al., Candler Placer Mine.

DAKOTA.

Lawrence County.

Moses S. Emery et al., Katahdin Lode.

General Jackson Mg. Co., Lightning, Silver, 3651 inclusive, 3654, 3655, 3656, 3660, 3661, 3662, 3664 to 3671 and Trump Quartz Mines.

Nos. 1425, 1493, 1622, 1675, 2064, 2493, 2764, 2810, 3229, 3293, Nos. 1013, 1045, 1446, 1472, 1476, 1504, 1507, 1508, 1510 to 3698, 3706, 3709, 3710, 3714, 3716, 3722, 3729, 3730, 3732, 3733, 1517 inclusive, 1520, 1522 to 1532 inclusive." 3737, 3747, 8749, 3752, 3754, 3755, 3756, 3760, 3761, 3762, 4594, 4998, 5115, 5147, 5211, 5216, 5440, 5508, 5584, 5606, 5614 and 5653.