« ZurückWeiter »
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 thắt 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
MISCELLANEOUS. 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 status of the private land claim of this town.
Town of ALBUQUERQUE, NEw Mexico, This is a case of misnomer where the letter of the 15th ultimo, certain papers,
Act of July 22, 1854. party has been ascertained, and such mis- among which were those specified.
COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Henry M. Atkintake in the name must be regarded as im- Upon examining the same I find that
8on, U. S. Surveyor General, Santa Fe, New material and as ground for merely a tech- the court last aforesaid, by decree rendered Mexico, July 10, 1883.
(J. R. D.) nical objection.
January 16, 1857, after reciting that this In the matter of the private land claim
cause having been heard upon appeal from of the town of Albuquerque, in New MexHOLLADAY VS. SOUTHERN Pacific RAILROAD the final decision of the Board of U. s. ico, No. 130, now before me, the following COMPANY, BRANCH LINE.
Land Commissioners” by virtue of and pur- proceedings are shown by the record to Mexican Grant.-Specific Boundaries.—Where a suant to the provisions of the act of March have been had:
Mexican grant is confirmed by specific and 3, 1851 (9 Stats. 631), affirmed the deci. On the 25th of July, 1881, Breeden & well defined boundariesland claimed by the sion of the said commissioners, whereby Hazeldine, Esqs., of Albuquerque, Attorgrantee outside such boundaries will not be the title of the appellees, Maria de Jesus neys in behalf of Ambrosio Armijo and excepted thereby from a railroad grant which took effect sub judice.
Garcia et al. (widow, and heirs at law of nine others, named and designated as SECRETARY KIRKWOOD to Commissioner McFar- José de la Luz Linares, who died seized President” and “ Commissioners," and land, April 18, 1881. (S. W. R.)
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. By my predecessor's decision of June inmediato a los Nogales) and by the ditch Under date of September 5, 1882, you 19, 1879 (wherein the facts in the case are for the water which comes from the point made report of your examination of the recited at length), Holladay's application of the hills towards Los Nogales, and for case, setting forth the testimony produced, to file a pre-emption claim for said lots a more particular description of the said with your opinion holding the claim to be was allowed, provided it should appear at lands hereby confirmed, reference is here- valid, and recommending its confirmation the hearing thereby directed to be had, unto had to the said grant, map and testi- by Congress to the inhabitants of the "that the tracts in question were, in fact, monial of juridical possession on file in town. Afterwards (the date of filing not within the claimed limits of Los Nogales." this case."
shown) De Witt Stearns and Thomas G. It was also held in said decision that Upon the original diseño these streams Douglas, claiming to be honorably disthe land embraced in the exterior bounda- are found clearly delineated as “ Agua qe charged soldiers of the United States, preries of this grant was undoubtedly claimed biene de San José” and “Agua qe biene de sented their petition to you, stating that by the confirmees of the same until June la punta de las Lomas,” respectively, cor- they had filed their declarations with the 20, 1871, when the final decree on survey responding to what are now shown by the Register at Santa Fé, of their intention to was rendered, and that the survey in ques- approved survey as San José creek and enter under the homestead laws, two spection having remained sub judice until a Phillips creek, uniting at the extremity of ified sections (being part of the lands emdate subsequent to April 3, 1871, when the the claim and forming with the line of the braced within the limits of the private right of the road attached, the lands em- Rancho de San José the three designated claim), which declarations, they say, were braced in the claimed limits of the grant boundaries of Los Nogales according to rejected by the Register, for the reason were not released from reservation prior the decree of confirmation. From the ren- that the Commissioner of the General thereto, and were not therefore public dition of the decree it must accordingly Land Office had withdrawn the land from lands subject to the company's grant when he held that no lands not found within the entry, pending the adjudication of the it took effect, and did not enure thereto. intersection of these streams could be private claim.
Thus its right to lands within the claimed treated or considered as within the claimed They state, in objection to your report, limits of Los Nogales baving been deter- limits of the Los Nogales grant, nor could in substance: mined adversely, that question is no longer any survey of the same be extended on That the hearing in the case of the pribefore this department for consideration. either side thereof. (See section 7 of the vate claim was ex parte, only the petitioners
The hearing was had October 20, 1879, act of July 1, 1864, 13 Stats. 332). And therein being represented. pursuant to the direction in said decision as a matter of fact it appears that the That there are facts relating to the pricontained. The testimony is to the effect lines of the public surveys were extended vate claim, in addition to those introthat the witnesses know the lines of the over the adjoining lands in township 2 duced, which should be brought before said grant, and that the lots in question south, range 9 west, embracing a part of you, to wit: were within the claimed limits of the same. the grant, and the plat was approved and That all or nearly all of the two quarter The testimony in question not being suf- filed accordingly.
sections which they sought to enter are
situated above the acequias, and have A transcript of the record in triplicate, I have considered the matter alleged as never been used for cultivation or grazing, embracing the foregoing proceedings was grounds for a rehearing, and am of opinbeing sand hills, not productive of any transmitted by you to this office with your ion that they do not, as regards the subthing, and up to within two years regarded letter of Feb. 28, 1883.
stance of the application, bring the case as of no value.
Under date of March 12, 1883, John J. within the rules. That about two years before, when there Johnson, Esq., of this city, as attorney for The Surveyor-General is not required was a prospect that said land would soon Stearns and Douglas, filed in this office by the statute nor the instructions of the have a value, several persons who are additional objections " Against the opinion Hon. Secretary of the Interior, to give among the petitioners for the private and report of the Surveyor-General,” notice of the examination of private claims claim, who had never before claimed be- which have relation, as above purports to under foreign grants before him; and, as yond the acequias, went upon the sand your decision upon the private claim. appears from the records, these examinahills, staked off the ground and claimed One of said objections only, your "de- tions in his office have been uniformly ex to hold it by virtue of assignments under nying them” (the objectors) "the right to parte. the Spanish grant.
prove that said lands were uncultivated The same was the practice as to claims That there never was a grant from Spain and uninhabited,” has reference to your of like character before the Land Commisto the town of Albuquerque of the dimen- decision denying their petition for a re- sioner in California, as far as related to sions and location set forth, as is made man- hearing.
adverse claims and outside parties. The ifest by applying the laws of Spain relied Two principal matters are thus pre- Commissioner there as well as the Surupon bythe petitioners for the private claim, sented for consideration : the appeal from veyor-General in New Mexico, was required for the reason that it would conflict with your conclusion and recommendation ap- to decide upon the validity of the claims other towns or settlements situated less proving the private claim, and the appeal presented; but in neither case has that rethan five leagues away, and, therefore, from your decision denying a rehearing. quirement been held to authorize the adwithin the prohibition contained in law First: The 8th Section of the Act of judication of contests between conflicting VI., of Spain, cited by the original peti- July 22, 1854, which authorizes and directs claims; consequently the giving of notice tioners; and they specify the town of Pa- the proceedings before the Surveyor-Gen- to outside parties was not necessary. The jarita and other settlements and grants as eral, in cases of land claims in New Mexico, issue in both cases, is between the grant being within the prescribed distance : under grants from Spain or Mexico, makes claimants and the United States. In
That, as shown by the exhibits accom- it his duty “under such instructions as cases before the California Commission panying the original petition, the lands in may be given by the Secretary of the In- the United States was represented by a and about Albuquerque, were held by terior, to ascertain the origin, nature, special agent appointed for the purpose. Spanish grants from the crown to individ- character and extent of all claims to lands, In the New Mexico cases the government uals in severalty: and that, by the Span- under the laws, usages and customs of appears to have been represented solely ish law, lands granted in severalty, when Spain and Mexico. * He shall by the Surveyor-General. once abandoned, reverted to the crown: make a full report on all such claims as The land sought to be entered by the
That the claimants to those lands in the originated before the cession of the Ter- objectors is shown by the plat annexed to original petition, hold by titles showing ritory to the United States * * with their petition for rehearing to be within the proper metes and bounds, and such as his decision as to the validity or invalidity the claimed limits of the private claim. the present laws recognize and the Courts of each of the same
which re- The facts alleged that the two quarter secare competent to protect :
port shall be laid before Congress for such tions referred to have never been used for That the two quarter sections referred action therein, as may be just and proper," cultivation or grazing, etc.; that about to, were, at the date of the treaty of Guad- etc.
two years before, several persons among aloupe Hidalgo, unoccupied and aban I am not aware that an appeal from the the petitioners of the private claim, who doned, and became the property of the report of the Surveyor-General in any of had never before claimed beyond the aceUnited States, and ought to be subject to the numerous cases reported under this quias, went upon the same, staked off the the petitioners' entry :
act, has ever before been attempted. A ground and claimed to hold it by virtue That the prayer of the original petition direct decision of this office or the Depart- of assignments under the Spanish grant; is indefinite, asking for title to an indefin- ment as to the right of appeal, cannot and that said two quarter sections were at ite number of persons, and if granted will therefore be referred to; but the language the date of the treaty of acquisition unoconly complicate the titles to all the lands of the statute is plain, and precludes the cupied and abandoned, would therefore, if in the tract:
idea of such an appeal. The Surveyor- proved, be immaterial and inadmissible. And thereupon they ask that the case General is required to ascertain the par- It may, in case of confirmation of the be reopened and reheard before you, and ticulars indicated, and make a full report claim, be competent evidence towards dethat it may be decided by you to disallow thereof; which report is the matter to be termining the correct location. the petition of the original petitioners on laid before Congress for such action The proof of the existence of other the ground that they are sufficiently pro- thereon as may be just and proper. Con towns or settlements within the alleged tected in their vested rights by the present gress has called for no other action nor five leagues limitation, and the claim that laws; and that you recommend to this of- expression from any one; and has reserved therefore there was no grant to Albuquerfice and to Congress, that the two quarter to itself the final decision upon the claim que of the demensions and locality claimed, sections referred to are part of the public as reported. By prescribing specifically would raise a question in the case not domain and subject to the claim and entry that the basis of its action shall be the re- within your province to determine. sought to be made by them.
port of the Surveyor-General, it has nega The Surveyor-General is by the statute On the 15th of December, 1882, you ren- tived the supposition that such report can required to report upon the origin, etc., of dered your decision, reviewing the several be subject to revisions, modification or re- claims presented with his opinion as to allegations and arguments advanced, and jection, by any power or authority short of their validity (which has been practically denying the prayer of the petition : its own. It has authorized no intermediate determined to relate to their regularity
And under the date of December 18, tribunal nor agent to act in the premises. and genuineness), not to hear and deter1882, Messrs. Stearns and Douglas pre The proceeding for appeal is not accom- mine contests between conflicting grants. sented to you a petition, in which they panied by proof of service on the opposite It often occurs that there are overlapping “pray and appeal to this office from your party, as required by the rules.
grants, each regular and “ valid ” upon its opinion and recommendation upon the Second : The rules provide that rehear-face. In such cases, the duty of the Suroriginal petition in the case of the private ings "will be allowed in accordance with veyor-General is to report upon each by claim, and also from your decision reject- legal principles applicable to motions for itself, and according to its character, in ing their application for a rehearing. new trials at law."
his judgment, for genuineness; and such
has been the practice. The questions of The conclusions reached are:
land confirmed did not embrace those in priority and superiority of title are not 1. That appeal does not lie to this office question, nor any portion of them; neither passed upon by officers of the Executive from your report on the private claim. were they included in any survey made Department, but are left to the proper 2. That the appeal taken therefrom is pursuant to the decree, nor previously. judicial tribunals. This testimony would, ineffective for want of notice to the oppo- Subsequently they were surveyed by the therefore, be inadmissible if a rehearing site party.
United States, and, as already stated, should be ordered.
3. That the grounds alleged for re-bear-were selected by and approved to the The inference drawn from what is ing do not sustain the motion for re-hearing. State of California. This action was eviclaimed to be shown by the exhibits intro- 4. That the motion for re-hearing is in- dently taken in the view that they were duced before you by the grant claimants, formal and invalid for want of notice to not at the date of survey in 1858, nor at could only be employed by way of argu- the opposing party, and of the affidavit re- dates of selection in 1869, within the limment to show that under alleged provis-quired by rule 78.
its of the Los Nogales grant claim, but ions of Spanish law, such a grant as you 5. That both appeals be dismissed. were public lands, and subject to disposal have reported could not have been made ; The transcript in the case with the ob- as such. the lands in question being held by indi-jections, argument and accompanying If that view was correct, then the presviduals in severalty, subject to abandon-papers filed in this office by Mr. Johnson, ent application to purchase has no legal ment, etc.
and a copy of this decision will be trans- basis. That it was correct does not appear The lands under town or community mitted to Congress in due course. to me to be a matter of doubt. The degrants, portions of them, at least, are set You will give notice to Messrs. De Witte cree of confirmation settled the title, not off to individuals and held in severalty, Stearns, and Thomas G. Douglas, of this as to a portion of the Los Nogales grant, but and are subject to transfer, abandonment, decision, and that I shall suspend action as to all of it. No land, therefore, not inand in case of abandonment to be regranted on the case at issue for twenty days from cluded within the boundaries named in the The exhibits referred to were part of the the service of such notice, to enable them decree, could be treated or regarded as testimony in the case as presented, and to apply to the Honorable Secretary of the forming a part of the grant claim. doubtless received due consideration. Interior for an order in accordance with It is not claimed that the lands in quesThere is no allegation that they did not. rules 83 and 84, and advise this office of tion are within the limits of the confirmed
The prayer of the claimant's petition does the date of service of such notice. [July grant, nor that the confirmation did not not give shape to the confirmation, if con- 17, 1883, the Secretary declined to inter- settle and fix the title to the grant as an firmation be made. That is within the con- fere in this case.—ED.]
entirety. trol of Congress. A re-hearing would have
Per contra, it is admitted that they are no effect upon the prayer of the petition.
outside the boundaries specified in the deBut, aside from matter of substance, the VEJAR ET AL. vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
cree of confirmation, and were not inobjectors did not comply with the rules as Act of July 23, 1866.- Reasonable Time.-The cluded in any survey made thereunder; regards form and practice.
grantee who claims land by juridical posses- but the right to purchase is contended for
sion outside his confirmed Mexican grant Rule 71 provides that:
must, under the act of July 23, 1866, purchase on the ground that they were within the "The proceedings in bearings and con- the same within a reasonable time.
limits of the old juridical measurement of tests before surveyors general shall, as to Acting SECRETARY Joslyn to Commissioner the grant, and were not affected by the denotices, depositions, and other matters, be McFarland, Sep. 13, 1883. (F. L. C.) cree of confirmation, but remained in res. governed, as nearly as may be, by the rule Sir I have considered the case of Ri-ervation. prescribed for proceedings before registers cardo Vejar et al. vs. the State of Califor- The boundaries of the grant as desigand receivers, unless otherwise provided nia, on appeal by the first named from nated in the decree, and as shown by the by law."
your decision of October 9, 1882, rejecting approved survey, form a triangle, one side Rule 76 provides that:
their application to purchase under the of which is the line of the Rancho San “Motions for re-hearings before registers provisions of section of the act of July Jose, the second San Jose creek, and the and receivers
will be allowed 23, 1866, certain lands in townships 1 and third Phillips creek, the two creeks diin accordance with legal principles appli- 2 south, range 9 west, S. B. M., Los An- verging from point of cofluence until they cable to motions for new trials at law after geles, California.
meet and intersect said line of the Rancho due notice to the opposing party."
The application to purchase is based San Jose. This Department had occasion The petitions of the claimants is sub- upon the averment that the lands applied in its decision of April 18, 1881, in the scribed by their attorneys, whose residence for were within the claimed limits of the case of T. D. Holladay vs. the Southern Pais stated; but no notice is shown to have Los Nogales (Mexican) grant.
cific Railroad Company*, involving lands been given them.
The State appears as contestant because adjacent to those now in controversy, to Rule 78 requires that:
nearly all the lands in question have been discuss and decide the very question here “Motions for re-hearings and reviews selected by and listed to it as indemnity involved, to wit, the effect of the decree must be accompanied by an affidavit of the school lands, and it has in turn sold and confirming the title to the Los Nogales party or his attorney that the motion is conveyed them by patent to individual grant upon the lands exterior and adjamade in good faith, and not for the pur- purchasers.
cent to the boundaries of said grant as pose of delay.”
I concur in the conclusion reached by confirmed. That decision, after setting No affidavit containing the declaration you, that the applicants have no valid claim forth that the boundaries of the grant as required by the rule, or its equivalent, ac- under or by virtue of the 7th section of delineated upon the original diseño correscompanies the petition for re-hearing or is the act of 1866.
pond to those named in the decree and found in the case.
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 exwould give them preference rights, in case landmarks, and correspond to the boun-tended upon either side thereof.” the private claim should be rejected by daries named in the grant, including no I see no reason for holding a different Congress, or, if confirmed, the land should more, no less. The decree of confirmation be found to be not embraced within it. was entered January 16, 1857, and the * Published herein,
view, and as the decree recognized the ment as to the legality and propriety of
Inyo County. grant as applied for, by the original boun- the approval.
A. R. Conklin et al., Summit No. 2 Lode. daries presented in the claim, and consti The title was thus passed to the State
Mono County. tuting the original description, no survey under the forms of law and in accordance Bodie Cons. Mg. Co., et al., Bodie, Bruce, or other diagram having included more, with the law as interpreted by the officers Edithi, Gildea, Granger, Lucky Jack and Molly
Lodes. the said boundaries must have governed making the transfer. prior to the confirmation as well as since. There is therefore little room for equit
Nerada County. On this point I can not do better than to able consideration of applicants' claim.
Martin Ford, Hudson Bay Qtz. Mine. quote from U. S. Circuit Court decision Your decision denying their right to
Giacomo Giacomella, Placer.
R. H. Lloyd, Salathiel Mine. in the case of Dodge vs. Perez, (2 Sawyer, purchase is affirmed.
San Luis Obispo County. 645,) which decision has reference to the same grant, and involves the identical
OMAHA INDIAN LANDS.
Isaac Goldtree, Castro Chrome Mine.
Trinity County. question presented here, to wit, the rights How and when these lands will be offered for of Vejar under the Los Nogales grant, and sale.
W. I. Hupp et al., Five Cent Gulch Placer. from which, though more than eleven Acting COMMISSIONER HARRISON to Hon. Chas.
COLORADO. years have elapsed, no appeal so far as I F. Manderson, Omaha, Neb., Aug. 14, 1883.
Boulder County. am aware has been taken.
John Dupuy et al., California No. 2 Lode. In that case the judge says, “ The lanI have the honor to acknowledge the
Choffee County. guage of the decree construed, being the receipt of your letter of the 7th inst., ask
H. C. Bostwick, Gold Stone Lode and Mill exact language of the grant, so far as the ing when the Omaha Indian lands will be
Site. question at issue is concerned, the con- offered for sale : “What will be the course
F. McClure, Rob't Wilson Lode. struction of the decree is necessarily the of settlement and sale?". In reply you are
Cleur Creek County. construction of the grant. The boundaries advised that the act of August 1, 1882,
M. M. Chambers, Alpine Lode. of the grant were held to be two creeks provides for the sale of the unallotted
Chas. I. Dreifus, Cincinnati Lode. mentioned in it, and laid down on the lands lying west of the right of way granted Lebanon Ming. Co., Tom Ollive Lode and diseño, and the boundary of the San Jose by said Indians to the Sioux City and Mill Site.
Marcus W. Rasbach, Bobtail, Boom and rancho. The same construction was given Nebraska Railroad Company. After the to the grant examined by the light of the survey (if necessary,) and appraisement of Crouse Lodes.
Upper Union T. and M. Co., Esperanza, evidence by two district Judges, who at these lands, the Secretary of the Interior Pickard, Sampson and Sir John Lodes and Mill different times decided the question, and is authorized to issue proclamation to the Site. by the justice of the Supreme Court as- effect that the same are open for settle
Custer County. signed to the Circuit. * * These ment under such rules as he may prescribe. Chas. Goodnight, Franklin Lode. well-defined natural boundaries could not Atany time within one year after the date of
Dolores County. be disregarded without a manifest disre such proclamation, each settler occupying
David A. Cook et al., Merrimac Lode. gard of the language of the grant, the any portion of said lands and having valu
Jas. B. Ross et al., Sinbad Lode. plain delineations of the objects on the able improvements thereon, who is a citi
Gunnison County. diseño, and the testimony of witnesses as zen of the United States, or who has de
Wm. T. Holt, Republic Lode. to the topography of the country.” clared his intention of becoming such,
Lake County. But if it be assumed that the land in shall be entitled to purchase for cash ,the
Chas. J. Dold et al., Tucson Lode. controversy was purchased in good faith land so occupied and improved by him,
Chas. Hawks et al., Tip Top Lode. under the Los Nogales grant, I can per- not to exceed one hundred and sixty acres John H. Reed, Alicante Lode. ceive no very strong equities in favor of in each case. The Secretary may dispose Thos. F. Walsh, Dinero Lode.
La Plata County. the applicants as against the purchasers of these lands on the following terms as to from the State, and I should hesitate to payment, that is to say, one-third to be W. E. Webb et al., Allie Davis, Hercules, disturb the rights covered by patents and come payable one year from date of entry, Moonstone, and Red Rover Lodes. by long possession thereunder. one-third in two years and one-third in
Ouray County. The applicants under the grant found three years from said date, with interest John R. Curry et al., Belcher Lode. the lands already surveyed as public lands at rate of five per centum per annum; but
Park County at the date of the passage of the act of no portion of said land shall be sold at Thos. W. Duffy, Galveston Lode.
New Haven Mining Co., Modoc Lode. 1866; they saw them pass to the State, less than the appraised value thereof, and
Pitkin County. and from the State to its purchasers for in no case at less than two dollars and fifty
The commissioners pro Pitkin Co. Mg. Co. et al., Buckhorn No. 2, value; they saw these purchasers enter cents per acre. into possession and place improvements vided for by the above act, have been ap- and Carbonate Chief Lodes.
Rio Grande County. upon the land, and yet their application to pointed and are at present engaged in ap
John R. Burrows et al., Empire Lode. purchase was not presented until Septem- praising these lands, but I am unable to
San Juan County. 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 Moline S. Mining Co., Fire King Lode.
San Juan and N. Y. M. and 8. Co., Legal or three years after the approval of the of issuing proclamations and instructions
Tender Lode. lands to the State. The act of 1866 speci- until the list of appraisement is received
Oscar F. Smith, Sr., Valley Forge Lode. fies no time within which purchase may be and approved by the Department.
Sultan Mountain S. Mg. Co., Avalanche Lode. made, but, as indicated in Dodge vs. Perez
I. X. L. Tunnel Co., Lucy Lode. (supra), the application should be made MINERAL PATENTS ISSUED.
Summit County. within a reasonable time. The law does
Since our last report, patents have been
D. D. Belden, Bird, Little Chicago, Little not contemplate that the privilege should issued for the following mining claims:
Ella and Louise Lodes, be held open indefinitely, thus defeating
Conara S. Mg. Co., A. B. Robbins, Hope and
Norse Lodes. the general policy of the Government as
B. F. Follet et al., Batavia Lode. to the disposal and settlement of the pub Dana Harmon, Bradford, Delta and Salvation Edward Lowe et al., Bob Emmett Lode. lic domain. Lodes.
J. McCreighton (Trustee), Gold Fish and The patents from the State are regular the Morning Star Lode.
Morning Star Extn. Mg. Co., Extension of Red Lion Lodes. and valid on their face.
Frederick Ware et al., Candler Placer Mine. E. B. Salsig et al., Forty-nine Lode. The selections were made by the State
DAKOTA. and approved to it by the proper officers,
Lawrence County. who acted on their discretion and judg C. E. Kusel, Elmwood Placer,
Moses 8. Emery et al., Katahdin Lode.
Nog. 4075, 4079, 4081, 4114, 4118, 4140, 4148, 4148, 4149, 4161, Nos. 1682, 1694, 1696, 1697, 1699, 1703, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1715,
3717, 1720, 1727, 1730, 1751, 1773, 3019, 3063, 3086, 3178, 3276, Robert C. Chambers et al., Jay Gould Ext'n.
1278, 3282, 3284, 3291, 3292, 3293, 3298, 3806, 3308, 3309, 3313, YANKTON.
3318, 3320, 3321, 3324, 3325, 3327, 3328, 3329, 3333, 3334, 3335, Lode.
No. 2180, Sioux Falls Series.
3340, 3377, 3380, 3384, 3386, 3402, 3403, 3407, 3408, 3415, 3420,
3422, 3423, 3424, 3435, 3437, 3439, 3445, 3448 and 3451. MONTANA,
2005, 2985, 2987, 3036, 3111, 3182, 3519, 3520, 3522, 3526, 3527, Nos. 1714, 1726, 1732, 1764, 1768, 1804, 1805, 1924, 1949, 1961, John McLaggan et al., Samantha Lode. 3628, 3529, 3530, 3533, 3535, 3540, 3542 to 3545 inclusive, 3541 1974, 1998, 2011, 2016, 2032, 2163,
2290, 2325, 2392, 2548, 2565, to 3583 inclusive, 3555, 3556, 3562, 8564, 3565 to 3568 inclu- 2601, 2658, 2868, 2967, 2971, 3014, 3015, 3017, 3018, 3019, 30:22, NEVADA.
sive, 3670, 3571, 3573 to 3578 inclusive, 3580, 3582, 3583, 3585 3023 to 3031 inclusive, 3033, 3034, 3037, 3039 to 3043 inclu. Esmeralda County.
to 3602 inclusive, 3604, 3606, 3607, 3609 to 3627 inclusive, sive, 3045, 3047, 3049 to 3056 inclusive.
Supreme Court Scrip, R. & R. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 General Jackson Mg. Co., Lightning, Silver, 3651 inclusive, 3054, 3655, 3866, 3660, 3661, 3662, 3664 to 3671 and 11.
inclusive, 3678, 3674, 3675, 3676, 3678, 3679, 8682, 3683, 3686,
Nos. 8410, 8411, 8413 to 8416 inclusive, 8419, 8420, 8423 to A. P. Hegeman et al., Harlan and Eureka
8427 inclusive, 8430, 8432, 8435 to 8440 inclusive, 8442, 8443, Bell Cons. Lode.
8446, 8447, 8449 to 8453 inclusive, 8456 to 8459 inclusive,
8462, 8463, 8468 to 8474 inclusive, 8478, 8481, 8488, 8489, 8493, Humboldt County.
No. 5044. Application 5130 in favor of Richard H. 8495, 8498, 8500, 8503, 8505, 8510, 8513, 8514, 8518, 8522, 8529,
Rundle, the erroneous one in the name of William 8537, 8554, 8559, 8560, 8565, 8583, 8596, 8602, 8636, Osage Trust Auburn Cons. G. Mg. Co., Auburn Lode. H. Rundle having been canceled.
Bupreme Court Scrip, R. & R. Nos. 59, 66, 73, 145
Nos. 4266, 4275, 4405, 4407, 4429, 4431, 4432, 4437, 4449, 4461, Ivanhoe Mg. Co., Ivanhoe Lode.
4464, 4469, 4470, 4472, 4473, 4478, 4489, 4490, 4491, 4493, 4494,
4498, 4501, 4508, 4509, 4510, 4512, 4513, 4516, 4524, 4525, 4529, OREGON.
Nos. 694, 754, 755, 760, 768, 777, 780, 783, 784, 786 and 788. 4533, 4534, 4537 to 4541 inclusive, 4550, 4552, 4553, 4555 to Grant County. 4559' inclusive; 4564, 4566, 4568 and 4570, 4571, 4574, 4581, 284 to 290 inclusive, 292 to 322 inclusive.
Cherokee Strip Series. Nos. 274 to 279 inclusive, 282, 4642, 4644, 4654, 4689, 4709, 4717, 4746, 4747, 4946, 4957, 4980, Jno. W. Larkin, Boston Quartz Mine.
4997, 4998 and 5002.
Supreme Court Scrip, R. & R. Nos. 5 and 44.
Nos. 438, 452, 456, 461, 464, 466, 468, 469, 470, 487, 491, 494, Stanley Cons. Mg. Co., Henry M. Stanley
FALLS ST. CROIX.
497, 498 and 526.
Nos. 923, 924, 941 to 961 inclusive, 96122, 962, 963, 965 to
1022 to 1029 inclusive, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1035 to 1043 inciu. WAUBAU.
sive. Cherokee Strip Series. COPP's LAND OWNER for this month reports the No. 1599.
MICHIGAN following final numbers of Homestead Patents issued and sent to the below-named land-offices :
CASH PATENTS ISSUED.
Supreme Court Scrip, R. & R. No. 185.
Ionia and Reed City Series. Nos. 8386 and 22511. Nos. 435, 439, 451, 455, 486, 491, 499,537, 548, 552, 575, 577, 617, the issuance of patents on the Cash Entries 743, 744, 752, 756, 757, 764, 770, 771, 772, 776, 791,796, 797,798 to the below-named land-offices :
MINNESOTA. 622, 636, 631, 656, 684, 689, 69, 705, 719, 724, 725, 726, 730, 739 numbered below, which patents have been sent
CROOKSTON. 1062, 1068, 1078, 1116, 1126, 1129, 1140, 1145, 1148, 1161, 1152, 1154, 1155, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1164 1172, 1178, 1179,
Detroit and Crookston Series. Nos. 746,752, 754, 1922,
ALABAMA. 1181, 1182, 1183, 1185, 1193, 1200, 1218, 1220, 1221, 1234, 1240,
2528, 2655, 2656, 2858, 2659, 2660, 2736, 2747, 2781, 2784, 2788, 1254, 1256, 1262, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1271, 1278, 1280, 1282, 1288,
2801, 2815, 2817, 2818, 2835, 2861, 2863, 2864, 2883, 2891, 2942, 1295, 1301, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1316, 1317, 1324, Elba Series. Nos. 15028 and 23808.
2943, 2944, 2948, 2951, 2955, 2958, 2959 and 2860. 1330, 1334, 1339 and 1387. Nos. 443, 802, 814, 816, 817, 818, 820, 821, 826 to 832 in
ARKANSAS. clusive, 836, 840, 843, 844, 847, 854, 856, 857, 860, 870, 876, 881,
Supreme Court Scrip, R. & R. No. 143. 882, 889, 890, 891, 897, 899, 900, 902, 903, 904, 908, 911, 512, 913, 915, 916, 917, 920, 926, 935, 937, 238, 957, 962 963, 966 to 969 17683, 17687, 17888, 17690, 17692, 17694, 17695, 17721, 17724 Nos. 17402, 17411, 17674, 17675, 17677, 17678, 17679, 17682,
TRACY. inclusive, 972, 974, 976,993, 994, 1006, 1012, 1023, 1024, 1028, 17731, 17732, 17734, 17736, 17742, 17746, 17750, 17757, 17792, and G. 98.
New Ulm Series. Supreme Court Scrip, Nos. G. 88 1029, 1030, 1031, 1038, 1039, 1044 and 1057.
17793 and 17795. MONTGOMERY.
CALIFORNIA. Nos. 241, 243, 246, 249, 363, 477, 572, 609, 877, 694, 699, 710,
IRONTON. 706, 709, 710, 730, 731, 738, 780, 820, 85042, 851, 861, 865, 880,
SUSANVILLE. 891, 894, 898, 905, 906, 915, 916, 931, 940, 947, 949, 964, 984, 985, No. 1541. 987, 988, 990, 991, 1011, 1012, 1015, 1016, 1023, 1026. 1027, 1033,
Nos. 44025, 44055, 44056, 44072, 44074, 44085, 44155, 41218, 1042, 1014, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1055, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1118, 1131
44622 to 44627 inclusive, 44629 to 44640 nclusive, 44642 to 1141, 1148, 1153, 1166, 1174, 1176, 1178, 1180, 1181, 1182 1183,
44649 inclusive, 44651, 44653 to 44660 inclusive, 44662, 44663, 1184, 1189, 1195, 1196, 1200, 1207, 1210, 1211, 1225, 1226, 1234,
44666 to 44671 inclusive, 44673, 44674, 44676, 44678, 44680 to 1237. 1238, 1239, 1247, 1251, 1252, 1261, 263, 1964, 1265, 1267, 139, 140, 143, 144, 166, 167, 168, 176, 177, 178, 194 to 200 inclu- 44704, 44706, 44707, 44709, 44711 to 44720 inclusive, 44722,
Nos. 62, 65 to 69 inclusive, 77, 99, 104, 107, 110, 112, 119, 44687 inclusive, 44690, 44691, 44695, 44699, 44700, 44701, 44702, 1275, 1279, 1291 to 1295 inclusive, 1300, 1305, 1308, 1309, 1312 sive, 236, 239, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246, 248, 253, 256, 260, 273, 44723, 44725 to 44729 inclusive, and 44770. 1323, 1324, 1329, 1330, 1332 to 1337 inclusive, 1342, 1850, 1855, 274, 275, 285, 286, 288, 289, 290, 308, 314, 315, 323, 325, 330, 349 1362, 1365, 1866, 1368, 1371, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1378, 1389, 1392, 365, 356, 358, 359, 360, 365, 367, 391, 402, 408, 409, 412, 413, 417, 1408, 1410 1414, 1416 1417, 142, 1431 1435, 1452, 1454, 1455, 430, 431, 440, 443, 445, 451, 452, 456, 466, 468, 470, 471, 477, 481,
NEBRASKA. 1456, 1462, 1477, 1489, 1492, 1493, 1496, 1499, 1500, 1502 1503, 484, 497, 498, 534, 535, 536, 538, 539, 540, 554, 555, 591, 592, 605,
BLOOMINGTON, 1507, 1519, 1520 1526, 1530, 1532, 1545, 1550, 1555, 1656, 1557, 607, 608 to 613 inclusive, 630, 637, 638, 640, 641, 666, 667, 686, 1559, 1560 1562, 1564 to 1567 inclusive, 1570, 1571, 1572, 1574, 692, 698, 713, 715, 717, 721, 730, 737, 745, 753, 754, 761, 767, 779,
Supreme Court Scrip, R. & R. Nos. 18 and 27. 1575, 1578, 1579, 1581 to 1584 inclusive, 1586, 1587, 1588, 1590 to 780, 789, 790, 794 and 805. 823, 821, 839, 844, 845, 846, 872,
GRAND ISLAND. 1598 inclusive, 1600, 1601, 1602, 1604, 1605, 1608 to 1614 in 384, 894, 896, 897, 908, 931, 947, 951 and 956. clusive, 1617, 1619 to 1624 inclusive, 1626, 1627, 1629, 1660,
Nos. 1305, 1308, 1314, 1349, 1353, 1394, 1397, 1406, 1409, 1416, Watertown Series. Nos. 1670, 1671, 1672, 1677, 1678, 1679, 1418, 1424, 1430, 1431, 1435, 1436, 1438, 1443, 1446, 1452, 1459, 1662, 1663, 1666, 1667, 1668 and 1669.
1689, 1708, 1738, 1740, 1754, 1775, 1777, 1778, 1780, 1783 and 1400, 1469, 1474, 1475, 1480, 1482 1489 1491, 1492 1494, 1509,
1534, 1608, 1621, 1664, 1669, 1687, 1689, 1692, 1697, 1998, 1705, DEADWOOD.
1710, 1715, 1719 1720 and 1721.
inclusive, 114 to 117 inclusive, 119 to 123 inclusive, 125
to 1:29 inclusive, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 146 to
UTAH. No. 1768.
SALT LAKE CITY. Nos. 1425, 1493, 1622, 1675, 2064, 2493, 2764, 2810, 3229, 3293, Nos. 1999, 2014, 2137, 2213, 2259, 2276, 2279, 2280, 2284, 2256 Nos. 1013, 1045, 1446, 1472, 1476, 1604, 1607, 1508, 1510 10 3698, 3706, 3709, 3710, 3714, 3716, 3722, 3729, 3730, 3732, 3733, 2291, 2295, 2298, 2300, 2301, 2302, 2306, 2311, 3312, 2315, 2317, 1517 inclusive, 1520, 1522 to 1532 inclusive.
3737, 3747, 3749, 3752, 3754, 3765, 3756, 3760, 3761, 3762, 4594, 2318, 2323, 2328, 2329, 2330 2334, 2335, 2337, 2340, 2341, 2342,
4998, 5115, 5147, 5211, 6216, 5440, 5508, 5584, 5606, 5614 and 2347, 2351, 2354, 2356, 2357, 2359, 2362, 2366, 2368, 2372, 2373 COLORADO, 5653.
2377, 2378, 2381, 2382, 2384, 2385, 2386, 2389, 2391, 2392, 2394
2397 to 2401 inclusive, 2407, 2409, 2448, 2518, 2523, 2527, 2530, Nos. 292 and 308.
2531, 2534, 2539, 2540 to 2550.
276, 279, 282, 286, 290, 292, 296, 304, 312, 313, 365, 367, 372, 373,
31914, 31917 and 32040,