« ZurückWeiter »
Nos. 772 and 825.
San Juan County.
Nos. 489, 499 and 536. dent of the United States, by Executive
UTAH. order dated August 29, 1883, has directed D. D. Belden et al., Jenny Lind Lode.
SALT LAKE CITY. A. H, Bereman, Columbia and Louisa Lodes. No. 2012. that the office for the disposal of public
Clifton Cons. Mg. Co., Clifton Lode. lands now located at Carson City, Nevada,
Nog. 818 to 834'inclusive, 836 to 841 inclusive.
Jno. Mattson, Mattson Lode.
Nos. 91, 101, 113, 114, 119, 122.
J. H. Skillman et al., Golden Terra Lode. at Eureka will be prepared to receive ap
MONTANA, plications for the lands formerly in the
CASH PATENTS ISSUED,
Lewis and Clarke County. Carson City District, and transact all busi
Copp's LAND OWNER for this month reports ness relating thereto.
Chas. E. Colbert et al., Placer.
the issuance of patents on the Cash Entries Given under my hand at the City of
numbered below, which patents have been sent Washington, this eighth day of September, Benj. F. Housum et al., Placer.
to the below-named land-offices : A. D. 1883.
White Pine County.
Florence and Tucson Series, Nos. 8 (Desert Lands), Commissioner of the General Land Office.
Geo. W. Lamoureux et al., Carbonate Lode 189, 191, 194, 198 and 202. and M. S.
Hot Springs Series, 349, 634,
LOS ANGELES. issued for the following mining claims:
Nos. 2 (Desert Lands), 677, 1028, 1033 and 1044.
Watertown Series, No. 1784.
Salt Lake County.
Red Lake and Pembina Chippewa IIalf-Breed Scrip,
Supreme Court Scrip, R. & R. No. 319.
Supreme Court Scrip, R. & R, No. 124. Located at Oro Blanco Mg. Co., Franco-American,
Fargo. Louise and Normand Lodes.
Mitchell Series, No, 5353.
Sioux Falls and Mitchell Series, Nos, 3316 and 8615. Michael Smith, Placer. following final numbers of Homestead Patents
Nos, 280, 281, 283, 291 Cherokee Scrip. L. A. Watkins, Commonwealth Lode.
No. 964 Cherokee Scrip Series.
MINNESOTA. J. V. W. Vandenburgh, Pratt Lode and Nos. 842, 931, 1126, 1127, 1130, 1132, 1134, 1136, 1138, 1140,
CROOKSTON, M.S. 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1149 and 1150.
Detroit and Crookston Series. Nos. 686, 693, 1941, 2669,
2672, 2673, 2678, 2680, 2682, 2684, 2685, 2689, 2690, 2691, 2692,
2698, 2699, 2700, 2704, 2705, 2707, 2709, 2710, 2712, 2715, 1717, FARGO.
2718, 2720 to 2724 inclusive, 2727, 2731, 2733, 2734, 2735, 2741, Christian Wahl et al., Chlor Silver, Horn Silver and Mammoth Lodes and M. S.
Nos. 591, 592, 1053, 1057, 1059, 1129, 1148, 1149, 1151, 1152, 2744, 2758, 2765, 2766, 2767, 2772, 2777, 2779, 2782, 2783, 2785, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161 and 1166. 2793, 2798, 2800, 2809, 2822, 2826, 2827, 2837, 2840, 2847, 2852,
2854, 2855, 2856, 2862, 2871, 2873, 2874, 2875, 2877, 2880, 2882, Dolores County.
2884, 2887, 2897, 2898, 2900, 2904, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2921, Robt. Drennon et al., Paymaster Lode. Springfield Series 373.
2926, 2927, 2929, 2934, 2935 and 2939.
Nos. 495, 614, 615, 616, 619, 626, 628, 630, 632, 633, 638, 641, Nos, 8612 and 8615.
MISSOURI. No. 1.
IRONTON. Jacob Kisthard et al., Little Willie Lode.
Nos. 44650 and 44773.
Bitter Root Valley Lands Series, Nos. 43 and 48.
Nos. 119 and 149 Desert Lands,
IOWA. Fryer Hill Mg. Co., Virginius Lode.
DES MOINES. Little Delaware Cons. Mg. Co., Little Dela
OREGON. No. 2198. ware Lode and McAllister M.S.
DALLES. Jacob E. Rice, Houston Lode.
Fort Dalles Series, 1 to 17 inclusive, 22 to 35 incluOuray County.
sive, 38, 39, 40, 48 to 55 inclusive, 57 to 81 inclusive, 83
to 113 inclusive, 118 to 151 inclusive, 153 to 177 incluNo. 2468. Emma Mountain Mg. Co., Sidney Lode.
sive, 179 to 190 inclusive, 197 to 202 inclusive, 209, 210,
SALINA. W. Weston et al., Declaration Lode and
212, 213, and 215 to 220 inclusive.
MICHIGAN. Mary A. Cumming et al., Rough and Ready
No. 1518, for S. W. 4 S. E. 44 Sec, 26, N. W.X N. E. REED CITY.
Sec. 35, Tp. 9 N., s. W. X. E. Sec. 2, and n. w. Lode. Traverse City Series, No. 2903.
of N. E. Sec. ii, Tp. 8 N., R. 39 E.
COPP'S LAND OWNER
WASHINGTON, D. C., NOVEMBER 1, 1883.
237 you free.
Entered at the Post Office at Washington, D. C., as This paper furnishes more valuable law informa- LAND OFFICE DECISIONS--1881-83. second-class matter.
tion for less money, and is read by more land attor.
pre-emption, and other land claimants, and by more THIS NOTICE MARKED with a blue or red mine owners, engineers, and superintendents, than average of land office publications. Its pencil indicates that your subscription expires with any other publication in the United States.
body contains 633 pages, of which 124 this issue, and if you wish the paper continued without interruption, you should remit your renewal “U. S. Salary List and Civil Service pages are given to private land claims, 59
to mineral lands and 66 to railroads. subscription at once.
Rules," just issued -- 160 pages, 8vo. Parties renewing their subscriptions will find it
With index and other matter, the book Price, 35 cts. advantageous to send $1.00 for their card in the Land
occupies 669 pages, 8vo. Directory one year.
The contents are arranged by divisions HAVE you bought the new 26 Metal
of the office, and some of the chiefs have CONTENTS. strip Binder for the LAND OWNER ? Get
tried to prepare their sections systematiEditorial Notes-Land Personals-Land Office two new subscribers, and it will be sent to
cally and in logical sequence. Decisions
We offer the book at $2.25, full law Agreements with Electric Lighting Companies. . 238
For SALE.-An approved 80-acre sol- binding. dier's additional homestead right. Will
CONTENTS. Cole vs. Markley ... 238 not take less than $1,000 for it. Address
The items following, as paged, will show the
character of the arrangement, and the space Postoflice Box 36, Morrillton, Ark.
allowed each subdivision : MIXES AXD MINERALS.
Dicision B.-Records.--7. Grand Dipper Lode-Thomas J. Jackson. ........ 240
C. C. PAULK, of Stockton, California,
I. Military Bounty Land Warrants. . 7 sends his printed argument in the matter
II. Virginia Military District, Ohio. 9 Carrie L. Wheelock-Probst vs. Whyte..... 240 of the rejected Moquelemos Grant, on ap- III. Delivery of Patents.
22 L. A. Jennings-Townsend's Heirs vs. Spellman peal before the Secretary of the Interior.
Division 0.-Public Lands.--28. -Hawker vs. Fowlks........ 241
28 Wm. French (Review)-Thomas E. Smith
51 LAND PERSONALS. III. Desert Lands.
56 A MONG the leading promoters of the IV. Homestead Cases.
128 Eugene Q. Powlison..... 243 Polk County Tropical Fruit Company, VI. Practice.
132 advertised on 4th page of cover, is Wil- 1. Homesteads
132 liam Saunders, Superintendent of Gardens 2. Miscellaneous
137 Southern Minnesota Railway Extension Co, vs. and Grounds, Department of Agriculture.
3. Timber Culture
141 Küfner ...
VII. Timber Culture Cases.
141 Hayes vs. Parker & Northern Pacific R. R. Co.... 245 Mr. Saunders is well known to the agri. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. vs. Pressey.. 246 cultural people of the United States as
- Dicision D.--Private Land Claims.-192. I. Arizona Private Claims .
192 the organizer of the National Grange
II. California .
194 movement of some years ago. His recent 1. Military Reservation.
194 White and Mallett 247 report on the Soil and Products of 2. Private Claims.
198 Tyler vs. Duncan et al
276 throughout the country.
IV. Louisiana Private Claims.
281 V. New Mexico .
287 Eugene Kenfield SEE Cards in “ Land Directory” of F. Y.
1. Donations .
287 Anderson, Birmingham, Ala., and John
2. Private Claims.
292 VI. Oregon. .
298 Department Circular..... 249 W. Maher, Creelsburg, Dakota. Write
298 First Bona Fide Mortgage Must Prevail. 251 to them.
305 Mineral Patents Issued
VII. Scrip Cases.
306 Cash Patents Issued 232
VIII. Washington Territory Donations Homestead Patents Issued.
CONVEYANCE-SALE OF LAND- STANDING
316 PROFESSIONAL CARDS.
By written contract P. agreed to sell a Redington & Hill, Washington, D. C...
II. Deposits for Surveys by Railroads. Curtis & Burdett, Washington, D.C..
i piece of land to H., and convey when the III. Overflowed and Swamp Lands 323 Capt. John Mullan, San Francisco & Washington.
337 D. H. Talbot, Sioux City, Iowa...
purchase-money was paid. The standing IV. Reservations. . . . Ellery C. Ford, Washington, D. C.. i timber was to remain P's as security. II.,
1. Authority of the President. 337 D.K. Sickels, Washington, D.C..
2. Provisions of Law.
338 C. W. Holcomb, Washington, D. C... without paying, cut and sold a part of the
V. Restoration of Lost Corners
339 W.J. Johnston, Washington, D.C.
timber to J., and P. gave notice of his Henry X. Copp, Washington, D. O....
Division F.-Railroads.-349. Chas. & William B. King, Washington, D. C.. IV ownership; thereupon J. bought P's in- I. Cash Entry
349 Walter H. Smith, Washington, D. C..... terest in the land and timber, prior to any
II. H. J. Frost, Washington, D. C.......
Construction of Grants, etc .
350 IV Riddle, Davis & Padgett, Washington, D. C...... iv attachment. Before J's deed was recorded,
III. Homesteads . .
371 IV. Indian Reservations
384 the lumber, not having been delivered
V. Lands Earned by Construction 389 Land Directory... was attached by the creditors of H. Held,
VI. Overlapping Limits.
390 American Settler's Guide.. Ill that J. was the owner of the land, and by VII. Patents.
392 Copp's Land Owner-Bound.
Il legal sequence the lumber, and that he VIII. Preëmptions Copp's Public Land Laws.
394 Copp's U. S. Mineral Lands III could follow it and assert his dominion IX. Private Grant
406 Copp's American Mining Code..
X. Right of Selection
408 w. c. Hill, Washington, D. C....
over it. Dickerman vs. Bay, S. (. Vt., Polk County T. F. Co., Washington, D. C...
XI. Right of Way. iv January Term, 1883. Reporters' Advance XII. Preston, Kean & Co., Chicago, Ills..
410 General Price List iv | Sheets.
Division G.–Preëmptions.—415. AGREEMENTS WITH ELECTRIC It appears from the record that certain I. Abandonment.
LIGHTING COMPANIES. parts of said township, including the tract II. Additional Land
At the present time, when electric lights in question, “were returned by the SurIII. Alienation
420 IV. Board of Equitable Adjudication 424 are being more and more used for lighting veyor-General July 9, 1862, as saline V. Conflicting Claims
streets, and when the Board of Supervis lands, and withheld from entry accordVI. Construction.
428 ors has under consideration a proposal ingly;" that on September 17, 1878, one VII. Divorce.
432 from a company for lighting in this way a Robert W. Pratt filed an affidavit contestVIII. Entry
434 great part of this city, it is useful and im- ing said return, and that, at a hearing held IX. Estoppel X. Filiug
442 portant to keep ourselves well informed under the provisions of circular of October XI. Final Proof.
454 regarding the agreements and conditions 1, 1878, the land was shown to contain no XII. Homestead .
457 which the authorities of other cities have salines, and was adjudged to be agriculXIII. Inchoate Claims.
458 made with electric light companies for tural by your decision of September 23, XIV. Indian Reservation
459 lighting their streets. Hampstead, a large 1880, and declared to be open to entry. XV. Intentions.
It appears further that on January 27,
463 of London, which, like the greatest part 1879, and before said hearing and adjudiXVII. Laches.
465 of that city, is not included in the juris- cation, Markley filed application No. 2301, XVIII. Married Woman
467 diction of the old municipal corporation to enter said tract for timber culture, XIX. Notice of Intention
468 of London, but has its affairs regulated by which application was held subject to the XX. Ownership XXI. Practice
the parish vestry officers, has just made a said adjudication; and that on March 20,
471 XXII. Preëmpitor's Affidavit.
486 contract with an electric light company 1879, Miss Cole filed her declaratory stateXXIII. Preëmption Right.
489 The charge for each public lamp of thirty ment No. 9882, alleging settlement DeXXIV. Preference Right .
491 candle power is to be seventeen dollars per cember 20, 1878. By said decision of XXV. Proof and Payment.
the company to maintain the wires September 23, 1880, the local officers were XXVI. Qualification . XXVII. Residence
49% and wicks. For private lighting, the rate instructed to make these applications of XXVIII. State Selection
498 is to be sixpence per unit. This price for record “as of the date on which they were XXIX. Technicality. . 500 public street lamps is the same as is now
filed respectively," which instructions were XXX. Town Lots 501 paid for gas, but the gas is of sixteen can
repeated in your decision of December 8, XXXI. Town Site
506 dle power instead of thirty. The rate for 1880; but it appears that the local officers Division K.-Swamp Lands.-508. private lighting is not nearly so favorable. made the Cole application of record as of I. State of Illinois.
The electric unit means an equivalent to September 29, 1880, and the Markley ap
508 II. State of Louisiana
511 110 cubic feet of gas. If the charge for plication as of January 13, 1881. III. State of Michigan 516 electric lights in private houses was the
Now, it is well settled that the rights of IV. State of Oregon.
517 same price as is charged private consum- parties to the public lands, when formally Division M.-Accounts.-519.
ers for gas in London, the rate would be recognized, relate back to the date of the
little more than seven cents per unit, in- inception of said rights, as against each I. Change of Entry
stead of twelve cents. Gas in London is other, and that they are not to be prejuII. Fees and Commissions III. Indian Lands.
low in price, being about seventy-five diced by any failure of the local officers IV. Making Abstracts of Records
to do substantial justice in the premises. 526 cents per 1000 cubic feet in
ate houses, V. Moneys Paid to Local Offices 526 and less for large consumers. There is
As between the parties to the record, if VI. Repayments.
one condition in this agreement between either acquired a right to the land, Markley, VII. State Selections.
539 VIII. Unauthorized Clerk Hire
Hampstead parish and the electric lighting who was fully qualified, obtained an in
company, to which we wish to call special ceptive right by his application to enter, Division N.- Mineral Claims.-541. attention. It is this : so long as the com
January 27, 1879, and Miss Cole by her I. Adverse Claims.
pany maintains the rates mentioned for settlement on December 20, 1878, if duly II. Cancellation. . III. Circulars.
543 public and private lights, it is only enti- qualified. But the record shows that she IV. Coal Lands .
was disqualified by reason of non-age, and tled to pay a dividend of ten per cent.,
552 V. Conflict. 554 and for every deduction of a halfpenny
that she did not come of age until March VI. Construction
555 per unit it can pay one per cent. addi- 15, 1879; consequently her rights must VII. Local Officers. 557 tional in dividends.- Exchange.
yield to those of Markley, who has duly VIII. Lodes in Placer Claims 560
tendered the fees, provided he could acIX. Military Reservation. 564
quire an inceptive right on January 27, X. Mill Site
PRACTICE. XI. Minerals
1879. This your decision of July 17, 1882, 571 XII. Mineral Springs .
COLE VS. MARKLEY. 573
holds that he could not do, for the reason XIII. Patents.
Relation-Local Officers.— The rights of parties that “ March 14, 1882, this (your) office XIV. Placer Claim
relate back to date of inception as against each décided, in the case of Forbes vs. Hatcher, XV. Practice XVI. Presumption
the local officers to do justice in the premises. involving land in the same township, that XVII. Survey
Resercation.—Restoration.-Filings and entries the former ruling, allowing filings and enXVIII. Tunnel Location.
cannot date back of day when reserved land is tries to date back of the time when the
ordered restored to the public doinain. But land was adjudged agricultural in characDivision P.— Timber Depredations.-600. no mere de facto reservation or appropriation
ter, was erroneous, and that rights thereto 1. Accretions.
can affect the rights of qualified claimants.
600 II. Circulars
A presumptive reservation may be overcome. could only attach from and after the deIII. Construction.
Erroneous markings on plats and field-notes cision ordering its restoration, September IV. Cutting Timber For Sale .
do not constitute reservations, and such mark- 23, 1880." V. Damages
This decision was founded on the alVI. Homestead and Pre-emption
ter of land. VII. Indian Lands
" saline land." How was the reservaVIII. Land Grant Railroads
land, September 19, 1883. (D. A. McK.)
621 IX. Military Post
I have considered the case of Hattie M. tion created? The law reserves generally X. Mill Site Claims .
629 Cole vs. Joseph Markley, involving the “lands on which are situated any known XI. Mining Claims.
629 N. W. # of Section 27, Township 9 S., salines,” and it has been the policy of the XII. Public Lands
633 Range 1 w., Concordia, Kansas, on ap- government from the earliest date to reXIII. Sioux Half-Breed Scrip.
peal by Markley from your decision hold serve salines from settlement and entry, XIV. Spanish and Mexican Grants XV. Stumpage.
639 ing his timber culture entry for cancel and to dispose of them by act of Congress. XVI. Telegraph Lines . 640 'lation.
But here we are met by the fact that the
land in question is not saline, and it fol- swamp land, the court say, “The descrip- material that they had been previously lows that it was never the intention of tive field notes on the plat are not con- borne on the ofticial records as agricultural Congress to reserve it. I am informed clusive evidence of the character of the lands." that no express reservation of this tract land ; for, when the bounds of a tract are The timber-culture laws, confining entry has been made by your office, althongh the given, the question whether the tract is or to "lands devoid of timber," as effectually record shows that in fact there has been is not included within the lands granted as reserve timbered lands from such entries a reservation of it; but it needs no argu- swamp or overflowed land, is a question of as other statutes reserve saline and minment to show that no mere de facto reser- fact." In Railroad Company vs. Smith eral lands. In 1874 it was held by your vation or appropriation of land can affect (9 Wallace, 95), the court declared testi- office in the cases of Dyer and Walker the rights of qualified claimants, and such mony to the fact of a swampy character to (Copp's Land Laws, 658), that“ the official is the rule in your office and in this De- be competent, and said, " The matter is township plat, showing timber on a certain partment (Lewis vs. Town of Seattle, 9 one of observation and examination, and tract, must be accepted as determining the Land Owner, 103). It is true that it has whether arising before the Secretary, whose character thereof," and as reserving from been the practice of your office, and of the duty it was primarily to decide it, or be entry; but the ruling was long since overlocal offices, to regard and to treat this fore the court, whose duty it became be- ruled by this Department, and it was held tract as reserved; but “the practice of the cause the Secretary had failed to do it, in Linden vs. Gray (3 Land Owner, 181), officers of the land office" does not impair this was clearly the best evidence to be that “the statements contained in the field "the real and just rights of claimants” | had.” And such has been the ruling of notes may be modified or contradicted by (Irvine vs. Marshall, 20 How., 558, 567). this Department in regard to swamp lands, evidence taken in due form.” In Lamb The only evidence before me of the man- as, for example, in Millard vs. State of vs. Reeser (3 Land Owner, 73), where, as ner of creating this reservation is to be Oregon (5 Land Owner, 179), the Swamp in the case at bar, an application was made found in your decision in the case of Forbes Grant to Minnesota, (4 Land Owner, 149), but entry refused pending an inquiry into vs. Hatcher, above referred to, where it is and the Swamp Grant to Florida, (7 Land the character of the land, and meanwhile said that “the land in controversy was re-Owner, 9), in the last of which cases it was a homestead entry permitted, it was held served by the Surveyor-General's letter of held that field notes are not "due proof" that, where the evidence established the July 9, 1862;” but I am of opinion that of the character of land. In these cases, non-timber character of the land, “it folsaid reservation is presumptive merely, also, and in others, it appears that it has lows that the marking on the plat was and may be overcome.
been customary to allow entry on lands erroneous, the land was subject to Lamb's It appears that the Surveyor's field notes, returned by the Surveyor-Generalas swamp entry, and he should now be peripitted to and the plats made from them, show the lands, on hearing and proof of the facts by make it as of the date he offered it.” tract to be saline land; but I fail to find agricultural claimants.
It thus appears that the rulings of the any law authorizing erroneous markings Mineral lands are reserved by the same courts and of the Land Department are in the field notes or plats to be construed laws and in the same terms as saline lands, consistent in their view of the effect of the as reservations, or making these markings and by the same language it is provided Surveyor-General's returns of swamp, min. conclusive evidence of the character of that the field notes and plats shall record eral and timbered land, and I can perceive land. In the act of May 18, 1796, (1 Stat., their situations. But it has never been no reason why there should be a different 464), it was provided that “Every sur- held that these notations created reserva- ruling in relation to the returns of saline veyor shall note in his field book the truetion of the lands so marked. General cir- lands. That the ruling should be the situations of all mines, salt-licks, salt- cular May 16, 1868, (Copp's Mining De same appears by plain implication from springs, and mill-seats, which shall come cisions, 249), declares that "the return of cases which have arisen in the courts, to his knowledge,” and that “these field a deputy surveyor, although entitled to where the broad rule obtains that there is books shall be returned to the Surveyor- respect as coming from a sworn officer, is no reservation except by force of the law. General, who shall therefrom cause a fair not to be taken as conclusive in these In Indiana vs. Miller, (3 McLean, 151,) it plat to be made," which“ shall be recorded cases, when disputed, but the matter must seems that a certain tract was marked on in books to be kept for that purpose," and he investigated by the examination of wit. the field books as containing a salt spring, "a copy thereof shall be kept open at the nesses," and a claim to such land has because wild animals had been observed Surveyor-General's office for public infor- always been permitted, subject to such in- to drink the water; but the evidence mation, and other copies sent to the places vestigation. The same circular, in order showed that in fact it was of no value as a of sale and to the Secretary of the Treas- ' to give effect” to Section 11, Act of July salt spring, and it was held that it did not ury." Such has been the law from that 26, 1866, authorizing the Secretary of the pass to the State by the grant of April 19, date, and such is the language of Section Interior to designate and set apart such 1816. In Morton vs. Nebraska, (21 Wal2395, R. S., with the exception of the sub- lands in the mineral belt of California as lace, 660,) where the question of saline resstitution of “the General Land Office" for were clearly agricultural, required survey- ervations in Kansas and Nebraska was di“the Secretary of the Treasury.” Public ors“ to describe in their field notes and rectly raised, the court refute the arguand official information was the object of designate on township plats such lands as ment that a reservation of the land dethese notations, with a view to preventing are agricultural," and declared tracts so pends upon the notation on the plats, and entry until the facts are finally determined. designated to be open to agricultural set- they say: "The salines in this case were They should be, and they are only prima tlement; but, so far from such designation not hidden, as mines often are, but were facie evidence, and subject to be rebutted and declaration operating as a reservation so incrusted with salt that they resembled by satisfactory proof of the real character of the land from mining entries, the circu- "snow-covered lakes," and of the land; for they may be erroneous, lar expressly provides for contests and quently not subject to pre-emption. . . as was justly remarked by the Supreme hearings by the mineral claimants in order the salines in question were noted on the Court of Oregon in Mining Company vs. to determine the true character of the land. field books, but these notes were not transIsh, (see Copp's Mineral Lands, 365), “ to These views of the effect of the Surveyor- mitted to the Register's general plats, and hold that the failure of the surveyor to General's returns have never changed, and it is argued that a failure to do this gave fully discharge his duty could operate to accordingly it was held by Mr. Secretary a right of entry. But not so, for the defeat the rights of the appellant, would Schurz in Scogin vs. Culver, (Copp's Min- words of the statute are general, and rebe violative of the plainest principles of eral Lands 2d Ed'n, p. 264),when the plats serve from sale or location all salines, justice.”
of survey of this township showing it to whether marked on the plats or not." Where this question has arisen in the be agricultural land were approved,” that These cases seem to be decisive of the courts, they have so held expressly, or by " whether or not the lands entered by Cul- issue raised in the case at bar, and to esclear implication. In Robinson vs. For- ver were such lands is a question of fact tablish the rule that a notation of saline rest (29 Cal., 821), where the plats showed to be determined by proof, and it is im-'on the plats or its omission, is imma
terial, and that no land but that in fact of intersection to establish corners of such celled to prevent the further direction from saline is reserved from agricultural en conflicting claims.
applying, viz.: that it must be offered at try, and the act of January 12, 1877 (19 In regard to the necessity of parallel public sale. Stat. 6221), providing for the sale of saline end lines you are also referred to the delands, strengthens this view by requir- cision of the Hon. Secretary of the Inte
HOMESTEADS. ing a hearing, when it is made to appear rior in the matter of the claims of Wm. to the local oflicers that any lands in their H. Henry et al., in New Mexico, Copp's Homestead Entry and Pre-emption Entry at
CARRIE L. WHEELOCK. districts are saline in character. This Land Owner, Vol. 10, p. 102, wherein he
Same Time.-A party made a homestead enwas the view expressed in my opinion of refers to the decision of the U. S. Supreme try, and prior to the end of six months from July 12, 1882 (Henry C. Horton, 9 Land Court in the case of the Eureka Cons. date of such entry, made cash entry on a preOwner 121); where agricultural and rail. Ming. Co. vs. Richmond Mining Company, emption filing covering different land : held, road claims were in conflict, namely, “ If in which it was held that Sec. 2320 R. S.,
that the homestead entry should be canceled. the lands are saline in character, they are requiring the end lines of each claim to COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Reg. and Ree., excepted from the grant, and are reserved be parallel with each other, is merely di
Oberlin, Kans., Aug. 27, 1883. (O. H. H.) to the United States. If, on the other rectory, and no consequence is attached to
Our records show that Carrie L. Wheehand, they are not saline in character, they a deviation from its direction (5 Sawyer lock made D. $. 32, covering the S. E. of are so far as appears, subject to the appel- 131). But the Hon. Secretary further NF., 32, S. of N. W. and N. E. of lant's claim, if, as alleged, the company states that the statutory direction, as a of S. W. 33, 5, 26, Sept. 27, alleging sethas received other lands in lieu thereof." rule, should be followed, and that he fully
tlement Sept. 23, 1881. D. S. 303, coverThe character of the lands is a question approves of the practice of this oflice re
ing same tracts, Feb’y 5, 1883, alleging of fact, to be determined by due proofs quiring surveys to conform thereto in the settlement Nov. 18, 1882, by same party. and the qualified party who first settles on respect named. The above instructions That she made cash entry 168, covering them or applies to enter them, and other- will, perhaps, meet the question submitted said tract May 18, last. That on May 4, wise conforms to the law, las priority of in the letter of Mr. John A. Church, a
last, said party made H. E. 462, covering right when their non-saline character is copy of which you enclosed.
W. of N. E., S. E. of N. W. I, N. E. determined.
There is no authority for the location of S. W., 32, 5, 26. It thus appears Your decision is accordingly reversed, or patenting of lode claims triangular in that from May + to 18th, said party was and the land awarded to Markley. shape. If the provisions of section 2320 attempting to acquire title to two different
in the matter of location are complied tracts, each under a separate act, and both MINES AND MINERALS.
with, no good reason can exist why a sur- of said acts requiring residence by the
yey of a mining claim need be triangular claimant upon the tracts claimed. The GRAND DIPPER LODE.
in form, though with the proper exclu- homestead entry was made 14 days prior Conflicts--Survey. The plat of survey of a lode sions made, the surface ground claimed to the pre-emption entry, and although
homestead claimants generally are allowed mining claim must show all conflicts, and un- | by the applicant and embraced in his patless such conflicts are shown, the survey ent may present, on the plat of survey residence upon a claim, they cannot be
6 months within which to establish their should not be approved.
the lines of which conform to the law-an ACTING COMMISSIONER HARRISON to U. S. Sur- irregular form or aspect.
permitted to make an entry while residing General Robbins, Tuscon, Arizona,
upon land for which they have filed, and August 2, 1883. (F. P. McD.)
upon which they intend to make proof
THOMAS J. JACKSON.
under the pre-emption law, as the law al-
upon a homestead claim was never intions before you approve the survey of the SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFar- tended to aid parties in such a case as the same, has been examined.
land, Oct. 1, 1883.
one under consideration, but was intended You state, and it is shown to be so by I have considered the appeal of Thomas to benefit parties who might for good and said diagram, that the said Grand Dipper J. Jackson from your decision of June 20,
sufficient reasons be unable to establish a Lode, so located, is a four-sided figure with 1883, holding for cancellation his home residence at date of entry. In view of the parallel end lines, the provisions of Sec. stead entry No. 13,754 made March :27,
facts recited, H. E. 462 has this day been 2320 U.S. Revised Statutes being fully 1883, for the W. of S. E. and E. 4 of beld for cancellation, subject to appeal. complied with.
S. W. , 32, 14 S., 7 W., Huntsville DisThe survey of the claim made by the trict, Alabama.
PROBST VS. WHYTE. deputy surveyor cuts ofi' a portion of the
The tract was reported in 1879 by Spe- Settlement - Homestead Entry. -The settlement right end, shown to be in conflict with the cial Agent Winter as containing valuable
acts of Whyte were performed prior to cancel
lation of homestead entry, and can avail Emerald Lode, the easterly end line of the coal, but was nevertheless allowed to be naught. The land is awarded to Probst. Emerald claim thus becoming one of the entered under the homestead law by one SECRETARY TELLÉR to Commissioner Me Farboundary lines of the said " Grand Dip- Thompson, January 3, 1883, whose entry land, October 3, 1883. per," and not parallel to the easterly end was voluntarily relinquished and canceled I have considered the case of John line of the Grand Dipper survey. March 27, 1883.
Probst, Jr., vs. Mary M. Whyte, involving I cannot see how you can give your ap The act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 487), the W. į of the S. W. of Sec. 17, Tp. proval to such a survey. No reason ex- provides that all public lands in Alabama 1, R. 13, Stockton, California, on appeal ists why the survey lines should not con- shall be subject to disposalas agricultural by Probst from your decision of March form directly to the lines of the location, lands: “ Provided, however, That all lands 25, 1882, awarding the tract to Whyte as they being properly run in the first in- which have been heretofore reported to the first settler.
The instructions of this oflice to the General Land Office as containing coal Whyte filed declaratory statement Janube found in Vol. 1, page 133, Copp's Land and iron shall first be offered at public ary 19, alleging settlement January 11, Owner, (Copp's Min. Lands, 2 Ed., p. 217,) sale."
1881, and Probst made homestead entry are intended to meet just such a contin This tract being now subject to disposal February 21, 1881. gency, and that conflicts with other claims as public lands, although coming formally It appears that Patrick Whyte (uncle of may be clearly shown and not avoided, into that condition since the passage of the claimant) made homestead entry of you will find there laid down, the manner the act, falls within the mention of the the tract, February 2, 1876. He never in which intersections with conflicting statute as having been theretofore reported resided on the tract, but cultivated eight claims may be noted, and of the running as containing coal, and there is no force in or nine enclosed acres for several years. of courses and distances from such points the intervening entry subsequently can-'On January 11, 1881, Mary Whyte pur