Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

[No. 891.] NOTICE

OF THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE LAND OFFICE AT CARSON CITY, NEVADA. Notice is hereby given that the President of the United States, by Executive order dated August 29, 1883, has directed that the office for the disposal of public lands now located at Carson City, Nevada, be discontinued, and that its business archives be transferred to the land office at Eureka, Nevada.

This order will be carried into effect on January 1, 1884, on which date the officers at Eureka will be prepared to receive applications for the lands formerly in the Carson City District, and transact all business relating thereto.

Given under my hand at the City of Washington, this eighth day of September, A. D. 1883.

By the President:

N. C. MCFARLAND, Commissioner of the General Land Office.

[blocks in formation]

Townsend Webster, Imperial Lode. John A. Willard, Ontario Lode.

San Juan County.

Benj. F. McKenzie, Great Republic Lode.
Tower Mountain Mg. Co., Rowell Lode.
Summit County.

D. D. Belden et al., Jenny Lind Lode.
A. H. Bereman, Columbia and Louisa Lodes.
Clifton Cons. Mg. Co., Clifton Lode.
Conara S. Mg. Co., Tunnel Lode No. 1.
F. H. Ketcham, Comstock Lode.
John R. Knodel et al., Mamie R. Lode.
J. R. Long et al., Battle Mountain Lode.
Jno. Mattson, Mattson Lode.
J. K. McDonald, Kremlin Lode.
J. H. Skillman et al., Golden Terra Lode.

MONTANA.

Lewis and Clarke County. Chas. E. Colbert et al., Placer. Missoula County.

Benj. F. Housum et al., Placer.

NEVADA.

White Pine County.

[blocks in formation]

Geo. W. Lamoureux et al., Carbonate Lode 189, 191, 194, 198 and 202. and M. S.

OREGON.

Baker County.

Michael Hyde, Michael Hyde Quartz Mine.

UTAH.

Beaver County.

Morton French, Oceolia Lode.

C. C. Woodhouse et al., Cortez Lode.

Salt Lake County.

ARKANSAS.

LITTLE ROCK.

Hot Springs Series, 349, 634.

CALIFORNIA,
LOS ANGELES.

Nos. 2 (Desert Lands), 677, 1028, 1033 and 1044.

DAKOTA. ABERDEEN.

Watertown Series, No. 1784.

FARGO.

Red Lake and Pembina Chippewa Half-Breed Scrip,
Supreme Court Scrip, R. & R. No. 319.

J. H. Jennings, Carrie Lode and Carrie Mill Nos. 179 and 462, R. & R. Nos. 159 and 202.

Site.

[blocks in formation]

GRAND FORKS.

[blocks in formation]

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, 2718, 2720 to 2724 inclusive, 2727, 2731, 2733, 2734, 2735, 2741, 2744, 2758, 2765, 2766, 2767, 2772, 2777, 2779, 2782, 2783, 2785, 2793, 2798, 2800, 2809, 2822, 2826, 2827, 2837, 2840, 2847, 2852, 2854, 2855, 2856, 2862, 2871, 2873, 2874, 2875, 2877, 2880, 2882, 2884, 2887, 2897, 2898, 2900, 2904, 2913, 2914, 2917, 2918, 2921, 2926, 2927, 2929, 2934, 2935 and 2939.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

VOL. X.

COPP'S LAND OWNER

WASHINGTON, D. C., NOVEMBER 1, 1883.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

No. 15.

LAND OFFICE DECISIONS-1881-83. This work has appeared, and is above the average of land office publications. Its body contains 633 pages, of which 124 pages are given to private land claims, 59

to mineral lands and 66 to railroads. With index and other matter, the book occupies 669 pages, 8vo.

The contents are arranged by divisions of the office, and some of the chiefs have tried to prepare their sections systematically and in logical sequence.

We offer the book at $2.25, full law

FOR SALE.-An approved 80-acre sol- binding.
dier's additional homestead right. Will
238 not take less than $1,000 for it. Address
Postoflice Box 36, Morrillton, Ark.

[blocks in formation]

CONTENTS.

The items following, as paged, will show the character of the arrangement, and the space allowed each subdivision:

[blocks in formation]

VIII.

[blocks in formation]

I.

Circulars.

316

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

252

232

252

PAGE

Redington & Hill, Washington, D. C......

I

Curtis & Burdett, Washington, D. C......

Capt. John Mullan, San Francisco & Washington. D. H. Talbot, Sioux City, Iowa...

I

[ocr errors]

Ellery C. Ford, Washington, D. C...

I

D. K. Sickels, Washington, D. C....
C. W. Holcomb, Washington, D. C...
W. J. Johnston, Washington, D. C.
Henry N. Copp, Washington, D. C...

Chas. & William B. King, Washington, D. C..
Walter H. Smith, Washington, D. C...
H. J. Frost, Washington, D. C.............
Riddle, Davis & Padgett, Washington, D. C..

[blocks in formation]

Polk County T. F. Co., Washington, D. C... Preston, Kean & Co., Chicago, Ills... General Price List

CONVEYANCE-SALE OF LAND-STANDING
TIMBER-REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY.-
By written contract P. agreed to sell a
piece of land to H., and convey when the III.
purchase-money was paid. The standing
timber was to remain P's as security. II.,

I without paying, cut and sold a part of the
timber to J., and P. gave notice of his

I

IV

IV ownership; thereupon J. bought P's inIV terest in the land and timber, prior to any iv attachment. Before J's deed was recorded, the lumber, not having been delivered, was attached by the creditors of H. Held, that J. was the owner of the land, and by III legal sequence the lumber, and that he I could follow it and assert his dominion

PAGE II III

III

V. Restoration of Lost Corners

Division G.-Preëmptions.—415.

Abandonment.
Additional Land
Alienation

PAGE
415

420

Board of Equitable Adjudication 424
Conflicting Claims

I.

II. III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

[blocks in formation]

IX. Estoppel.

X. Filing

[blocks in formation]

426

441

442

461

471

486

It appears further that on January 27, 1879, and before said hearing and adjudication, Markley filed application No. 2301, to enter said tract for timber culture, which application was held subject to the said adjudication; and that on March 20, 1879, Miss Cole filed her declaratory statement No. 9882, alleging settlement December 20, 1878. By said decision of September 23, 1880, the local officers were instructed to make these applications of record "as of the date on which they were filed respectively," which instructions were repeated in your decision of December 8, 1880; but it appears that the local officers made the Cole application of record as of September 29, 1880, and the Markley application as of January 13,

AGREEMENTS WITH ELECTRIC It appears from the record that certain LIGHTING COMPANIES. parts of said township, including the tract 419 At the present time, when electric lights in question, "were returned by the Surare being more and more used for lighting veyor-General July 9, 1862, as 'saline streets, and when the Board of Supervis- lands,' and withheld from entry accord428 ors has under consideration a proposal ingly;" that on September 17, 1878, one 432 from a company for lighting in this way a Robert W. Pratt filed an affidavit contest434 great part of this city, it is useful and im- ing said return, and that, at a hearing held portant to keep ourselves well informed under the provisions of circular of October 454 regarding the agreements and conditions 1, 1878, the land was shown to contain no 457 which the authorities of other cities have salines, and was adjudged to be agricul458 made with electric light companies for tural by your decision of September 23, 459 lighting their streets. Hampstead, a large 880, and declared to be open to entry. and populous parish in the northern part 463 of London, which, like the greatest part 465 of that city, is not included in the juris467 diction of the old municipal corporation 468 of London, but has its affairs regulated by 469 the parish vestry officers, has just made a contract with an electric light company 489 The charge for each public lamp of thirty 491 candle power is to be seventeen dollars per 492 annum, the company to maintain the wires 493 and wicks. For private lighting, the rate 498 is to be sixpence per unit. This price for 500 public street lamps is the same as is now 501 paid for gas, but the gas is of sixteen can 506 dle power instead of thirty. The rate for private lighting is not nearly so favorable. The electric unit means an equivalent to 511 110 cubic feet of gas. If the charge for 516 electric lights in private houses was the 517 same price as is charged private consumers for gas in London, the rate would be little more than seven cents per unit, instead of twelve cents. Gas in London is low in price, being about seventy-five 526 cents per 1000 cubic feet in private houses, to do substantial justice in the premises. 526 and less for large consumers. There is As between the parties to the record, if 527 one condition in this agreement between either acquired a right to the land, Markley, Hampstead parish and the electric lighting company, to which we wish to call special attention. It is this: so long as the com541 pany maintains the rates mentioned for public and private lights, it is only enti552 tled to pay a dividend of ten per cent., 554 and for every deduction of a halfpenny per unit it can pay one per cent. addi557 tional in dividends.-Exchange.

497

508

519

520

523

539

539

542

543

555

560

564

566

571

573

573 578 582

590 591 594

XV.

Practice

XVI. Presumption

XVII. Survey

XVIII. Tunnel Location

[blocks in formation]

PRACTICE.

COLE VS. MARKLEY.
Relation-Local Officers.-The rights of parties
relate back to date of inception as against each

1881.

Now, it is well settled that the rights of parties to the public lands, when formally recognized, relate back to the date of the inception of said rights, as against each other, and that they are not to be prejudiced by any failure of the local officers

who was fully qualified, obtained an inceptive right by his application to enter, January 27, 1879, and Miss Cole by her settlement on December 20, 1878, if duly qualified. But the record shows that she was disqualified by reason of non-age, and that she did not come of age until March 15, 1879; consequently her rights must yield to those of Markley, who has duly tendered the fees, provided he could acquire an inceptive right on January 27, 1879. This your decision of July 17, 1882, holds that he could not do, for the reason that "March 14, 1882, this (your) office decided, in the case of Forbes vs. Hatcher, involving land in the same township, that the former ruling, allowing filings and entries to date back of the time when the land was adjudged agricultural in charac

other, and they are not prejudiced by failure of the local officers to do justice in the premises. Reservation. Restoration.-Filings and entries cannot date back of day when reserved land is ordered restored to the public domain. But no mere de facto reservation or appropriation can affect the rights of qualified claimants. ter, was erroneous, and that rights thereto A presumptive reservation may be overcome. could only attach from and after the deErroneous markings on plats and field-notes cision ordering its restoration, September do not constitute reservations, and such mark-23, 1880."

ter of land.

as

ings are not conclusive evidence of the charac- This decision was founded on the alSECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Mc Far-leged reservation of the tract in question land, September 19, 1883. (D. A. McK.) "saline land." How was the reservation created? The law reserves generally "lands on which are situated any known salines," and it has been the policy of the government from the earliest date to reserve salines from settlement and entry, and to dispose of them by act of Congress. But here we are met by the fact that the

I have considered the case of Hattie M. 629 Cole vs. Joseph Markley, involving the 629 N. W. of Section 27, Township 9 S., Range 7 W., Concordia, Kansas, on ap636 peal by Markley from your decision hold639 ing his timber culture entry for cancel640 lation.

635

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 official 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, although 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 us. 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 returned by the Surveyor-General as swamp entry, and he should now be permitted to lands, on hearing and proof of the facts by make it as of the date he offered it.agricultural claimants.

It appears that the Surveyor's field notes, and the plats made from them, show the tract to be saline land; but I fail to find 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, minconclusive 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 true tion 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 be 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 were conseof the land; for they may be erroneous, lar expressly provides for contests and as was justly remarked by the Supreme Court of Oregon in Mining Company vs. Ish, (see Copp's Mineral Lands, 365)," to hold that the failure of the surveyor to fully discharge his duty could operate to defeat the rights of the appellant, would be violative of the plainest principles of justice."

Where this question has arisen in the courts, they have so held expressly, or by clear implication. In Robinson vs. Forrest (29 Cal., 821), where the plats showed

quently not subject to pre-emption... hearings by the mineral claimants in order The salines in question were noted on the to determine the true character of the land. field books, but these notes were not transThese views of the effect of the Surveyor- mitted to the Register's general plats, and General's returns have never changed, and it is argued that a failure to do this gave accordingly it was held by Mr. Secretary a right of entry. But not so, for the Schurz in Scogin vs. Culver, (Copp's Min- words of the statute are general, and reeral Lands 2d Ed'n, p. 264), when "the plats serve from sale or location all salines, of survey of this township showing it to whether marked on the plats or not." be agricultural land were approved," that "whether or not the lands entered by Culver were such lands is a question of fact to be determined by proof, and it is im

These cases seem to be decisive of the issue raised in the case at bar, and to establish the rule that a notation of saline on the plats or its omission, is imma

of intersection to establish corners of such
conflicting claims.

celled to prevent the further direction from applying, viz.: that it must be offered at public sale.

HOMESTEADS.

CARRIE L. WHEELOCK.

Homestead Entry and Pre-emption Entry at Same Time.-A party made a homestead entry, and prior to the end of six months from date of such entry, made cash entry on a preemption filing covering different land: held, that the homestead entry should be canceled. COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Reg. and Rec., Oberlin, Kans., Aug. 27, 1883. (O. H. H.) Our records show that Carrie L. Whee

terial, and that no land but that in fact saline is reserved from agricultural entry, and the act of January 12, 1877 (19 In regard to the necessity of parallel Stat. 221), 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 Inteing a hearing, when it is made to appear rior in the matter of the claims of Wm. to the local officers that any lands in their H. Henry et al., in New Mexico, Copp's districts are saline in character. This Land Owner, Vol. 10, p. 102, wherein he was the view expressed in my opinion of refers to the decision of the U. S. Supreme July 12, 1882 (Henry C. Horton, 9 Land Court in the case of the Eureka Cons. Owner 121); where agricultural and rail- Ming. Co. vs. Richmond Mining Company, road claims were in conflict, namely, "If in which it was held that Sec. 2320 R. S., the lands are saline in character, they are requiring the end lines of each claim to excepted from the grant, and are reserved be parallel with each other, is merely dito the United States. If, on the other rectory, and no consequence is attached to hand, they are not saline in character, they a deviation from its direction (5 Sawyer lock made D. S. 32, covering the S. E. 4 of are, so far as appears, subject to the appel- 131). But the Hon. Secretary further N. E. 32, S. 3 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 office reing 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, has priority of in the letter of Mr. John A. Church, a last, said party made H. E. 462, covering W. of N. E. 4, S. E. of N. W. 4, N. E. right when their non-saline character is copy of which you enclosed. determined.

Your decision is accordingly reversed, and the land awarded to Markley.

MINES AND MINERALS.
GRAND DIPPER LODE.

Conflicts-Survey. The plat of survey of a lode

mining claim must show all conflicts, and un-
less such conflicts are shown, the survey
should not be approved.

ACTING COMMISSIONER HARRISON to U. S. Sur-
veyor General Robbins, Tuscon, Arizona,
August 2, 1883.
(F. P. McD.)

The diagram of the Grand Dipper Lode submitted with your letter of the 24th ultimo, and on which you request instructions before you approve the survey of the

same, has been examined.

You state, and it is shown to be so by said diagram, that the said Grand Dipper Lode, so located, is a four-sided figure with parallel end lines, the provisions of Sec. 2320 U. S. Revised Statutes being fully complied with.

The survey of the claim made by the deputy surveyor cuts off a portion of the right end, shown to be in conflict with the Emerald Lode, the easterly end line of the Emerald claim thus becoming one of the boundary lines of the said "Grand Dipper," and not parallel to the easterly end line of the Grand Dipper survey.

There is no authority for the location of S. W. 4, 32, 5, 26. It thus appears or patenting of lode claims triangular in that from May 4 to 18th, said party was 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 of said acts requiring residence by the with, no good reason can exist why a survey of a mining claim need be triangular claimant upon the tracts claimed. The in form, though with the proper exclu- homestead entry was made 14 days prior sions made, the surface ground claimed to the pre-emption entry, and although by the applicant and embraced in his pat-homestead claimants generally are allowed ent may present, on the plat of surveythe lines of which conform to the law-an irregular form or aspect.

6 months within which to establish their residence upon a claim, they cannot be permitted to make an entry while residing upon land for which they have filed, and upon which they intend to make proof under the pre-emption law, as the law alAlabama Coal Lands. In view of the relinquish-lowing 6 months to establish a residence ment of the prior homestead entry the tract in question must be offered at public sale.

THOMAS J. JACKSON.

SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFar

land, Oct. 1, 1883.

upon a homestead claim was never intended to aid parties in such a case as the one under consideration, but was intended to benefit parties who might for good and

I have considered the appeal of Thomas sufficient reasons be unable to establish a J. Jackson from your decision of June 20, residence at date of entry. In view of the 1883. holding for cancellation his homestead entry No. 13,754 made March 27, facts recited, H. E. 462 has this day been 1883, for the W. of S. E. and E. of held for cancellation, subject to appeal. S. W. 1, 32, 14 S., 7 W., Huntsville District, Alabama.

The tract was reported in 1879 by Special Agent Winter as containing valuable coal, but was nevertheless allowed to be entered under the homestead law by one Thompson, January 3, 1883, whose entry was voluntarily relinquished and canceled March 27, 1883.

PROBST VS. WHYTE.

Settlement-Homestead Entry.-The settlement acts of Whyte were performed prior to cancellation of homestead entry, and can avail naught. The land is awarded to Probst. SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFarland, October 3, 1883.

I have considered the case of John 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. 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 disposal as 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. stance. The instructions of this office to the General Land Office as containing coal be found in Vol. 1, page 133, Copp's Land and iron shall first be offered at public Owner, (Copp's Min. Lands, 2 Ed., p. 217,) sale."

Whyte filed declaratory statement January 19, alleging settlement January 11, 1881, and Probst made homestead entry February 21, 1881.

are intended to meet just such a contin- This tract being now subject to disposal 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

« ZurückWeiter »