« ZurückWeiter »
is to the same effect, his application to ordered, and in 1879 and 1880 the Survey, if another survey found additional contest), was erroneously allowed and veyor-General transmitted to your office a swamp lands. If lands were in fact, in must be dismissed, as also for the same list of selections aggregating 286,50670% 1849, of the character contemplated by the reason the applications of King, Hollidge, acres, or nearly 34,000 acres less than act, they cannot be withheld from the and Foster, made respectively April 30, were reported by the original survey. It State whenever (there being no other valid 1883, pending the first application of also embraced a few hundred acres not claim) such fact appears; and to approve Wheelan; and you are directed accord- named in that survey; and nearly all the the ruling in the Michigan case would be ingly.
lands embraced in the re-survey are in- to uphold an office regulation rather than I do not see that in any event Wheelan cluded in the selections originally made, an express statute. " The whole " of the could have a preference right as a contest- title to which has been in the State for swamp lands in the State being granted to ant to enter the tract under the act of thirty years.
it, and title thereto vesting in it, its rights May 14, 1880; because under the ruling of Your decision rejects the claim of the cannot be abridged so long as there rethis Department (Critchfield vs. Lewis, State to those tracts embraced in the new main unselected tracts not otherwise apCopp, January 1883), such right is allow- survey which were not embraced in the propriated. able only in cases where failure to comply old survey, under a ruling of your office I am of opinion that the tracts found with the law after entry is alleged, and in June, 1864, to the effect that the State to be swamp by the re-survey, additional proven. The frand on the part of Taylor of Michigan, claiming swamp lands under to those so found by the original suralleged by Wheelan is not of this char- the act of 1850, was bound by its selec- vey, should be listed and patented to the acter, but of transactions prior to his tions made under an original survey, and State, and, therefore, reverse your deentry.
not entitled to lands found to be swamp cision. Although the testimony in the case and overflowed under a re-survey. was submitted on Wheelan's second con There is no imputation of fraud in MINERAL PATENTS ISSUED. test, which was invalid for the reason either of the surveys in question, nor anystated, and, therefore, strictly of no legal thing in the case to show
that one is more issued for the following mining claims:
Since our last report, patents have been effect-yet, in view of Taylor's death and accurate th:in another. The fact that they
: his non-compliance with the law to the differed in respect to the character of cer
ARIZONA, date thereof, and of the non-appearance of tain tracts is insufficient to discredit
Cochise County. any one at the hearing on his behalf after either, and the only question is, whether Henry J. Goodwin et al., Dragoon Lode. due notice, and of the fraud in his entry, the original survey is conclusive, as held
Gila County. which satisfactorily appears, I direct that in the Michigan case. Unquestionably, I Buckeye S. Mg. Co., Buckeye Lode. his entry be canceled, and that thereafter think, title to the lands embraced in the
Pima County. the tract in question be subject to the first former survey vested in the State under Dana Hannon, Congress of Beauty, Mabel, legal applicant.
the act of 1849, and the same is confirmed Sandwich, Sigma Epsilon, Thunderer Lodes
D. F. Harshaw et al., Alta Lode and Mill Site.
David Grubb et al., Cash and Pine Tree Re-surrey.- Lands in this State found by survey which had then been reported to your
Lodes. to be swamp and overflowed, and certified to office, so far as the lands were then va
CALIFORNIA. the State as such in 1852, cannot be claimed
Calaveras County. by the United States on a survey made in cant and unappropriated, and not inter
Albion P. Whitney et al., Sonoma Qtz. Mine. 1880, describing them as not swamp and over- fered with by actual settlement under ex
Mono County. flowed.
isting laws, and that such selections could SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Mc Far- not be set aside, nor title to any of the
Bodie Cons. Mg. Co. and the Mono G. Mg. Co., land, November 22, 1883. lands which they embraced—unless they
COLORADO. I have considered the appeal of the came within the exceptions mentioned in
Boulder County. State of Louisiana from your decision of the act—be thereafter conveyed by the
Homer F. Locke et al., Avon Lode. March 29, 1882, rejecting its claim to cer- United States to parties claiming ad
Alvin M. Richardson, Cincinnati Lode. tain lands in that State as swamp and versely to the swamp-land grant. Al
Henry H. Tuttle et al., Kenilworth Lode. overflowed lands. though, therefore, lands may have been
Chaffee County. The State of Louisiana is entitled to approved to the state of Louisiana under
Cave S. Mg. Co., Cave Lode. such lands under the act of March 2, 1849 a survey originally erroneous (which fact Anson Sperry (Trustee) et al., Silver King (9 Stat., 852), which has reference to that does not appear except from the subse- Lode. State only, and also under the general quent survey); yet it having been properly Austin Stevens, Black Tiger Lode. swamp act of September 28, 1850 (Ib. 519). approved after compliance by the State
Clear Creek County. The act of 1849 grants to the State “ the with the act of 1849, and certified to the Jerome B. Chaffee et al., Clift Lode. whole” of the swamp and overflowed land State—which was equivalent to patent
Marcus S. Claypool, Bourbon County, Columtherein (with certain named exceptions the United States became divested of its bia and Subdivision Lodes.
John L. Landis, Ben H. Hill Lode. not material hereto), and after their ex- title, and has no further ownership in, or
R. Harry Worthington, Muscovite Lode. amination by the Surveyor-General of the control over, such lands. The title of
Custer County. State and his deputies, and their certifica- the State to such lands must, therefore,
Belle Mg. and Mig. Co., Belle of the Gulch tion to the Secretary of the Treasury and remain undisturbed until set aside by Lode. approval by him, vests the fee simple to due course of law, even to the 34,000 acres Sarane Mg. Co., Little Lily Lode. such lands in the State, so far as they are which the re-survey finds to be not swamp
Dolores County. not claimed held by individuals. land. There has been no proceeding for James C. Parrish, Black Bird Lode. After compliance with the requirements this purpose, and the right of the State
Gilpin County. of the act, the State selected a list of such must be admitted. The lands selected
Del Monte G. & S. Mg. Co., Del Monte Lode. lands, aggregating 320,01410 acres, which, under the old survey, being no longer pub John E. Morris, Minnesota Lode. with exception of about 600 acres, were lic lands, were not subject to further sur Harley B. Morse, Dead Broke Lode. certified to the State in 1852. Subse- vey, and the re-survey could not affect
Gunnison County. quently, upon the knowledge or suspicion their status. As the act of 1849 granted Frederick Lottes, Nellie Placer. of your office that the survey upon which to the State “the whole" of the swamp
Hinsdale County. the approval and certification were based lands in the State, I do not think the right Williain 8. Campbell et al., Polar Queen was erroneously made, a new survey was of the State could be limited by one sur. 'Lode.
John S. Roberts, Great Western Lode. 8073, 8457, 9647, 11671 to 11692 inclusive, 11696 to 11703 in. Wimer Bedford et al., Town Talk Lode. Chas. S. Warren et al., Bland Lode.
clusive. 11705 to 11717 inclusive, 11719 to 11725 inclusive,
11728 to 11732 inclusive, 11743, 11744, 11764 to 11776 inclu. Chrysolite S. Mg. Co., All Right and Kit Car
sive, 11778 and 11781. son Lodes.
Nos. 10387 to 10392 inclusive, 10394 to 10399 inclusive, Elko County.
10401 to 10600 inclusive, 10602 to 10706 inclusive, 10708 to P.J. Cunningham, Fannie Gage Lode. Fred. C. Ewing et al., Winona Lode.
Commonwealth Cons., Mg. Co., All Alone 10750 inclusive, 10752 to 10891 inclusive.
Nos. 375, 378, 382 to 387 inclusive, 390, 393, 394, 395, 397, Mathias Thompson, Carondolet and Patagon
M. L. Causey, Burning Moscow Lode.
402, 404, 405, 406, 408, 410, 413, 572, 598, 623, 625 and 626. ian Lodes. Morris H. Joseph et al., Water Jacket Lode.
WASHINGTON TERRITORY. Thos. Weir et al., Tonawanda Lode.
Nos. 645, 760, 775, 826, 1019, 1015, 1046, 1060, 1078, 1081, L. H. Wilmot et al., Mary and Resurrection
1082, 1083, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1118, 1129, 1144, 1147, 1148, 1151, Lodes.
1154, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1169, 1173, 1190, 1193, 1197. 1198, 1212, La Plata County. Robert Swan, Josephine Lode.
1216, 1217, 1218, 1222, 1227, 1231, 1232, 1233 and 1236.
WISCONSIN. Jas. P. Wallace, Century Lode.
2991 inclusive, 2993, 2994, 2995, 3021, 3030, 3041, 3052, 3055, Homestake Lode.
3056, 3057, 3061, 3072 to 3077 inclusive, 3080 10 3083 inclu. S. H. Elbert et al., Silver Star Lode.
sive, 3090, S092, 3095, 3097, 3102, 5104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3118, David F. Miller, Putnam Lode.
3119, 3120, 3121, 3122, 3131, 3135, 3138, 3141, 3148, 3149, 3130, Mount Bross Mg. Co., Dennison Lode.
3152, 3153, 3155, 3157, 3159, 3160, 3191, 3197, 3198, 32:8, 3229, Chas. H. White et al., Parole Lode.
Wm. S. Searles et al., Oneida Lode.
3231, 3233, 3245, 3259, 3261, 324, 3265, 3272, 3273, 3275, 276,
3281, 3285, 3286. 3287, 3288, 3295 10 3302 inclusive. 3306, 3313, Pitkin County.
Salt Lake County.
3314, 3316, 3317, 3318, 3319, 3320, 3322, 3327 10 3337 inclusive,
3343, 3349, 3350, 3351, 3365, 3372, 3373, 3383, 3384, 3386, 3389, Byron E. Shear et al., Mountain Ranger
Mineral Fork Mg. & Smelting Co., Venus 3011, 3419, 3445, 3450, 3479, 3492, 3522, 3527, 3534, 3539, 3549,
3552, 3562, 3571, 3575 and 3582.
No. 25 (Desert Lands), 153, 154, 156, 164, 166, 189, 207 field and Mater Dolorosa Lodes.
Jas. Lindsay et al., Montezuma Lode.
HOMESTEAD PATENTS ISSUED.
CASH PATENTS ISSUED.
Copp's LAND Owner for this month reports the Tower Mountain Mg. Co., Huntington and
following final numbers of Homestead Patents Lighthall Lodes.
Copp's LAND Owner for this month reports issued and sent to the below-named land-offices: Summit County. the issuance of patents on the Cash Entries
CALIFORNIA. A. W. Anderson et al., A. W. Anderson Lode. to the below-named land-offices : numbered below, which patents have been sent
LOS ANGELES. Ballarat Mg. Co., Mountain Daisy Lode.
Nos. 575, 577, 578, 580, 581, 584, 585, 586, 587. Win. S. Ballon, et al., Tom Scott Lode.
KANSAS. J. B. Brownscombe et al., Wyoming Valley Independence and Bodie Series, Nos. 188 and 337.
Nos. 11564 to 11508 inclusive, 11570 to 11580 inclusive, Buda Mg. Co. et al., Buda Lode.
11582, 11583, 11584, 11587, 11589.
sive, 1254. 1255, 1261, 1262, 1274, 1287, 1305, 1306, 1315, 1325, Nos, 521, 1090, 1097, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1131 to 1143 incluWm. L. Graham et al., Eclipse Lode.
1331, 1335, 1338, 1342, 1343, 1354, 1355, 1357, 1358, 1376, 1380, sive, 1145, 1146, 1148, 1149, 1151 to 1162 inclusive, 1164, Washington T. Lewis, Rothschild Lode.
1386, 1391, 1398, 1400, 1411, 1415, 1419, 1420, 1421, 142, 1432, 1165, 1167, 1168, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1174 to 1187 inclusive, 1188
1437, 1444, 1445, 1455, 1468, 1470, 1476, 1480, 1481, 1490, 1495, to 124 inclusive, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1231 10 1262 inclusive, S. L. Morris, et al., Bledsoe Lode. 1499, 1515, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1528, 1529, 1546, 1550, 1562, 1567,
1570, 1575 and 1589.
Nos. 21, 31, 37, 43, 62, 124, 139, 142, 255, 374,"380, 381, 382, Nos. 2477, 2643, 2684, 2692, 2694, 2695, 2773, 2783, 2787, 2861, Jolin A. Smith et al., Memphis and Toronto 395, 409, 423, 424, 426, 428, 429, 438, 447 and 450.
3032, 3508, 3511, 3528, 3525, 3530, 3514, 3548. 3594, 3634. 3635, Lodes.
3640, 8641, 3646, 3648, 3653, 3654, 3656, 3665, 3669, 3676, 3681, William S. Stebbins et al., Ben Butler Lode. Fargo Series, No. 698.
3703 to 3710 inclusive, 3712, 3714, 3716 to 3727 inclusive, FLORIDA.
3729, 3731 to 3738 inclusive, 3740 to 3747 inclusive, DAKOTA.
3750, 3751, 3752, 3753, 3754, 3759 10 3780 inclusive, 3784, 3785, GAINESVILLE
3789, 3790, 3791, 3792, 3795, 3797 to 3806 inclusive, 3808, 3809, Lawrence County. Nos. 3122, 3278, 3323, 3341 and 3514.
3812 3815 to 3829 inclusive, 3831, 3832, 3833, 3834, 3837, 3338 Newton Learned, Black Dan and Gilt Edge
to 3846 inclusive, 3848, 3850 to 3857 inclusive, 3859, 3860. Lodes.
3861, 3866 to 3873 inclusive, 3875 to 3889 inclusive. CONCORDIA.
SAINT CLOUD. Newton Learned et al., Highland Mary and Nos. 2312, 2321, 2327, 2430, 2434, 2459, 2472, 2474, 2479, 2481,
Nos. 3842, 4030, 4079, 4088, 4093. 4138, 4156, 4159, 4159, 4163, Spccie Payment Lodes. 2482, 2484 and 2486.
4179, 4182, 4198, 4199, 4201, 4203, 4205, 4295, 296, 297, 307, John Oleson et al., Grand View and Silver
4310, 4:324, 4373, 4439, 4452, 4158, 4480, 4497, 4522, 5116, 5153, Terra Lodes.
5154, 5159, 5166, 5173, 5174, 5179, 5205, 5208, 5312, 5330, 5332, NEW ORLEANS. No. 6323.
5339, 5346, 5348, 5349 to 5352 inclusive, 5355 to 5358 inclus IDAHO.
sive, 6360, 5365 to 5371 inclusive, 5373, 5374. Custer County.
11306, 11307, 11309 to 11324 inclusive, 11333, 11338 to 113623857, 3880, 3887, 3899, 394, 3906, 3907, 3913, 3917, 3920, 3921, Deer Lodge County.
inclusive, 11373, 11374, 11376, 11393 to 11400 inclusive, 3921, 3936, 3938, 3943, 3958, 3961, 392, 3970, 3977, 3979, 3984,
11402 to 11425 inclusive, 11429, 11441, 11442, 11444 to 11449 3989, 3991, 3993, 3995, 3999, 4009, 4010, 4018, 4020. 40:26, 4027, James Savery, Atlantic Cable Extension inclusive, 11451, 11452, 11458 11459, 11460, 11461, 11485 4030, 4034, 4036, 403, 4052, 4055, 4056, 4057, 4058, 1039, 4069, Lode.
to 11491 inclusive, 11495 to 11524 inclusive, 11534, 11546, 4061, 4062, 4063, 406, 4035, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071,
11571, 11572, 11573, 11583, 11592, 11593, 11596, 11597, 11598, 4972 4073, 4075, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4080 to 4087 inclusive, Jefferson County.
11600, 11602, 11603, 11604, 11613, 11614, 11621, 11624 to 11630 4089 to 4093 inclusive, 4095, 4097 to 4113 inclusive, 4115 Geo. W. Cleveland, Agua Frio Lode. inclusive, 11636, 11646 to 11650 inclusive, 11680 and 11692.
to 4123 inclusive, 4125, 4126, 4127, 4128, 4130 to 4137 incluThos. A. H. Hay et al., Last Chance Lode.
sive, 4139, 4141 to 4146 inclusive, 4150, 4152, 4155, 4157, 4158,
4160, 4161, 4165, 4166, 4167, 4169, 4170, 4171, 4173, 4176, 4178,
Nos. 996, 1487, 1492, 149, 1508, 1513, 1517, 1525, 1537, 1541. 4181, 4182, 4183, 4184, 4186, 4188, 4189 4190, 4192 to 4202 in. Joseph P. Flick et al., W. A. Alley Lode. 1542, 1543, 1545, 1549, 1551, 1553, 1554,' 1556, 1558, 1559, 1560: clusive, 4204; 4205, 4208, 209, 4112, 4213, 4215 4216, 4217, Madison County.
1561 1562, 1564, 1566, 1568 1569 1571, 1582, 1583, 1588, 1589, 1218, 4219, 4222, 4223, 4224, 4225, 42:27 and 4228.
1697, 1704, 1709, 1710, 1832, 1920, 2103, 2146, 2158, 2388, 2478, La Mesilla Series, Nos. 51, 82, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140,
2538, 2547, 2674, 2804, 2872, 2961, 2967, 2971, 2972, 2974, 2976, 146, 147. John T. Argyle et al., Findling Lode. 2989, 2991, 2992, 2993, 3005, 3012, 3031, 3032, 3031 and 3035.
Colfax Series, Nos. 9, 15, 26, 29, 33, 35 to 39 inclusive, John F. Forbis et al., Montgomery Lode. clusive, 4266, 4267, 4268. 4271 to. 4298 inclusive, 4300 to 41, 42, 48, 65, 116, 117, 118, 120, 162, 459, 534, 535, 536, 545, 546, Thos. Ford et al., Robert Emmet No. 2 Lode. 1310 inclusive, 4314 to 4337 inclusive, 4339 to 4342 inclu- 547, 549 to 571 inclusive, 573 to 612 inclusive, 614 to 628 Peter McMahon et al., Emily Lode.
sive, 4344 to 4421 inclusive, 4423, 4424, 4425, 4427 to 4450 inclusive, 628 to 635 inclusive. Harry C. Kessler et al., Autocrat and Pluton-4506 to 4552 inclusive. 4556 to 4562 inclusive, 4564 to 4577 inclusive, 4458 to 4472 inclusive, 4474 to 4504 inclusive
WALLA WALLA. ian Lodes. inclusive, 4579 to 4583 inclusive, 4585 to 4593 inclusive,
No. 832. Silas F. King et al., Northern Butte Lode. 4595 and 4596.
COPP'S LAND OWNER.
WASHINGTON, D. C., FEBRUARY 15, 1884.
Entered at the Post Office out Washington, D, C., as This paper furnishes more valuable law informa
RECONSIDERATION OF second-class matter.
tion for less money, and is read by inore land attor-
DECISIONS. pre-einption, and other land claimants, and by more THIS NOTICE MARKED with a blue or red inine owners, engineers, and superintendents, than re ury of the Interior, of reforing applications for
The pructice which prevails in the office of the Secpencil indicates that your subscription expires with any other publication in the United States. ihis issue, and if you wish the paper continued with
reconsideration of deci-ions b ck to the same law out interruption, you should remit your renewal
clerk who prepared the original decision, is one snbscription at once.
INDEX TO VOLS. 1 TO 9.
which causes a great deal of unfavorable comment,
and ought to be disc utinued. Parties renewing their subscriptions will find it advantageous to send $1.00 for their card in the Land This book is now ready for delivery. ferred to u law clerk, who reads the testimony, ex:
Under the present pracuice an appeal case is reDirectory one year.
It contains 203 pages, price $2.00. The amines the law, forms an opinion, and formulates a
Table of Cases takes 52 pages; Acts of sistunt Attorney-General, and siued by tlie Secre-
tary. Editorial Notes-Land Personals-Reconsidera
On examination of the decision, the attorney for lion of Decisions-For Sale to the Highest Bid- Circular Instructions, 4 pages; Court De- the party against whom it is rendered sometimes
cisions, 3 pages; Homesteads, 7 pages ; facts and conclusions of luw upon which the case is
Laws of Congress, 5 pages; Lodes, Mines, mes an application for reconsiderution. This appli E. H, Gelston & Co.......
and Placers, 7 pages; Patents, 4 pages; cation is referred to the sumue clerk, who wrote the Willis F. Sureel Instructions-Henry Buchinan: 335 Pre-emptions, 5 pages;
Railroads, 4 pages; an opinion upon the very questions which he is again diassingill v8. Huwkins-Dumas vs. Look...... Surveys, 6 pages; Timber Culture, 4 cailed upon to decide.
This necessarily forces the attorney to apply for reHOMESTEADS.
pages; Widow, Wife, and Woman, 2 pages. liet to the judge who has already refused' it, and Matthiessen and Ward vs. Williams...
whose opinions are already formed. Examiners who
are capable of preparing learnedd cisions are usually Aldrich vs. Andersou-Lorenzo Van Gieson.. 368 James M. Dewetse et al.-Bennet vs. Baxley
Wen possessing considerable pride of opinion, and it
is but natural that they should look upon applicaDodd vs. Gauble... S. A. Baker-lusuuciions Kelating to Publica- 1000 acres for sale.
tions for reconsideration as reflections upoii their tiou oi Intentiou to Make Fmal Proof-Instruc
judgment, and treat them with disfavor. tionis Kela uive to Fmal Atidavits in Dakolit
F. A. HYDE, 623 Commercial St, The question is liable at the outset to assume the Circular-Bruy vs. Colby.....
forın of a personal issue between the attorney and
San Francisco, Cal. Plaisance vs. Bradley-Arnold vs. Coffey-Joshua
judge, in which the bia- and power of the judge does
not leave much hope for the client whose property Farruer....
rights are at stake The judge who tries himself is LAND WARRANTS.
not often convicted. Few men will acknowledge an
error of judgment when they ean find an excuse for George J. Roskruge - August Penchy-Mann vs. Have you military bounty land warrants avoiding it; and the alternative shon d not be forced Nicholas vs. Benoit
not properly assigned? I buy such. Will which th y huve al natural pride and interest, at the Jones vs. Finley.... 366 buy and sell locatable warrants at the expense of property rights in which th«y are not
concerned. The evil complained of could be easily standard market prices.
reinedied by referring app.ications for reconsidera
tion to another examiner. Benjamin Loomis et al.-Wheelon vs. Talbot....
Address, Editor of LAND OWNER,
Secretary Teller has surrounded himself with a Richard Griffiths-Childs vs. Cornelius....
corps of unusually clean and capable mel, for whom
we entertain the highest especi: and this criticism SAN FRANCISCO invested $5,261,689 in is aimed at a practice which is wrong in principle, building improvements last year, the larg
and not at them.- Brainard's Legal Precedents. Dakota Central Railway Company.
The only serious objection to the proest amount in a single twelvemonth for a
long time. The total for the past four posed change is loss or time—but in the Samuel M. Frank-Frank 0. Melcher-Klamath years is $14,703,068. A curious feature majority of cases an hour ought to be
River Indian Reservation.. Hileman and Clevish-W. L. Croff..
33 of her building record is that about 70 per enough to enable a new examiner to fully Suprenie Court of the United States : Relief Jackson vs. John D. Roby and James D. Rankin, cent. of the values are in frame structures. appreciate the reasons submitted by an
attorney who asks for reconsideration. and John D, Roby aud James D. Rankin vs. Relief Sackson.... 369
This reform ought to be mored into U. S. Circuit Court-District of Oregon: United
effect for another reason no. w applicaStates v8Williams and Others, and United Siules vs. Williams and Another.
INSPECTOR F. D. HOBBS has the sympa- ble. It is among the poss blities of the
thy of a wide circle of friends in the loss future that a dishonest, or a dissipated, or Mineral Patents Issued.. Cash Palenis Issued..
372 of his only son, a bright little fellow of a lazy man will be appointed law clerk Homestead Patenis Issued 372 three summers.
Material facts will not be suppressed or PROFESSIONAL CARDS.
AMONG recent confirmations in the land overlooked, or erroneous conclusions of Curtis & Burdett, Washington, D. C....
service are R. A. Johnson, Surveyor- law purposely or carelessly reached, it such Capt. John Mullan, San Francisco & Washington. D. H. Talbot, Sioux City, Iowa.
| General of Arizona, and David Walker, an examiner knows the case is subject Ellery C. Ford, Washington, D. C...
Register at Bodie, California. Florida to review by a different law clerk. D. K. Sickels & Co., Washington, D. C....
land men rejoice at the re-appointment of C. W. Holcomb, Washington, D. C..... W.J. Johnston, Washington, D.C..
J. F. Rollins, Receiver at Gainesville. FOR SALE TO HIGHEST BIDDER. Henry X. Copp, Washington, D. C... J. K. Redington, Washington, D. C......
Three soldier's additional homestead P. H. Seymour, Washingion, D. C.....
We have for sale Lester's 2 volumes of certificates—one of 40 acres, one of 80
Land Laws, $12.50; and Lewis' Leading acres, and one of 120 acres.
bid by mail or telegraph to Adolph MunKiud , Luciano l'utolii, Wassauli, D. L.
ter, Montgomery, Ala.
† Lüld Directory
Tue Ojocaliente or Hot Springs Reser-
Il ration, New Mexic, will be sold at public HAVE you bought the new 26 Metal Colberu Lands
sale at Las Crices. New Mexico, on Feb- strip Binder for the LAND OWNER? Get
ruary 27. It embraces tive sections of two new subscribers, and it will be sent to 1! land, and nu bid under $15,000 will be you free. An attorney in Northern Daiv. taken,
kota has obtained two binders in this way.
is on that point clear and convincing, that the head of a department. If it is alleged E. H. GELSTON & Co.
she did not ask for any further payment, that such agent is not a proper person to While it is the duty of the department to protect but on the contrary at once credited the appear before the department, the rule re
as far as possible all citizens against extortion len dollars paid by the father on the quires that charges be formulated and of parties practicing before the department, as mother's application. The deposition of presented to the agent; and if the agent well as to protect the Government by seeing the father and mother, taken by your does not make satisfactory explanation, that dishonest and corrupt persons do not ap- office, is also clear and positive on that disbarment follows. Such charges must claim agents, yet it must not be overlooked point, that no demand was made for an be suficiently explicit to create an issue that the agent represents persons whose inter- additional fee; and such testimony also between the Government and the responests will be injured by the disbarment of the fully supports the respondent's statement dent, if the respondent make defense. attorney or agent; and this is especially true that the filing of the father's claim was an The proceedings in cases of this character the fee allowed by law, will be compelled to error, and that long before she received in respect to the evidence required, are employ another attorney, who will in time also notice from your office of the rejection of analogous to cases for the disbarment of demand the fee allowed by law, thus compel- the father's application, she had prepared attorneys in courts of law, and must be ling them to pay double the amount in addition the papers for the mother's application. conducted in accordance with the princito the delay that must ensue in consequence of There is no evidence whatever to justify ples governing cases of that character. the employment of a person not familiar with the conclusion that the respondent had the proceeding is penal, although not the case. The right to practice before the several de notice that the soldier was a deserter e strictly criminal, and the courts have uni
partments of the Government as agents of fore she filed in your office the mother's formly required that the evidence should suitors, is a right of which citizens cannot be claim. It appears that an objectionable be more than a mere preponderance. deprived exceịt on proof of their unfitness for circular was sent out by the respondent (See in the matter of an attorney, 1st such employment. It is a property right, that cannot be destroyed by the exercise of arbi- more than two years since, and that since Hun., 321 ; matter of Baluss, 28th Michitrary power on the part of the head of a de- that time no circular of that character has gan, 507.) partment. been sent out by the respondent.
W bile the proceeding before the head SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner of Pen- spondent withdrew the circular long be- of a department for disbarment of an atsiune Dudley, January 3, 1884.
fore any steps were taken to either torney or claim agent practicing before I have considered your letter of the suspend or disbar her, and before your the department is analogous to a proceedfourth ultimo, submitting certain papers office had even complained of it. I think ing in a court of record for the same purrelating to the firm of E. H. Gelston & her offense in that particular is not such pose, it cannot be contended that the head Co. (coniposed of Emma H. Gelston) an one as will justify the harsh, and to her of a department possesses more power in and reiterating your recommendation of disastrous, course of disbarment. The such a case than a court; in fact, he does the third ultimo, that said firm be dis- circular now in use by respondent in effect not possess as much Attorney General barred from practicing before your office. solicits claims on account of soldiers Hoar, speaking of the power of the Sec
Among the papers are certain charges who did not intentionally desert." While retary of War over an agent practicing against the firm mentioned, and respon- the language quoted is not the best, and before the War department, said: “The dent's answers thereto. These charges might very readily be improved upon so Secretary of War is not, however, invested are in general the presentation of a false as to convey more clearly and unequivo- with any authority over the professional claim for pension, with intention to de-cally the purport and intent of the law, it conduct of claim agents for the correction fraud, and false representation of pension does not present such objections as would of mere private grievances, corresponding laws as to desertion, and are met by gen- justify departmental interference.
with that possessed by the courts of law eral and specific denial on the part of re- While it is the duty of the department over attorneys practicing therein. The spondent.
to protect as far as possible all citizens relation between the latter is an official Respondent admits the filing of a claim against extortion of parties practicing be- one, and from this is derived the summary which could in no sense be regarded as fore the department, as well as to protect jurisdiction which courts exercise over legal, it being a father's claim filed while the Government by seeing that dishonest their attorneys. But as between the dethe mother of the soldier on whose ac- and corrupt persons do not appear before partments and agents prosecuting claims count pension is asked was still living, the department as attorneys or claim before them, no official relation exists, and but avers that said claim was made and agents, yet it must not be overlooked that accordingly the Secretary can derive no filed through inadvertence, and a misap- the agent represents persons whose inter- such authority from that source, and none prehension of the facts by the clerk read. ests will be injured by the disbarment of is conferred upon him by any statute that ing the word "neither” for “ mother." the attorney or agent; and this is especi- has come under my notice.” The head of An examination of the papers shows that ally true in cases of pension claimants a department cannot debar an agent besuch a mistake might readily happen by in- who, having paid the fee allowed by law, cause he is ignorant, or offensive to him, attention of a clerk, and that as soon as the will be compelled to employ another at- nor because his methods of conducting mistake was discovered, which was on or torney. who will in-time also demand the his business are not in accordance with about July 19, 1883, steps were promptly fee allowed by law, thus compelling him to the highest ethics of the legal profession, taken to remedy the error by causing a pay double the amount, in addition to the nor because he resorts to flaming advernew and proper declaration to be made for delay that must ensue in consequence of tisements describing his professional qualithe mother; that said new declaration was the employment of a person not familiar fications, in the manner of vendors of in the due course of business filed in your with the case. The employment of another patent medicine nostrums. All these are office on Saturday, September 1, 1883, and attorney will also add largely to the work matters of taste, with which the departbefore notice of the rejection of the of your office; yet this objection should ment has nothing to do. If the agent father's claim, and that this was done with not govern or control the case if the evi- violates the statute, he may be punished out the charge of any additional fee, and dence is satisfactory of the unfitness of in the courts. If he defrauds the Governthe fee received in the father's claim being the agent or attorney to practice before ment or attempts so to do, or defrands his transferred and credited on the mother's the department. The right to practice client or attempts so to do, the head of a claim. It is impossible to suppose a claim before the several departments of the department is authorized then to refuse agent would file such a claim knowingly, Government as the agents of suitors to recognize him not only in the case in unless it was done for the purpose of is a right of which citizens cannot be de- which his fraud was committed or atsecuring a fee from the father, and ulti-'prived, except on proof of their unfitness tempted, but in any other; but this must mately filing a claim for the mother for for such employment. It is a property be done on evidence, and not on ex parte which a fee was to be also paid. But the right that cannot be destroyed by the ex- charges to which the accused has not been testimony on the part of the respondent ercise of arbitrary power on the part of allowed to respond. Property rights of this character cannot be destroyed except collected testimony (fees) at the rate of not done by yourselves or your employees upon clear proof.
fifteen cents per one hundred words. This (except in examining and approving testiThe Supreme Court of Illinois, speaking is the construction of the law, and the mony taken by the judge or clerk of a of the profession of attorney at law, says: practice which prevails in every land office court in certain cases) is plain and imper“It is to him valuable capital, and he in the south half of this Territory." ative. ought not to be denied the right to exer- The first section of the act of March 3, All inoneys now in your hands or not cise its duties, and receive the emolu- 1883 (22 Stat., 484), to which general ref. heretofore covered into the Treasury, rements attached thereto, except upon clear erence is made, does not authorize the col- ceived as testimony fees in cases where the proof of willful and corrupt professional lection of any fees whatever. It provides testimony was not written out by yourmisconduct.” (People vs. Barker, 56 Illi- that "the fees allowed Registers and Re-selves or your employees, nor received nois, p. 303.)
ceivers for testimony reduced by them to from clerks of courts, must, therefore, be Chief Justice Marshall said: · The writing for claimants in establishing pre- returned to the parties entitled thereto. profession of an attorney is of great im- emption and homestead rights and mineral Who such parties are must be determined portance to an individual, and the pros- entries, and in contested cases, shall not by yourselves, that being a matter which perity of his life may depend on its ex- be considered or taken into account in de concerns your own personal responsibility. ercise; the right to exercise it ought not termining the maximum of compensation You ask, in case it is decided that you to be lightly or capriciously taken from of said officers."
must yourselves reduce testimony to writhim." (Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheaton, 530.) The fees which are not to be taken into ing in order to claim the fees, that au.
After a careful personal examination of account in determining the maximum of thority may be given you to direct all the evidence and the law governing the compensation of Registers and Receivers persons desiring to make tinal proof, to case, I am of the opinion that the charges are the fees "allowed” to those officers. come to the land office and have the proofs in this case are not sustained. I therefore The fees that are allowed” are fees al. written out there. You are informed that dismiss them.
lowed by authority of law. No other fees I have no authority under the law to issue
are allowed. This section does not “al. such instructious. WILLI8 F. STREET.
low" any fees.
The laws of Congress No Jurisdiction over Patented Lands.-When a and the regulations of this office and De
HENRY BUCHMAN. patent has issued for a tract of land, the Land partment show what fees are allowed. The Department has no further jurisdiction over exaction of any other fees is a misde- Local Officers' Personal Knowledge. It is proper it ; and cannot allow any other party to enter
that the Register and Receiver should report it.
meanor demanding dismissal from office, in every case, but especially in ex parte cases, SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Mc Far- and involving penalties of fine and impris- all facts within their personal knowledge, and land, December 28, 1883.
onment. (Sections 2242 and 5481 U. S. whatever tends to show any fraudulent proI have considered the appeal of Willis Revised Statutes.)
ceeding. F. Street, from your decision of May 19, Section 2238 (subdivisions 10 and 11), Pre-emptoran Rendence... pre-emptor is not
prohibited from carrying on business elsewhere 1883, dismissing his appeal from the cle- allows Registers and Receivers fifteen cents than on the land, provided his actual residence cision of the local officers, which rejected per one hundred words for testimony re- is thereon. his application to enter certain tracts in duced BY THEM to writing for claimants, in SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Ve Farthe Saint Cloud, Minnesota, land district, establishing pre-emption and homestead land, January 30, 1884. because they were covered by Chippewa rights, and mineral claims.
I have considered the appeal of Henry Half-breed scrip, No. 173 C., in the name The act of March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 103), Buchman from your decision of March of Sophia A. Lambert, located November allows Registers and Receivers the same 23, 1883, rejecting his application on final 12, 1864.
fee for examining and approving testimony proof to enter lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Sec. 6, The appeal claims that this scrip issued, taken before the judge or clerk of a court Tp. 16, R. 4, Tucson, Arizona. without authority of law, and that its lo- of record in final homestead cases, as if Buchman filed pre-emption declaratory cation is consequently void.
such testimony had been reduced to writ- statement October 24, alleging settlement Your decision, that as patent has issned ing by Registers and Receivers themselves. October 20, 1881, and published notice of upon this serip location its regularity can The foregoing statutes comprise all the bis intention to make final proof June 9, not now be questioned by your office, and law there is applicable to fees of Registers 1892. "The testimony shows that he that you have no further jurisdiction in and Receivers for reducing testimony to erected : house, 8x10 feet; fenced about the matter so long as the patent is out. writing in the Territory of Dakota, and in tive acres and planted one acre to corn. standing, conforms to those of this de- similar States and Territories.
He swears that he has been on the land partment and of the Supreme Court in There is no warrant of law for the con- three or four days erery week, and claims like cases, and is affirmed.
struction that you state is made and gen. it as his residence.
erally followed in Dakota, that testimony There is no adverse claimant, and conINSTRUCTIONS.
fees are authorized to be charged by Reg- sequently no counter proof, but the local As to paynient of fees legally due, and repay- isters and Receivers in cases where the officers report that the land is fifteen miles ment of fees illegally collected.
testimony is reduced to writing by claim- distant from Tucson, where Buchman now COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Reg: und Ree., ants' attorneys. The law is plain and un- lives and carries on business, as he has for Huron, Dak., January 29, 1884. (J. W. L.) ambiguous. Any land office charge for several years past.
The Receiver states I am in receipt of your letter of the testimony not reduced to writing by Reg. it is a " bogus settlement," and both agree 28th ult., relative to the payment of fees isters and Receivers personally or by their that Buchman's claim is without merit. for reducing testimony to writing in home clerks, nor (in final homestead cases) by It is claimed in half of Buchman, that stead and pre-emption final proofs, and the the judge or clerk of a court of record, is matters within the personal knowledge of repayment of fees illegally collected. a palpable violation of lay.
the local officers, but not appearing in Upon the first point yon state as follows: It is also a violation of specific instruc- regular proof, can not be considered in
" In the matter of final proofs we have tions communicated in repeated circulars the disposition of his case; but in my held that if parties prefer to have the at- and orders issued by this office. The fee judgment it is not only eminently proper, torneys do the writing, and are willing to table which you are directed to keep but their duty requires a statement for pay the attorneys the fee, we should not posted in your office, informs both your your consideration of such facts within be deprived of the very advantages which selves and the public what testimony fees their personal knowledge as in their the statute confers upon the local officers, you are allowed to charge, and what you opinion show or tend to show fraud or when we are authorized to make the final are prohibited from charging, and the pro- non-compliance with the requirements of proofs at the office. Hence we have, where hibition against charging fees for reducing the law in all applications to enter public proofs have been made before this.office,' testimony to writing when the writing is land ; and as agents of the government,