Litchfield et al., involving the right to enter the south-east of south-east quarter section 36, township 12 south, range 77 west, the east half of north-east quarter of section 1, township 13 south, range 77 west, the south half of southwest quarter, and the north-west of south-west quarter of south-east quarter of section 31, township 12 south, range 76 west, Fair Play, Colorado.

You reject the application, and hold that the salt spring, situated on section 6, township 13 south, range 76 west, "with the six sections adjoining and as contiguous as may be," should be reserved for the use of the State of Colorado. The reasons for your decisions are given at length, and are sufficient to justify the conclusions reached by you.

In addition to the reasons given, it may be proper to state that the spring in question is situated in that portion of Colorado included within the limits of the Louisiana purchase of 1803.

By the tenth section of the act of March 3, 1811, salt springs, and the lands contiguous thereto, were, by the direction of the President of the United States, to be reserved for future disposal of the States.

This policy of reservation has uniformly and consistently been applied by the Government to said Territory, as well as the other territory of the United States.

The applicants are in no way protected by the proviso in section eleven of the act of March 3, 1875, providing for the admission of Colorado into the Union, viz.: "That no salt spring or lands, the right whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which hereafter shall be confirmed or adjudged to any individual or individuals, shall by this act be granted to said State."

No vested rights could be obtained by any individuals under the laws for the disposal of the public lands. The rights to be protected were those recognized by treaty stipulations. Morton v. Nebraska, 21 Wall. 660.*

* Reserved by the United States.-The policy of the government since the acquisition of the north-west territory and the inauguration of our land system, to reserve salt springs from sale, has been uniform. This policy has been applied to the Louisiana territory, acquired from France in 1803, and probably would apply to Nebraska without the act of July 22, 1854; but that act applies, at least, so far as to render void an entry where the salines, at the time, had been noted on the field-books, were palpable to the eye, and were not first discovered after entry. Morton v. Nebraska, 21 Wall. 660.

Your decision is affirmed, and the papers transmitted with your letter of June 21, 1876, are herewith returned. Very respectfully,

Z. CHANDLER, Secretary.

To the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

No. 6. The State of California is not entitled to select other lands in lieu of sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections decided to be mineral in char

acter.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 29, 1878.

Register and Receiver, Shasta, Cal.

GENTLEMEN: With your letter of the twenty-sixth of October last, you transmitted an appeal taken by the State of California, from your refusal to file an application on the part of the State to select and locate as indemnity school lands the N. W. 1 of N. W. 4, and S. E. ‡ of N. E. 1 of section 22, and the S. E. of S. W. of section 14, township 27 N., range 7 W., M. D. M., in lieu of one hundred and twenty acres in section 36, township 31 N., range 6 W., and also the W. of S. W. of section 14, township 29 N., range 6 W., M. D. M., in lieu of 68.02 acres in said section 36, and 11.98 acres in section 36, township 31 N., range 7 W., M. D. M.

The records of this office do not show that any land in section 36, township 31 N., range 7 W., M. D. M., has been lost by the State.

The records of this office show that three mineral entries have been made at your office for lands in section 36, township 31 N., range 6 W., M. D. M., viz.: Dixon and Cooper, placer lot No. 37, 20 acres; Horsetown placer claim, lot No. 41, 34.36; Piety Hill placer claim, lot No. 38, 183.66. Aggregating 188.02 acres.

The plat of said township 31 N., range 6 W., was approved June 16, 1876, and was filed in your office on the twentysixth of June, 1876. The entire township was returned as mineral land.

The applications for patents for said mines were all filed prior to the approval of the survey of said township, viz.: Lot 37, October 3, 1872; lot 38, July 25, 1873; and lot No. 41, July 6, 1875.

It has been decided by the Hon. Secretary of the Interior that "Congress, by the act of 1853, did not intend to grant, and did not grant, to the State of California, any mineral lands that by survey are shown to be in sections sixteen and thirty-six." Keystone Consolidated Mining Company et al. v. The State of California, Copp's Mining Decisions, 109. See, also, State of California v. L. J. Poley et al., 4 Copp's Land Owner, 18.

Lieu Lands.

The question is presented whether the State of California. is entitled to select and locate lands in lieu of those lost to the State by reason of their being mineral in character. The seventh section of the act approved March 3, 1853, 10 Stat. 244, provides "that where any settlement by the erection of a dwelling-house, or the cultivation of any portion of the land, shall be made upon the sixteenth and thirtysixth sections, before the same shall be surveyed, or where such sections may be reserved for public uses, or taken by private claims, other lands shall be selected by the proper authorities of the States in lieu thereof."

Section 6 of the act approved July 23, 1866, fourteenth statute, 218, provides that said act of March 3, 1853, "shall be construed as giving the State of California the right to select, for school purposes, other lands in lieu of such sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections as were settled upon prior to survey, reserved for public uses, covered by grants made under Spanish and Mexican authority, or by other private claims, or where such sections would be so covered if the lines of the public survey were extended over such lands."

No mention is made of these lands for such portions of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections as may be mineral in character. It is urged, however, by the attorneys for the State that mineral lands are reserved for public uses, and hence the State is entitled to lieu lands therefor.

The Honorable Attorney-general, in his opinion of fourth ultimo-Copp's Land Owner, vol. 5, page 12-states "that the words 'reserved for public uses' as employed in the sixth section of the act of 1866, were not meant to cover those lands which passed to the State of California under the swamp land act of September 28, 1850; that they refer solely to reservations made for the purposes of the general

government, and the same words occurring in the seventh section of the act of March 3, 1853, must be deemed to have the same meaning and scope."

This office must therefore deny the application of the State to select and locate lieu lands for such portions of sections 16 and 36 as are mineral in character.

You will inform all parties in interest and acknowledge the receipt hereof, allowing sixty days for appeal.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner.

No. 7. The selection of land containing valuable deposits of petroleum by the University of California void; and the Governor of the State requested to relinquish.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, D. C., December 9, 1879.

Register and Receiver, Los Angeles, California.

GENTLEMEN: I am in receipt of your letter of twentyeighth October, 1879, transmitting record of testimony taken in hearing held to determine the character of the land involved in the matter of protest of F. B. Taylor v. The State of California University, selection of N. of S. E. 1, and S. E. 4 of S. E. of section 2, Township 3 N., R. 17 W., together with your joint opinion thereon, in which you held the land to be valuable for minerals; also, letter of twentyninth October, in which you state that counsel for both parties in interest personally appeared and waived right of appeal from your said decision.

It appears from the record that University selections of the State of California, covering about 160 acres of unsurveyed land in Township 3, were filed in your office March 11, 1872, and upon the filing of the township plat, December 21, 1872, the said selections were adjusted to the lines of the public survey, and approved December 6, 1872.

The land in question is described in the field notes of survey as follows: "The quality of land in township second and third rate, and much broken up by steep hills and deep ravines; in northern and southern portions, hills good for pasturage; intervening portion very rocky and covered with dense chaparral and scrub oaks on hills. In sec

tions 1 and 2 are several oil springs, to wit, in the S. E. of section 2, and N. W. of section 1."

The testimony shows the land to be worthless for agricultural purposes, and that it has been known as valuable for petroleum since 1864. Large quantities of oil have been taken away, and since the discovery the land has been. almost continuously worked for this purpose.

State selection of mineral land void.

I am therefore of opinion that the selection of this land by the State is void, the same being valuable for mineral deposits, and known to be such at the date of such selection.

Governor to relinquish.

You will call upon the Governor of the State of California to relinquish this land to the United States, and make due report of action to this office. This contest is hereby dismissed, and the land will be treated as subject to entry under the mining laws of the United States, of which you will duly notify all parties.

Very respectfully,

J. M. ARMSTRONG, Acting Commissioner.