Miners to prevent Agriculturists from Entering their Mining Claims, must show Compliance with the Local Laws and Customs.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Sept. 19, 1872. Register and Receiver, Sacramento, California :

GENTLEMEN: The papers transmitted with your letter of the thirtieth ultimo have been examined.

Aug. 27, 1870, Henry L. Dingman filed D. S. 1625, on the S. of S. E. Sec. 3, N. E. of N. E. Sec. 10, and S. W. of S. W. Sec. 2, T. 10 N. R. 11 E., M. D. Mer., alleging settlement in 1856.

Nov. 3, 1870, Antone Bentler and Griffith Hopkins filed affidavit that the S. of S. E. of said Sec. 3 is mineral land.

You fixed Sept. 12, 1871, for hearing testimony on this point, and required pre-emption claimant, at his own expense to give notice thereof, which was done by publication for five consecutive weeks in the El Dorado County Republican, by service of personal notice upon said affiant, and by posting a copy of such notice in a conspicuous place upon the land for thirty days.

At the hearing no parties appeared to prove the land to be mineral, or to contest the right of Dingman to pre-empt the same.

Mr. Dingman's improvements are valued at $8,000, and his pre-emption proof being quite satisfactory, in all respects, you permitted him to make the entry thereof, which was done September 12, 1871 (Texas A. C. S., No. 664, R. & R.'s, No. 228), and then reported the case to this office in the usual manner.

May 29, 1872, you transmitted for instructions the affidavits of Adam Brooks, Wm. B. Carpender, and Wm. F. Jess, alleging the mineral character of certain lands, including a portion of the land entered by said Dingman; said mineral affiants desiring a reopening of the latter case, that a new hearing might be had as to the character of the land in controversy.

In letter to you of twentieth June last, this office declined to reopen the case, for the reasons therein given, unless mineral affiants could show fraud by pre-emption in giving the notices aforesaid, or they could show that they had an actual mining claim thereon under local rules of miners, thirty days being allowed in which to show these facts.

In the papers since received they do not attempt to show fraud in the notices, or that they were deceived thereby. They do, however, furnish a diagram or map of their alleged

mining claims, also an abstract from the records of Smith's Flat Mining District, showing various placer mining claims to have been taken up or located in 1859, under the mining regulations then in force, the fourth section of which reads. as follows, viz:

"Any tunnel company that shall have expended two hundred dollars, upon giving notice to the Recorder of their intention to lease their tunnel, shall not forfeit the same, provided they resume work within six months from the time of giving said notice."

It would appear from the papers that tunnels were run in some of these old claims, but it is evident that they have been abandoned for several years; whether with notice to the Recorder is not shown; it being clear, however, that their failure to resume work for such a length of time, forfeited whatever right they might have had in the premises in 1859, and that they have no right now to issue notices of their intention to resume work thereon within six months, as they appear to have done on the fifth July last, and since our said letter to you of twenty-sixth June, 1872.

A careful examination of the papers satisfies this office that these parties have no valid existing mining claim, such as could be maintained in the courts, within the land entered by Dingman, and that no good reason existed for their failure to come forward at the said hearing, and offer proof as to the mineral value of the land, except the fact that it possessed no such value.

Their request for a reopening of the case is accordingly denied, and the patent will at once be issued on the entry of Dingman.

You will so inform the parties, and acknowledge receipt as "N."

Very respectfully, etc.,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Tunnel Rights.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Sept. 20, 1872. Hon. J. B. CHAFFEE, M.C., Denver, Colorado Territory: SIR: In response to your letter of the 13th instant, desiring the construction of this office of the clause in the Mining Act of May 10th, 1872, relative to tunnels, I have the honor to state that the interpretation uniformly given by this office, to the fourth section of said statute, may be found under the head of "Tunnel Rights," commencing on page eight of circular herewith, dated 10th June, 1872, from which it will be perceived that the line of the tunnel is held

to be the width thereof and no more, and that upon this line only is prospecting for blind lodes prohibited while the tunnel is in progress, and that the right is granted to the tunnel owners to fifteen hundred feet of each blind lode, not previously known to exist, which may be discovered in such tunnel, but that other parties are in no way debarred from prospecting for blind lodes or running tunnels so long as they keep without the line of the tunnel as herein defined, the said line being required by our regulations to be marked on the surface by stakes or monuments placed along the same from the face or point of commencement to the terminus of the tunnel line aforesaid.

When a lode is struck or discovered for the first time by running a tunnel, the tunnel owners have the option of recording their claim of 1500 feet all on one side of the point of discovery or intersection, or partly upon one and partly upon the other side thereof; but in no case can they record a claim so as to absorb the actual, or constructive possession of other parties on a lode which had been discovered and claimed outside the line of the tunnel before the discovery thereof in the tunnel.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

One Person may Secure Title to Several Mining Claims. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Sept, 21, 1872. JOHN G. IRWIN, Esq., Weaverville, Trinity County, California : SIR: In response to your inquiry of the sixth instant, I have to state that the mining statute does not restrict a party to one patent, but gives the right to proceed to procure government title to as many valid mining claims, as he may have the possessory right to under local laws, and upon which the necessary amount has been expended in labor or improvements.

Very respectfully, etc.,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Application allowed to Proceed because Adverse Claimant did not Commence Suit within Thirty Days.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, Sept. 26, 1872.

Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado:

GENTLEMEN: Referring to your letter of the sixth instant, I have to state that on the twenty-seventh July, 1872, this

office rendered a decision in the case of the application of C. Kennedy et al., for patent for the Maine lode, against which S. J. Pratt had filed an adverse claim.

In said decision you were directed to inform all parties in interest, that thirty days from the date of your notification to them would be allowed said adverse claimant to commence suit in the proper local court, to adjudicate the right of possession to the premises in dispute. You were also directed to inform the adverse claimant that his adverse claim would be considered waived, if he "should fail to file with you within the time prescribed, a certificate of the clerk of such court, that suit has been commenced in accordance with this decision."

On the fifth day of August, you informed the adverse claimant of our said decision, but Mr. Pratt failed to commence suit within the time prescribed, although he has, since the expiration of the thirty days allowed, commenced proceedings in court.

You will therefore allow the applicants to proceed with their application for patent, and forward all the papers in the case to this office.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Patent Issues to Assignee of Party Making Entry.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, Oct. 2, 1872.

W. H. SHEARMAN, ESQ., Salt Lake City, Utah:

SIR: Referring to your letter of the 17th instant, I have to state that the abstract of title on file in this office, with the application of E. B. Kelsey, Sen., L. S. Kelsey and E. B. Kelsey, Jr., for patent for the Vespasian mine, show that the record title, 2400 linear feet of the said lode, was in said applicants at the date of their application for patent. Since which time, however, it appears that L. S. Kelsey and E. B. Kelsey, Jr., have sold all their interest in said lode and that you have become the owner by purchase from E. B. Kelsey, Sen., of 1100 feet of the same.

If you desire, the patent will issue in the name of the applicant. If you desire the patent to issue in the name of the present owners it will be necessary for you to file in this office the duplicate Receiver's receipt, with an indorsement thereon by L. S. Kelsey and E. B. Kelsey, Jr., of all right and title and interest in said lode to E. B. Kelsey, Sen., and also an indorsement by E. B. Kelsey, Sen., assigning all his right, title and interest in and to 1100 feet

thereof to you, in which case the patent will issue in the name of E. B. Kelsey, Sen., and W. H. Shearman.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Mill Site Passes to Railroad if Located after Land Enured to the Road.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Oct. 11, 1872. O. R. LEONARD, Esq., Attorney at Law, Unionville, Nevada: SIR: Referring to my letter to you of the 31st August last, in reply to yours of the 15th, same month, and your response of the 10th ultimo, inclosing the sworn statement of T. G. Negus, Esq., Superintendent of the Star City M. and M. Co., in relation to the Golconda mine and mill site, the latter situated in N.E. of S. W., and Lot 3, of S. W. of Section 7, T. 35, N. R. 45 E., M. D. M., claimed by the Central Pacific Railroad Company, in virtue of their grant, I have to state that the records of this office show that the rights of said railroad company to said section of land took effect on the eighteenth day of December, 1866; that being the date upon which the route of said road was definitely located, subsequent to which time no adverse right thereto could attach where the land is not mineral in character.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Proceedings in Case a Mining Claim is not within any Mining District.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Nov. 12, 1872. D. W. LICHTENTHALER, Esq., Le Grand, Oregon:

SIR: * * * * In the event of a mining claim being situated outside of any regularly constituted mining district, affidavit of the fact should be made and secondary evidence of possessory title will be received, which may consist of the affidavit of the claimant, supported by those of any other parties cognizant of the facts relative to the location, occupation, and possession of such claim; and any deeds, certificates of location, or purchase or other evidence, which may be in the claimant's possession and tend to establish his claim.

Very respectfully,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.