On the twenty-seventh October, 1871, Thomas Butterwood, as agent and superintendent of the Consolidated Prince of Wales lode and the Antelope mining company, filed an adverse claim to said application, alleging the premises described in said application for patent embraces a portion of the Prince of Wales and Antelope lode.

On the seventh day of December, 1872, patent was issued for the Prince of Wales and Antelope lode, no adverse claim having been asserted to the application therefor.

In view of these facts, when patent issues for the claim of L. B. Clements et al. upon the Wandering Boy lode, a clause will be inserted therein excepting and excluding from the conveyance all that portion of the premises described in same application for patent, which is embraced by the patent issued to Thomas Butterwood et al. with their claim on the Prince of Wales and Antelope lode.

On the ninth November, 1871, Thomas H. Bates filed an adverse claim to the said application. In his sworn statement, he alleges that he is the owner, by purchase, of fifteen hundred feet of the Porcupine mine, which was located June 15, 1870; "that sufficient work and all acts and things were done according to the acts of Congress, the mining laws of the district, and customs of miners, to hold and possess the same;" that after the location of the said Porcupine mine, the applicants for patent and their grantors located said mining ground as the Wandering Boy; that the Porcupine location embraces all the ground claimed as the Wandering Boy.

The adverse claimant also filed a certificate from the County Recorder of Salt Lake County, Utah, to the effect that there is on record in his office a quitclaim deed from Levi North and fourteen others, to Thomas H. Bates, dated August 27, 1870, conveying "the undivided one half of a lode, lead or mine, known and described as the Porcupine" lode for the consideration of one dollar.

In the sworn statement of H. C. Hullinger, he alleges that he is the Recorder of Big Cottonwood mining district, and has been ever since said district was organized; that the Wandering Boy mine was located August 6, 1870, and record thereof made on the same day; that the Porcupine mine was located June 15, 1870, and record thereof made on the eleventh of August, 1870; that at least fifteen hundred dollars have been expended upon the Wandering Boy; that not to exceed twelve dollars have been expended upon the Porcupine mine.

In the sworn statement of John Dobbie, William McGhie, Alexander Watson and J. Dalgish, they allege that the value of the labor and improvements upon the Porcupine mine does not exceed twelve dollars.

The district mining laws in force at the date of the location, article nine, require that, "twenty-five dollars worth of work shall be done on a claim within ten days after the recording of the same," etc, and article ten, that "a claimant or company shall have twenty days to record a claim in, after discovery and posting up notice on the same."

Having carefully considered all the papers in the case, this office is of the opinion that T. H. Bates, the adverse claimant, has failed to make out a prima facia adverse showing, and for the following reasons, viz:'

He has failed to file a copy of the original notice of location of the Porcupine mine from the office of the proper Recorder to show the number of feet embraced by said location; the number of locators, or the number of feet he acquired for the sum of one dollar from Levi North et al., his grantors.

It is shown, however, by the certificate of the district recorder that the Porcupine location was not recorded in the manner prescribed by the district laws.

He has not produced evidence of compliance with the local law, in regard to expenditures on said Porcupine mine. Evidence is submitted, however, to show that not to .exceed fifteen dollars have ever been expended upon the Porcupine location.

The adverse claimant has failed to show the nature or extent of the conflict alleged, and does not assert that the two locations are on one and the same lode.

Evidence is submitted to show that the Porcupine location "is some fifty feet from the Wandering Boy.'

It would have been much more satisfactory to this office, had the adverse claimant set forth the facts in detail upon which he bases his adverse claim, and how the premises described in the application for patent conflict, and the extent of such conflict; as his present mode of testifying, if accepted, would enable him not only to determine the facts, but also the legal deductions therefrom, thus virtually substituting his judgment for that of this office.

The General Land Office cannot consider as evidence, a statement embodying in general terms the conclusions of law without stating the facts specifically.

You will inform all parties in interest of this decision, allowing sixty days within which an appeal may be taken to the Honorable Secretary of the Interior.

Be pleased to acknowledge the receipt hereof.

Very respectfully, etc.,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Absence of Local District Laws.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., May 16, 1873. Messrs. HOYT, SEARS & MCKEE, San Francisco, California: GENTLEMEN: * * * In the absence of local district laws, applicants are required to show compliance with the mining acts of Congress in force at the date of their locations.

Very respectfully, etc.,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.

Construction given to the Tenth Section of Act of May 10, 1872.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., May 19, 1873. JOHN E. BLAINE, Esq., Surveyor-general, Montana :

SIR: Inquiry having been made as to the construction given by this office to the tenth section of the mining act of May 10, 1872, the following is transmitted for your guidance.

Said section declares that "where said placer claims shall be upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required, and all placer mining claims hereafter located, shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public land surveys, and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys. * * * But where placer claims cannot be conformed to legal subdivisions, survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands," etc.

From the foregoing, it will be seen that placer mining claims located after May 10, 1872, must conform as nearly as practicable with the public surveys. In other words, the location of a placer mine upon surveyed land, made after May 10, 1872, should embrace legal subdivisions of the public lands, where the same can be done without interfering with the rights of other bona fide mineral, agricultural, or other claimants in the same tract.

Where placer mines are situate upon unsurveyed land, or where, by reason of some other bona fide claimant, a legal subdivision of surveyed land cannot be embraced in an application for patent, a survey must be made of the premises for which a patent is sought, in accordance with circular instructions of June 10, 1872.

Very respectfully, etc.,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.

Width of a Lode Claim. What a Patent Conveys.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., May 20, 1873.

R. O. OLD, Esq., Georgetown, Colorado Territory:

SIR: Referring to your letter of the tenth instant, I have to state that the second section of the mining act of May 10, 1872, declares that "no claim shall extend more than 300 feet on each side of the middle of the vein, at the surface, nor shall any claim be limited by any mining regulation to less than twenty-five feet on each side of the middle of the vein, at the surface," etc.

The uniform construction which has been given this portion of said section by this office, is that no claim located after May 10, 1872, can exceed 600 feet in width, under any circumstances. Whether a location made after May 10, 1872, can equal 600 feet in width, depends entirely upon the local regulations, or State or Territorial laws in force in the several mining districts.

By the statutes of Colorado, approved February 9, 1866, a mining claim is limited to "twenty-five feet in either direction from the center of the * * lode or vein.'

The act of May 10, 1872, simply declares that a mining claim located after the passage of said act, shall not exceed 300 feet in width on each side of the center of the vein, and that surface right shall not be limited to less than fifty feet in width, unless adverse claims existing on the tenth May, 1872, render such lateral limitation necessary.

The miners of the district, or the State or Territorial legislatures, are authorized by the act to regulate and control the width of a location; providing, however, that the width shall not exceed 600 feet, nor be limited to less than fifty feet.

Where an application is made for a patent for a mine located prior to May 10, 1872, the patent, when issued, conveys to the grantee the right to follow the particular lode named in the patent to the number of feet expressed in said conveyance, although the lode should, in its course, leave the surface ground described in the patent, and enter the land adjoining.

The patent not only grants him the right to follow the particular lode named to the number of feet expressed in the patent, along the course thereof, but also grants him the right to follow said lode to any depth.

The patent also conveys to the grantee the right to follow all other veins, lodes, or ledges, the tops or apexes of which lie within the exterior boundary lines of his survey, if the same were not adversely claimed on the tenth May, 1872,

only to such an extent, however, along the course thereof, as may be embraced by such exterior boundaries, but to any depth.

Where application for patent for a mill-site is made, satisfactory proof must be furnished that the land claimed is not mineral in character.

Very respectfully, etc.,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.

An Adverse Claim Rejected because filed against Three Applications. An Adverse Claim Rejected because no Interest Shown.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., June 9, 1873. Register and Receiver, Salt Lake City, Utah:

GENTLEMEN: This office has examined the papers in case of the application of Norris W. Mundy and Joseph R. Walker, for patent for the Mountain Tiger lode; the application of J. R. Walker, for patent for the Zella lode; the application for patent for the Rockwell lode, made by J. R. Walker.

Two of said applications for patents were filed in your office on the fifth March, 1873, to wit, for the Mountain Tiger lode, and the Rockwell lode.

The application for patent for the Zella lode was filed in your office on the eleventh March, 1873. The applicants for patent have shown a strict compliance with the law and instructions in each case.

On the third May, 1873, a protest was filed in your office against said applications for patents, which protest is sworn to by Thomas Davis, as attorney for William W. Daly, Charles Gippert, H. S. Haines and Edward Bell; attached to said protest is a diagram made by Thomas Davis, who, it appears, is not only attorney for said protestants, but also Deputy Mineral Surveyor. This protest is informal, and insufficient to warrant this office in suspending proceedings upon said applications, and for the following rea

sons:

It is contrary to the spirit and letter of the law and the practice of this office to permit one person, or association of persons, to file one protest against several applications for patents for separate and distinct lodes. In the cases under consideration, there were three separate and distinct applications for patents for three separate and distinct lodes. Each application is an entirety, and rests upon its own merits.

As each application for patent under the mining act is