valid mining claim under the local laws, and were engaged in mining on the land embraced in the agricultural claim of Edden Harvey at the time entry thereof was made, and that fact can be established to the satisfaction of this office, it will afford you all the aid in its power to set aside the patent, so as to enable you to acquire title to your mine.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Fraudulent Entry of Mineral Land by Agriculturists and Corporations.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, July 26, 1873. Messrs. HoYT, SEARS AND MCKEE, 63 Merchants' Exchange, San Francisco, Cal.:

GENTLEMEN: As requested in your communication of June 18, 1873, I inclose herewith a copy of the letter referred to, dated July 11, 1868, relative to sales of mineral· lands patented to railroads.

After a careful examination of this question I will state, that while this office undoubtedly possesses the power to issue a second patent for the purpose of correcting a mistake or inadvertence, I am not fully satisfied that it possesses the power to do so, in a case in which the first patent has been obtained by artifice or fraud upon a record regular in all respects upon its face.

There can be no doubt as to the propriety or legality of this office correcting an error in its records by the issuance of a second patent, or otherwise. But I entertain grave doubts as to its right or power to decide as to questions of fraud, after the consummation of an entry and the execution and delivery of a patent thereon.

Even if this office possesses jurisdiction over questions of fraud, under such circumstances I do not think it will be good policy for it to exercise it in ordinary cases. Jurisdiction over questions of fraud more properly pertains to courts of equity, and as they have the power to afford ample relief, I prefer, even if I have the right to act in such cases, to leave parties to their remedy in the courts.

And therefore, instead of issuing a second patent, in cases where first patent to lands have been obtained by fraud, to the injury of parties having a right or equity therein, and the facts are brought before this office, it will bring the matter to the attention of the Department of Justice, and ask that the party injured be permitted to use the name of the United States, in the prosecution of proper proceedings in the courts.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Iron Deposits must be Sold under the Mining Laws.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., July 26, 1873. C. C. CLEMENTS, Esq., U. S. Surveyor-general, Salt Lake City, Utah:

SIR: Referring to the subject of your letter of February 18, 1873, I have to state that prior to the passage of the mining act, approved May 10, 1872, lands containing deposits of iron ore were disposed of for cash at private entry, the same as agricultural lands.

The language of that statute, however, is so comprehensive as to justify the belief that it was the intention of Congress to include iron ore among the mineral deposits to be disposed of under its provisions. Congress, by subsequent legislation, appears to have placed this construction upon

the act.

By an act approved Feb. 18, 1873, it is provided that deposits or mines of iron in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, shall be excluded from the operations of the act of May 10, 1872." This is, in effect, saying that prior to that time deposits or mines of iron had been subject to the operations of said act in those States, and that they remain subject to its operations in the States not specifically named.

To your inquiry, I therefore reply, that lands more valuable on account of veins or deposits of iron than for agricultural purposes, can be entered upon compliance with the several requirements of the mining act of May 10, 1872. Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Salt Springs Disposed of only by Special Acts of

Congress.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., July 28, 1873.

JOHN A. ROLLINS, Esq., Salt Lake City, Utah:

SIR: In reply to your inquiry, I have to state that there is no general law under which salt springs can be patented. Lands upon which springs of this character are found are disposed of only by special act of Congress.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Tunnel Owners must use Diligence.

No Specified

Expenditure to Retain Tunnel Rights.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Aug. 1, 1873.

L. S. DAVID, Esq., Grass Valley, California:

SIR: In reply to the inquiry in your letter of July 18, 1873, I have to state that locators of tunnels under the act of May 10, 1872, are required to use reasonable diligence in working and advancing their tunnels; otherwise such tunnel locations are treated as abandoned.

Section 4 of the mining act referred to reads as follows: 66* * * * But failure to prosecute the work on the tunnel for six months shall be considered as an abandonment of the right to all undiscovered veins on the line of said tunnel."

There is no specified amount to be expended to retain the ownership of a tunnel location.

The act approved March 1, 1873, amending the act of May 10, 1872, only refers to lode claims located prior to the passage of said act of May 10, 1872.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Status of Mining Claims within Alaska Territory. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Aug. 2, 1873. Brev't Brig. Gen. H. CLAY WOOD, U. S. A., Portland, Oregon: SIR: In reply to the inquiries in your letter of July 18, 1873, I have to state that the territory of Alaska has not yet been organized into a surveying district, and therefore no applications for patents for mining lands in that territory can be received or considered by this office.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Number of Feet of a Lode that could be located in Colorado in October, 1864.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Aug. 14, 1873. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado:

GENTLEMEN: The papers transmitted with your letter of the twenty-sixth June, in the matter of the application of the Pine silver mining company, for patent for 3,000 linear feet of the Gus Belmont lode, Colorado, have been examined.

It appears that on the thirteenth November, 1867, said application for patent was filed in the Denver office, and received at the Central City office, on the ninth June, 1868. The application describes the premises as "commencing at a shaft eighteen feet deep. ** * Thence north 29° 30′ E. 800 feet, and from said starting point south 29° 30′ west 2,200 feet."

*

The premises described in the final survey, commencing at said shaft, run N. 51° 42′ E. 220.5 feet; thence N. 40° 15′ E. 203.28 feet; thence north 33° east 84.5 feet; thence north 39° E. 291.72 feet, and from said shaft S. 44° 30′ W. 2,200 feet.

From the foregoing, it will be seen that the final survey covers but a small portion of the premises described in the application for patent.

By the abstract of title on file with the case, it appears that the record of the location of the Gus Belmont lode was made on the sixth October, 1864. The mining laws in force in Colorado at the date of said record declares that "all mineral and quartz lodes hereafter discovered, shall cease and terminate, so far as they have any legal existence, at the distance of 800 feet in either direction, on the line of the lode, from the center of the discovery hole."

Said company could only receive a patent for 1,600 linear feet under the mining acts of Congress. In view of these irregularities in the application and final survey, you will inform said company that it will be necessary for them to have a resurvey made of the Gus Belmont lode, embracing only the number of feet to which they are entitled under the law, to wit: 1,600 linear feet, which survey should conform to the application for patent as far as the courses are concerned.

I return the proof of publication, that the same may be sworn to. You will inform all parties in interest, and acknowledge the receipt.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Adverse Claim Rejected because Suit was not Commenced in Court as Ordered.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Aug. 18, 1873. Register and Receiver, Helena, Montana:

GENTLEMEN: Referring to your letter of the first instant, with inclosures in case of the application of the Montana fluming and mining company, for patent for certain placer mining ground in Montana, against which Richard Hiss

rich filed an adverse claim; I have to state that on the nineteenth of April, 1872, you were informed that "a prima facia adverse showing has been made out and you will inform said Hissrich that thirty days from the date of your notification will be allowed him to institute proceedings in court to adjudicate the right of possession to the premises in dispute."

It appears that on the second of May, 1872, the Register addressed a letter to "Mr. John Hissrich" giving notice of the decision of this office, which letter was returned in due time to the land office at Helena, indorsed "return to writer.'

By the affidavits transmitted with your letter of the first instant, it appears that neither Mr. Hissrich nor his attorney, W. F. Sanders, was informed of said decision of April 19, 1872, until the third of January, 1873.

It also appears that said adverse claimant did not commence suit within thirty days from the day on which his attorney alleges under oath, that he received information that a decision had been rendered in said case.

More than seven months have elapsed since said attorney received information that a decision had been rendered, directing said adverse claimant to bring suit, and yet it appears that no suit has been instituted by him against the applicant for patent. In view of all the circumstances of the case, the great length of time which has elapsed since said adverse claim was filed, and the non-compliance with said decision of April 19, 1872, by said Hissrich, or his attorney, this office declines to longer delay proceedings upon said application.

The case will be taken up for examination in its order, when patent will issue if all be found regular. You will notify all parties, etc.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

In taking Appeals the Points of Exception Must be

Stated.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Aug. 18, 1973. HENRY SHERMAN, Esq., 1908 F. St., Washington, D. C.: SIR: Referring to your communication of this date, I have to state that the regulations of the General Land Office and of the Department of the Interior, require parties taking appeals from the decisions of this office, to notify this office in writing of the "points of exception to its action," within the time allowed for appeal.