and diagram, it is found that a discrepancy exists between them in this, that the notice and diagram call for a strip of land fifty feet in width, starting at the discovery shaft, and running thence north sixty-six (66) degrees east three thousand (3000) feet, to the eastern boundary of the claim, while in the plat and field notes of the final survey, the strip of land therein designated as Lot No. 112 is described as commencing at the discovery shaft, and running thence north seventy-six (76) degrees, twenty (20) minutes east three thousand (3000) feet. There is, therefore, the very material difference of ten (10) degrees and twenty (20) minutes between the tract of land for which they gave legal notice that they would apply for a patent, and the tract which they have had surveyed and platted by the United States Surveyor. To proceed to grant title on this survey, would be equivalent to issuing a patent for a claim for which no notice had ever been given at all, which is unauthorized by the mining act. No patent will be issued upon this application, until the plat and field notes of a corrected survey are received, describing the premises substantially as set forth in the said diagram and notice. You will inform the parties in interest accordingly, and notify the Surveyor-general that it will be necessary for him to direct the deputy who executed this survey to proceed to correctly survey the claim, without additional charge to the applicants. Should he decline to do this, you will at once report the fact to this office, to the end that the proper remedy may be applied. Please acknowledge the receipt hereof as N, and report your action in the premises. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Agricultural Claimants are Entitled to Full Protection. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., May 6, 1872. SIR: I have considered the case of James Kenna, preemption claimant v. John Dillon et al., mineral affiants, involving the right to the south-west quarter section 27, T. 13, N. R. 8, east, Sacramento, California, coming up from your office on appeal by Kenna. Kenna has valuable improvements and extensive cultivation, extending to every subdivision of the tract. His good faith and compliance with the law are not disputed, and the only question to be decided is as to the character of the land, whether mineral or agricultural. The evidence taken on this point, though conflicting, is strongly in favor of the agricultural claimant. On September 9, 1870, to which time the case was continued by the local officers, the mineral affiants wholly made default, and Kenna was permitted to make proof and payment. I think it is fairly established, that though a small portion of the land at one time contained gold in paying quantities, that portion has long since been exhausted and abandoned, and that no part of the tract now contains that metal in sufficient quantities to pay for working; that nearly all the land is valuable for agriculture, and some portions are of unusual fertility. While the mining interests are entitled to, and must receive protection against the encroachments of persons who, under the guise of agricultural claimants, seek to secure title to large tracts of mining land, the rights of bona fide pre-emption and homestead, claimants to lands proven to be agricultural, are also entitled to the same protection against adverse combinations of miners. Your decision is reversed, and the papers in the case transmitted with your letter of the twenty-first ultimo are herewith returned. Very respectfully, B. R. COWEN, Acting Secretary. Hon. WILLIS DRUMMOND, Com'r General Land Office. After Disproving Mineral Character of Land, Immediate Entry thereof may be Made, if there is no Contest. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, May 10, 1872. Register and Receiver, Sacramento, California: GENTLEMEN : In response to your inquiry in letter of the tenth ultimo, I have to state that the order of the first April, 1872, referred to (requiring a decision of the General Land Office, before entry is permitted), was intended more particularly to apply to cases concerning which there was a contest between parties to determine whether certain land is mineral or agricultural, a case having been received from your office during the incumbency of the late Register, in which the land was permitted to be paid for by the pre-emption claimant, after the testimony as to the character of the land had been transmitted to this office, but before a decision thereon had been made. In cases where there is no contest, and the evidence taken after due notice, either before you or the County Clerk, clearly and conclusively establishes in your minds that the land is agricultural, and not mineral, and that the claimant seeks title therefor in good faith for agricultural purposes, such claimant, if in other respects properly qualified and entitled, will have the option of entering the land at the time of making or filing this proof, or of waiting until this office shall have rendered its decision as to the character of the land. You will be particular to have it understood that the power of this office to review, revise, or reverse your action in such cases is not taken away or impaired by this act of paying for the land, but that the claimant under such purchase only acquires a vested right on condition that this office or the Department proper shall concur with the local officers in the premises, and affirm the claimant's right to the land. In any case where there is a contest, or where the nonmineral character of the land and the bona fides of the claimant are not entirely clear and satisfactory, you will not permit the entry until the testimony has been reviewed at this office, and instructions given to permit the entry. Very respectfully, etc., WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. The Rule adopted in the Flagstaff Case applied to an Adverse Claim while Suit was pending in Court. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D. C., May 11, 1872. SIR: I have examined the case of Adolph Weske, applicant for placer patent, v. S. T. Leet, adverse claimant, on appeal from your decision of March 13, 1872, suspending action on said application, until a final decree in favor of Weske should be rendered by the district court for the Fourteenth Judicial District of California, in which proceedings had been commenced by Leet. The record shows that the protest of Leet was not filed until after the expiration of the ninety days allowed by the acts of 1866 and 1870, for that purpose. It should not, therefore, under the ruling of the Department in the case of the Flagstaff lode, March 14, 1872, followed in that of the Highland Chief lode, April 13, 1872, operate to suspend action on the application of Weske. You state in your letter transmitting the case, that your decision therein was rendered before the adoption of the rule applied in the cases above cited. I reverse your decision, and direct that the suspension of action on the claim of Weske, so far as the adverse claim of Leet is concerned, be removed. Very respectfully, B. R. COWEN, Acting Secretary. Hon. WILLIS DRUMMOND, Com'r General Land Office. Case of the Julia Gold and Silver Mining Company's Applications for Patents for Certain Mines in Nevada. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., May 27, 1872. GENTLEMEN: The papers in the matter of the applications of the Julia Gold and Silver Mining Company for patents for the Julia, Scheel, La Cata, South-east Extension of the Hale and Norcross, and the Sarah Ann lodes, have been examined. The applications for patents for these claims were filed in the Register's Office, September 30, 1871, and notice thereof given in the usual manner, by posting and publication for ninety days. On the twenty-ninth of December, 1871, and before said period of notice had expired, Mr. Isaac L. Requa, the Superintendent of the Chollar Potosi mining company, filed in behalf of said company a sworn protest against patenting said claims, the nature of his objections being in effect as follows, to wit: That on the fourth of February, 1870, a patent was issued by the United States to said Chollar Potosi mining company, for their claim on the Comstock lode; that they are still the owners of the property described in said patent; that said lodes for which said Julia gold and silver mining company has made applications for patents, conflict with the claim of said Chollar Potosi mining company; that said lodes have no existence as separate and distinct lodes from said Comstock lode, "but, on the contrary, all bodies of quartz or other rock, in place or otherwise, bearing gold or silver, heretofore found or that may hereafter be found within the boundaries described in .said application of said Julia gold and silver mining company, are parts and parcels of the said Comstock lode, and belong and appertain thereto, and there is no lode within said boundaries separate and distinct from said Comstock lode; and that said Chollar Potosi mining company therefore prays that all proceedings may be stayed until the rights of the respective parties may be adjudicated in the proper courts. Upon consulting the records of this office, it is found that on the fourth day of February, 1870, a patent was issued to, and in favor of, said Chollar Potosi mining company, for 1400 linear feet of the Comstock lode, the premises so granted being bounded "on the east and on the west by the walls of the Comstock lode, not yet definitely ascertained, containing thirty-four (34) acres and seventy-four hundredths (4) of an acre of land, more or less, as represented in the following plat.' The surface boundaries of the claim so patented, are shown by the record to be governed by four posts or monuments situate respectively at the N. E., N. W., S. E., and S. W. corners of the claim, said patented surface so bounded, representing a rectangle 1400 feet in length by 1081 feet and 24 of a foot in width, embracing thirty-four (34) acres and seventy-four hundredths () of an acre of land, more or less, as expressed in the patent. The said surface ground was granted and conveyed by said patent to said Chollar Potosi company, together with the right to follow said Comstock lode to the distance of fourteen hundred linear feet along the course thereof, "with its dips, angles, and variations, to any depth, although it may enter the land adjoining. In the adverse statement or protest filed as aforesaid, it is not asserted that the surface ground claimed by said. Julia mining company, in their said applications, include or embrace any part or portion of the surface so described, bounded and patented to said Chollar Potosi mining company; the objection or protest being an asseveration that the several lodes, applied for as aforesaid by the Julia company, have no existence as separate and distinct lodes from the Comstock lode so patented to them, the said Chollar Potosi company, but that, on the contrary, all bodies of quartz or other rock in place, or otherwise, bearing gold or silver, heretofore found or that may hereafter be found within the boundaries described in said application of said Julia gold and silver mining company, are parts and parcels of the said Comstock lode, and belong and appertain thereto, and there is no lode within said "boundaries separate or distinct from said Comstock lode," etc. No proof or evidence of any kind whatever is found among the papers in support of this statement that the lodes sought to be patented by the Julia company as aforesaid, are identical with the Comstock lode. With the applications are found certain abstracts of title from the County Recorder, from which it appears that the Julia lode was located May 25, 1863; that the Scheel lode was located February 28, 1866; that the La Cata lode was located March 9, 1866; that the South-east extension of the Hale and Norcross lode was located October 22, 1866; that the Sarah Ann lode was located March 13, 1868, in accordance with local rules and customs of miners, and that |