rants of this class, representing 2,320 acres, to be disposed of when located and returned to this office. On July 1, 1880, there were 5,681 cases on hand ready for the issue of patents as soon as they could be reached by the very limited clerical force engaged upon that work. As the clerical force of this division is inadequate to its work, the accumulation thereof necessarily increases. At the close of the year there were 9,000 cases waiting action, and at this date fully 15,000, which, with the present force, will not be reached under one year, during which time nearly, if not quite, as many more will accumulate. The only remedy for this state of things is an increase of good, reliable clerks upon this class of work. The work of preparing the great amount of exemplifications required from the patent records of this division (the fees for which cannot be used in payment for the work, but are turned into the Treasury) absorbs a large amount of labor which could otherwise be expended upon the preparation of patents. Condition of bounty land business under acts of 1847, 1850, 1852, and 1855, showing the issues and locations from the commencement of operations under said acts to June 30, 1881. C. PUBLIC LANDS DIVISION. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881, 34,633 letters were referred to this division, and within the same period there were 23,886 letters written and recorded, covering 19,607 pages of record. The number of cases examined, approved, and passed for patenting was 28,420, and the number of cases posted in the tract books was 157,985. There were 607 cases of suspended entries adjudicated upon principles of equity and justice, and the adjudications submitted to the board constituted of the Secretary of the Interior and Attorney General, under sections 2450 to 2457 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended by the act of Congress of February 27, 1877. Of these adjudications 604 were approved, 1 rejected, and 2 returned as requiring no action. Abstracts exhibiting these cases are appended to this report. Below is a statement of the work done during the fiscal year in relation to claims of soldiers and sailors for additional homestead entries under section 2306 of the Revised Statutes of the United States: It devolves upon this division, as fast as the public surveys are made, to open tract books, noting therein, in pencil, the smallest legal subdivision established by the survey; to enter in ink for permanent record all private claims, reservations, selections, entries, and locations; to examine the greater portion of the same with regard to the regularity of the papers returned and the sufficiency of the proof submitted where proof is required; to see that errors are corrected, preparing and sending out the necessary correspondence for that purpose, and when they are brought to the proper condition for final action to approve the same or hold them for cancellation, as the case may be; to investigate and pass upon a multitude of contested cases; to submit appeals therein to the appellate authority, communicate results to the proper officers, and the parties interested, and give the necessary instructions. In addition to this there is much business of a miscellaneous character not falling under any of the classes referred to, such as the work necessary for disposing of abandoned reservations under special acts of Congress, or for giving effect to such acts in favor of private parties having rights to be adjusted with regard to public lands, or for restoring to market lands withdrawn for various causes. DESERT LANDS. During the fiscal year ending with June 30, 1881, there were 426 entries made under the act entitled "An act to provide for the sale of desert lands in certain States and Territories," approved March 3, 1877, embracing an aggregate area of 108,560.02 acres, showing a decrease of 47,079.33 acres as compared with similar entries made during the previous fiscal year. The entries thus made were as follows: Arizona, 11 entries, embracing. California, 27 entries, embracing. Total Acres. 4,235. 26 5, 279.44 12, 215.37 17, 241.62 8, 105. 18 6, 387.49 10, 252. 86 9, 922. 27 638.50 34, 282.03 108,560.02 Rulings relating to desert lands under act of March, 3, 1877. In the matter of the repayment of purchase money in cases of canceled desert-land entries, the following decisions have been rendered by the Secretary of the Interior: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, Nov.mber 16, 1880. SIR: I have considered the appeal of Jerome Madden and twenty-five others from your decision of March 18, 1879, declining to recommend a repayment of moneys paid by said parties, respectively, upon certain desert land entries allowed at the Visalia land office, California, in the months of April and May, 1877, upon the declarations of intention and proofs furnished by said parties, severally, under the act of March 3, 1877 (19 Statutes, 377), which entries are described in your decision. In the month of June, 1878, the said Jerome Madden, for himself, and as attorney in fact for each of the other parties, filed in the local land office a formal relinquishment in writing of each of said entries, and requested that the same should be canceled, whereupon the entries were canceled, September 17, 1878, and thereafter, to wit, on the 28th of January, 1879, the parties severally filed applications for repayment of moneys paid as aforesaid. By section 2362 of the Revised Statutes the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make repayment of purchase money "upon proof being made to his satisfaction that any tract of land has been erroneously sold by the United States, so that from any cause the sale cannot be confirmed"; and by the second section of the act of June 16, 1880, it is provided that the Secretary shall cause the purchase money, fees, &c., to be repaid in all cases where homestead or timber culture or desert land entries or other entries of public lands have heretofore or shall hereafter be canceled for conflict, or where, from any cause, the entry has been erroneously allowed, and cannot be confirmed whenever such entry shall have been duly canceled by the Commissioner of the General Land Office." It is not shown that the tracts entered were erroneously sold by the United States, nor that the sales could not have been confirmed, had the parties complied with the requirements of the act of 1877, section 2362 of the Revised Statutes; therefore it affords no authority for the repayment applied for. 66 Again, the entries were not canceled for conflict, nor is it shown that they were erroneously allowed" and could not have been confirmed had the parties complied with the requirements of the act under which they were allowed. There is, therefore, no authority, under the act of 1880, to cause said moneys to be repaid. It is contended, on appeal, however, that the department ought to cause repayment because all entries of desert lands in the Visalia district were suspended by your letter of September 28, in pursuance of directions from this department, under date of September 12, 1877. But that suspension was for the purpose of investigating fraudulent entries, or, as you expressly stated, in giving direction as to the points upon which testimony should be taken, "such developments of the facts must be made as will fully protect the interests of the United States, prevent the success of frauds, and secure the rights of all persons who have made entries in good faith under the law." Hence, if the parties in this case had committed no frauds-and none have been shown or charged against them as I understand the matter-the investigation would have been for the protection of their rights, and they would in no event have been damaged thereby. In the first instance, they furnished proof to show that the lands were of the character contemplated by the act of 1877, and upon their declarations of intention to comply with the requirements of the act the entries were allowed after the payment of the moneys aforesaid. As above stated, it is not shown that the allowance of these entries was erroneous, nor, in my opinion, can any such error as the law contemplates be shown; for, if it were proven that the evidence of the character of the land was false and fraudulent, it would only have the effect to show that the jurisdiction of the land department was imposed upon, and not that it was error, upon the facts as presented, to allow the entries. Hence, if the parties, instead of relinquishing their claims, had submitted to the investigation, and it had been shown that the lands were not of the class subject to disposal under the act of 1877, there would still have been no authority to cause a repayment of the moneys paid as aforesaid. Furthermore, the paper, filed as a relinquishment or abandonment of the entries, sets forth the reasons that induced the parties to abandon. They were briefly as follows: First. That after making surveys and examinations, it was found that all the available water of Tule River had been appropriated for the irrigation of lands on its immediate borders. Second. That after sinking an artesian well to the depth of two hundred feet, they failed to obtain water that would rise to the surface. There is no suggestion that the suspension ordered September 28, 1877, prevented a compliance with the law or induced the relinquishment of the entries. The reason offered was the parties could not get water wherewith to irrigate the land. It is also urged that the relinquishment and request for cancellation were conditioned upon the allowance of the claim for repayment, and that the cancellation of the entries was equivalent to a decision by you that the parties were entitled to repayment. But I do not so understand the matter. After specifying the reasons for abandoning the entries, the paper, filed as a relinquishment, closes with these words: "I hereby, for myself and as the attorney in fact and successor in interest of the other persons above named, abandon all claim to the above-described land, under said act, and hereby request that the same may be cancelled on the books and records of the United States land office, and further respectfully request the return to me of the amount paid as purchase money." The register with whom Mr. Madden corresponded, and to whom he explained the reason for relinquishing prior to filing the paper above mentioned, states in his letter sending up said relinquishment as follows: "Mr. Madden also makes application for the return of moneys paid, but his abandonment is not made contingent upon such repayment. Quite a number of persons have inquired at this office if money would be refunded in case desert-land entries were abandoned and canceled. To such persons I have given no reasons for believing that money paid for such entries would be returned to them without further legislation.' It does not, therefore, appear that the relinquishment was contingent upon the allowance of the claim for repayment. Furthermore, it is clear that such an arrangement cannot be entered into between your office and parties who have abandoned claims and declined to make compliance with statutory requirements. Finding no authority for repayment in this case, I reject the said application and return the papers submitted by you. Very respectfully, The COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE. C. SCHURZ, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, SIR: Referring to your letter of the 31st ultimo, I return without approval the application of William H. Hoyt, heir of Bradley S. Hoyt, deceased, for repayment or purchase money on Shasta desert-land entry No. 3, for west half of section 17, south half of northeast quarter and the northeast quarter of southeast quarter of section 19, northwest quarter and the northwest quarter of southwest quarter of section 20, township 37 north, range 5 east, M. D. M., California, entered June 12, 1877, entry canceled by your letter of September 29, 1879, under decision of July 3, 1879, because upon due hearing the tract was proved to be capable of producing crops without artificial irrigation. This application in the name of Thomas Guineau, assignee, was rejected on the merits by my predecessor's decision of February 11, 1880 (L. O., vol. 7, p. 8), affirming yours of October 14, 1879, and should not have been submitted by you for approval. If in your judgment the original objection was removed by the act of June 16, 1880, the case should have been specifically brought to my attention with proper reference to the former action, so that no inadvertency could occur as might be the case in thus sending up the application in a pro forma manner, without such reference. Having the case before me, however, for approval or rejection, I consider it as falling within the reason of the decision of November 16, 1880, in the case of Jerome Madden et al. (L. O., vol. 7, p. 151), and consequently excluded from allowance under the act of June 16, 1880. S. J. KIRKWOOD, Very respectfully, The COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE. Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, SIR: On the 18th ultimo, John Mullan, as attorney, filed an application for a review of my decision of April 7, 1831, rejecting the application of William H. Hoyt, heir of Bradley S. Hoyt, deceased, for repayment of purchase money on Shasta desert-land entry No. 3, for west half of section 17, south half of northeast quarter, and northeast quarter of southeast quarter of section 19, and northwest quarter of southwest quarter section 20, township 37 north, 5 east, Mount Diablo meridian, California, entered June 12, 1877, entry canceled September 29, 1879, under decision of July 3, 1879, because upon due hearing the tract was proved capable of producing crops without artificial irrigation. The first alleged error is my declaration that "this application in the name of Thomas Guineau, assignee, was rejected on the merits by my predecessor's decision of February 11, 1880." Mr. Mullan admits that the case of Thomas Guineau, respecting his own individual entry, "was considered on its merits," yet claims that this case presented by Guineau at the same time, coupled in the same application, included by name, number, and description, in your decision of October 14, 1879, and rejected by you for the same reason, was not passed upon when here on appeal, because the question of repayment to an assignee, in desert-land cases, which you had declined to consider, was declared to be left still unconsidered and unaffected by the department. In the decision referred to, after reciting both cases as included in the same application, and the fact of the cancellation of the entries, my predecessor said: "You rejected the application on the ground that the obstacle to the confirmation of the sale does not exist on the part of the United States, but is the result of an illegal act of the purchaser." This application embraced both entries, and the decision, after reciting the facts disclosed by the testimony concerning the lands embraced, says: "Under these circumstances I do not think the desert-land applications and affidavits could have been made in good faith and with full belief that the lands were really desert tracts liable to appropriation as such. "The intent is manifest to impose upon the government and secure title in fraud of the law, and in such case I am of the opinion that the party has no just grounds to urge for the return of purchase money upon the cancellation of his entry, and your decision to that effect is affirmed." It was this decision upon the merits which was affirmed, and it included both cases, both, as before stated, being included in the application, in the presentation of facts, in your decision, and in the submission upon appeal, as will appear by the recitals and the papers submitted. Having thus decided the merits, my predecessor added: "This disposes of the appeal, leaving unaffected the question of repayment to an assignee, in desert-land cases, which you have declined to pass upon." It can hardly be seriously contended that the entire case decided by you failed of consideration on appeal; and Mr. Mullan himself, in urging the fact that Guineau's claim on his original entry had already been repaid under the subsequent act of June, 16, 1880, says: "This is a similar case, in fact it is a part of the same case." On the first ground assigned as error, it must accordingly be held that no case has been made by the applicant. The second assignment is as follows: "That it was error therein to 'consider this case as falling within the reason of the decision of November 16, 1880, in the case of Jerome Madden." The argument to support this proposition lies in the assertion that within the meaning of the act of 1880, the entry of Hoyt had not only been "erroneously allowed," but that there was also a cancellation "for conflict," because other parties had sought to enter the lands and the entry was canceled after due hearing and appeal, whereas in the Madden cases the party waived contest on the challenge of the government, and the arable character of the land in its natural condition was thus conceded withour further proceedings. I do not regard the distinction as well established. The entry was good and valid upon the showing made by the party seeking it, sworn to by him, and corroborated by those whom he selected as his witnesses. If true, his allegations entitled him to an entry, and it would have been error to refuse his application. Consequently it was not error to accept it, and the entry was not erroneously allowed. Afterwards, it is true, he attempted to prove his allegations, but they were overwhelmingly refuted by the testimony taken by the government, and the finding of my predecessor was that the application was made "in fraud of the law." It is, in effect, the same as a similar finding upon default of answer when cited for hearing, the only difference being that in the one case the fact is taken as admitted; in the other it is established by testimony. As to the alleged cancellation "for conflict," there is nothing in the whole case to |