transmitting said application, you treated the same as a relinquishment of Russell's claim, and canceled " said entry " November 5, 1881.

first mentioned deed and certain abstracts
of title.

PUEBLO LANDS OF SAN FRANCISCO. Review-For reasons stated a review of the decision of March 3, 1881, is declined. SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Me Farland, July 12, 1883.

May 16, 1882, said State, by its attorney, addressed a letter to your office, askIt was held by this Department under ing that you suspend action in this case, date of August 2, 1882, in the case of" until the Surveyor-General shall have I have considered a motion for review Wallace vs. Boyce (LAND OWNER Vol. 9, surveyed a tract of land of two by forty of the decision rendered by Mr. Secretary p. 120), that the intendment of the Desert arpents, confirmed to Bernard Gonois, Schurz, March 3, 1881, in the matter of Land Act is "to provide for the reclama- which will take the whole of section 191." the survey of the Pueblo Lands of San It does not seem to be questioned that Francisco, setting aside, as to the particuthe tracts in controversy formed part of a lars named, what is known as the Stratton military reservation, and were reserved survey, executed in 1867, and directing a for military purposes under both the new survey of the line of high water mark Spanish and French governments; and on the Bay of San Francisco, taking as a that they were continued as a military basis what is designated as the "Red reservation by the United States after the Line" of the original shore, as delineated cession of Louisiana. by authority of an act of the legislature of California, approved March 26, 1851.

tion of such lands from their desert condi-
tion to an agricultural state. Congress
specified water as the means to that end,
but the mere conveying of water upon the
land is not a fulfillment of the law, unless
in sufficient quantity to prepare such land
for cultivation. It would be imputing a
vain intent to the statute to interpret the
same as requiring a mere occasional see-
page of water upon such land, which, in
itself, would not materially change the
original status of the same so far as agri-
cultural purposes are concerned." As
shown by the decision cited, the statute
itself expressly provides "that the right to I am not called upon to decide in this
the use of water by the person so conduct-case whether the said railroad company
ing the same on or to any tract of desert has a valid title to said sections 190 and
land of 640 acres, shall depend upon bona 191. The only question necessary or pro-
fide prior appropriation:" and that the per to decide is whether the State is enti-
water shall be so conducted" within the tled to the lands under the swamp grant
period of three years."

It will be observed that upward of three years had elapsed from the date of Russell's declaration to that of his affidavit wherein he virtually alleges his failure to comply with statutory requirements. His entry was not canceled for conflict nor because it had been erroneously allowed, but because of his failure to comply with legal requirements.

I am therefore of opinion that it would be inexpedient to refund said purchasemoney. Your decision is accordingly affirmed.

STATE SELECTIONS.

NEW ORLEANS, SPANISH FORT & LAKE

R. R. Co. vs. STATE OF LOUISIANA. Military Reservation.-Land embraced in an old military reservation, and never released therefrom, cannot be selected under the Swamp Grant acts. SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Mc Farland, June 23, 1883.

These lands were never released from such reservation and restored to the mass of public lands in such manner as would make them subject to the swamp grant act and pass them to the State of Louisiana under that act.

act.

Your decision holding for rejection the selection of said sections by said State is affirmed for the reasons stated.

The motion for review was duly presented under the permission of the Department in April, 1881, with a request that the matter of argument be left open for the consideration of whatever questions might arise in the further progress of the case, and was formally renewed in September, 1882, by counsel for the parties interested in the approval of the Stratton survey, and after full oral and written argument the whole case has been regularly submitted for my decision.

Having complete jurisdiction of the case, as shown by the authorities cited on page 4, of the former decision-also Maguire vs. Tyler (1 Bl, 195, and 8 Wall., 650), Van Reynegan vs Bolton (95 U. S., Overflow-Arable Land.-Land overflowed dur-33), Snyder vs. Sickles (98 U. S., 203), and

STATE OF OREGON VS. GOODLOW.

ing the late winter and early spring months
but tillable after the first day of June is not
"swamp and overflowed land" within the
meaning of the law.

SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Mc Far-
land, July 13, 1883.

I have considered the case of the State
of Oregon vs. Newton S. Goodlow.

I have examined the testimony. It is voluminous, conflicting, and much of it irrelevant, but I concur with you in the opinion that its preponderance shows that the tracts are not swamp and overflowed land within the meaning of the act of September 28, 1850, and did not, consequently, inure to the State under its grant.

other cases-I propose to give such direc tion in the matter as will lead to an intellitime limiting the expression of my views gent execution of the survey, at the same to the exact points presented by the pending application.

The right to the Pueblo title and pos session rests in the city of San Francisco by judicial confirmation, sanctioned and ratified by legislative grant. (Trenouth es. City and County or San Francisco, 100 U. S., 251.) The case just cited contains not only a clear and concise statement of this particular grant, but of the Mexican custom and law in which such title originated. The acts of Congress referred to are those of July 1, 1864, (13 Stat., 333,) and March 8, 1866, (14 Stat., 4,) the latter of which released all claims of the United states upon certain trusts, and by direct reference to the decree of the Circuit court of the United States rendered May 18. 1865, which specified the boundary calls of the grant.

The tracts are situate in a valley, subject to annual overflow in the late winter I have considered the case of the New and early spring months, caused by rains Orleans, Spanish Fort and Lake Railroad and the melting snow in neighboring Company vs. the State of Louisiana, in- mountains. This overflow subsides some volving sections 190 and 191, township 12 times in April, generally in May, and with south, range 11 east, east of the Missis- scarcely an exception before June, so that sippi River, Louisiana, on appeal from not only is the land in fit condition for your decision of June 12, 1882, holding plowing and the cultivation of the ordinfor rejection the selection of said sections ary crops of that country, but the over- The descriptive language of the decree by said State under its swamp grant. flow is of special benefit to the hay crop, is this: "The land of which confirmation The said railroad company claims that the production of which is a leading in- is made, is a tract situated within the said lands formed part of a military res- dustry, many of the people being engaged county of San Francisco, and embracing ervation, and that, under authority of an in stock raising. Upon the subsidence of so much of the extreme upper portion of act of Congress approved March 3, 1818 the overflow, the land continues arable the peninsula above ordinary high water (3 Stat. 520), Secretary of War Lewis until the following season, when the over- mark (as the same existed at the date of Cass, on the 31st day of August, 1831, by flow recurs, except that in the interim the the conquest of the country, namely, the proper deed conveyed the same to Harvey land is frequently too dry for successful seventh of July, A. D. 1846,) on which the Elkins, from whom the company claims to cultivation. city of San Francisco is situated, as will have derived title by mesne conveyances, I affirm your decision rejecting the contain an area of four square leagues— and puts in evidence a certified copy of said claim of the State to the tracts, | said tract being bounded on the north and

east by the bay of San Francisco; on the west by the Pacific Ocean; and on the south by a due east and west line drawn so as to include the area aforesaid."

HoN. HENRY M. TELLER,

made by this office under date of June 5th, in cerning the practice of this Office in defining answer to your letter dated May 31, 1883, conthe inner boundaries or outlines of bays when the same are interrupted by the mouths of estuaries, rivers or creeks, I submit the following additional statement:

a whole, by reference to its situation Coast Survey, as communicated by the "above ordinary high water" of the sur- Superintendent under date of 8th ultimo, rounding ocean and bay; descriptive of in response to my request for information the land as such "peninsula," and only in- on the subject I subjoin his letter: All material questions relating to this tended to set out the location and situs of U. S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY OFFICE, boundary are, as I understand the case, the grant, lying there as a portion of Washington, June 8, 1883. now settled, except the single inquiry country, within well known natural water whether or not, in running along the line boundaries, and rising above their ordi- Secretary of the Interior, Washingion, D. C.: of ordinary high water mark of the ocean, nary lines of high tide. This peninsula SIR-In further illustration of the statement and especially of the bay, the main shore was confirmed as a tract granted for muor coast line of such body of water, identi- nicipal purposes for the uses of a prospecfied by its larger description, shall be fol- tive and growing city, which at date of lowed, cutting across the mouths of confirmation had already achieved more streams, estuaries, and creeks which, in- than its early promise. Manifestly such tersecting the body of the peninsula, find a grant must take whatever is inland with their entrance into the said ocean or bay; respect to the bodies of water surrounding or whether such estuaries as also fall be-it-whatever might or should attach to its low high tide shall be segregated by fol- municipal uses--and if traversed by a lowing up the tide line on one side and water course, everything not strictly bedown on the other so as to map them, as longing to the public easement, to the jus it were, as a part of the sea, and to meas- publicum as recognized by the law of naure only the land surface thus articulated tions, would naturally fall within the muand segregated, to obtain the area called nicipal right. To change or limit this natfor by the grant. ural and persuasive presumption of intent, words of clear and unmistakable import must be used; not words which may reasonably find full interpretation in the opposite view.

My predecessor held that the former was intended by the decree and expressed its true construction. The applicants for review adhere to and insist upon the latter interpretation.

Now when we look at the calls for

Mission Creek, so called, running into boundary there is no ambiguity-no Mission Bay, an interior part or portion of doubtful phraseology: "Said tract being the Bay of San Francisco, presents the bounded on the north and east by the principal locality of the controversy, al- Bay of San Francisco, on the west by the though several other streams are also affect- Pacific Ocean." The "tract " bounds upon ed by the tidal flow, and strips of land along the "Bay" and " Ocean," not upon estutheir banks are, or were in 1846, sub-aries, creeks, and streams intersecting merged by the ordinary high tides. All such tract, even though they be navigable these lands are now reclaimed and covered and technically termed "arms of the sea." by the streets, blocks, and buildings of I have examined the full list of authorithe city. It is sufficient for this case to ties cited and brought to my attention at fix the meaning of the decree as to Mis- the argument and subsequently, and have sion Creek; for if that be excluded as a no question to raise respecting them in a boundary, all the other streams and lesser case to which they apply. Those on which channels will, by the same rule, fall within great stress is laid are Hunt's Law of the exclusion. Boundaries, 16, 17; 8th Alabama, 1 to 24; It is broadly contended that the con- 16 Peters, 251, 266, 267; 6 Cowan, 518, trolling words of the decree are those first 540; 2 Wallace, 590; 94 U. S., 324. In occurring, viz: "embracing so much all these cases the arm of the sea, or the *** above ordinary high-water mark stream itself, was the given boundary, and as will contain an area of four the only thing decided was that the title square leagues;" that this is descriptive reached only to high water mark; all beof the lands with reference to every part and parcel of the same wherever situated, and draws to itself every subsequent mention of boundary, so as to compel us to But, as before stated, this is another treat all the waters blow high tide in any case. Here the boundary is not the part of the peninsula as forming "arms of stream, but the Bay; consequently the the sea," which must be considered as a "ordinary high water mark" must be the part of the sea named for boundary, and high water mark of the shore as pertaining "meandered" out for quantity, in obtain- to the sea, and not the high water mark of ing the area which governs the location of the bank as pertaining to a river or stream. the south line of the grant. Others con- So that, although Mission Creek is alleged cede that possibly the fact of navigability to have been as well a tidal inflow as an of the estuary may have some bearing, outlet for the inland waters, it nevertheless but claim that if the stream was navigable falls within banks instead of resting upon it necessarily formed a part of the bay called for, and its high tide line must be taken in surveying out the land.

**

To my mind both these views are extreme and at variance with the intent and language of the decree. These first words of description are of the land as "a tract," a "portion of the peninsula" referred to as

yond that resting in the rights of riparian
proprietorship, subject to the public ease-
ment.

shores, and must be considered an inland
water for all purposes; being far within
the rule laid down in United State vs.
Grush, (5 Mason, 290,) and clearly cover-
ed by the late case of U. S. vs. Steam ves-
sels (No. 141, October term, 1882).

To the foregoing may be added the rule
long since established by the United States

adopt definite rules in that respect for the purThis Office has long since had occasion to pose of making estimates for projected work and giving account of work done.

The rule adopted is, to draw the line between on each side of the interruption, in continuation

high water mark of the nearest points of land of the general outline.

Thus, making use of familiar illustrations on the Atlantic Coast, the "general coast line" is measured from Point Judith to Montauk Point; May to Cape Henlopen; from Cape Charles to from Coney Island to Sandy Hook; from Cape Cape Henry, On the Pacific Coast, from Point Lobos to Point Benita (San Francisco entrance),

etc.

Descending to smaller features in Long Isby measuring across the mouth of the Thames land Sound, the limits of the sound are defined River from high water at Eastern Point to Quinipeag Rocks; across the mouth of the Connecticut River, from high water mark at brook); in Delaware Bay, across Mahon's River Griswold's Point (Lyme) to Lynde's Point (Saybetween the opposite points of marshes. By the same rule we define the limits of Mission Bay, near San Francisco, by drawing the line across Mission Creek over the projecting points of marsh on each side.

and I trust that I have succeeded in setting
It appears needless to multiply illustrations,
forth the rule and practice of this office.
Very respectfully yours,

J. E. HILGARD, Superintendent. From the foregoing it will be seen that although no suggestion was made to him. as to localities, the inquiry, being in the most general terms, the Superintendent has instanced this very case as illustrative of the accepted rule. It can hardly be claimed, therefore, that a call for San Francisco Bay, being a larger description than Mission Bay, will demand the inclusion of an estuary of the latter, which by the ordinary rules of boundary has been excluded from other designation than that of a mere creek flowing into the lesser bay, but actually considered as forming no portion of such bay designated as a distinctive body of water.

Let it be supposed for further illustration that, instead of penetrating the peninsula for a short distance, Mission Creek had held by the same course and width, within its own banks, entirely across the land, and connected as a channel with the Pacific Ocean on the west. Would it in such case be claimed that this channel formed, as an arm of the sea, one of the boundary calls of the decree? Manifestly not; but the line of the shore would be followed around the peninsula, cutting both mouths, in continuation of the general course of the high water boundary of

cluded from the area of tracts of land oring for interposition. I can but execute
bounded by the shores of the superior the decree of the authorities confirming
bodies of water into which they flow at the grant, construing whatever of doubt
various angles. My predecessor intended it may present according to my best indiv
simply to direct that Mission Creek be idual and official judgment.
not made an exception to this general
rule.

the entire tract. And if this be so, it
must follow that the lesser incident of an
intersecting channel, within such banks,
on the one side, cannot operate to require
its notice as a boundary, and an exclusion
of its area from the quantity of the grant.
If the claimants under the State have a
I am aware that I have extended the
valid title, it is the duty of the Depart-
consideration of this point to an unusual It is alleged that the same was declared ment to recognize that fact, no matter
length; but in view of its importance, and navigable by Act of the State Legislature how great the injury to those holding
of the time and labor expended in its dis- March 31, 1854. I am unable to perceive under the Pueblo title. The latter have
cussion, as well as of the misapprehension in this fact any support for the theory occupied and improved the lands in con-
which it seems to me must exist in the that it was regarded as a part of the bay. troversy by the erection of fine and valu-
minds of counsel who have appeared in The language of the statute is that "the able buildings. They have become the
support of the Stratton survey, I have thus creek known as Mission Creek in the homes of a large number of persons of
sought to set at rest the conflicting theo-county of San Francisco, from its mouth small means, who acquired their title
ries concerning it. To me it is plain that as far as the tide flows, shall be declared
the confirmation extends to the high water a navigable stream." It is designated as
mark of the shore of the bay, leaving en- a creek, described as within the county,
tirely out of the intention of the referred to as having a mouth, and de-
decree any reference whatever to the clared to be a stream. By sections two
inland channels of the streams inter- and three of the same Act, it is again iden-
secting the granted peninsula, that the tified as a creek.
adjudication of the boundary goes to
the settlement of the rights of the
city not only by relation as of the date of
filing of the petition with the Board
of Land Commissioners, but that it goes
to "the title of the claimant as it existed sula, but that it was an inland stream proofs of such rights before rendering a
upon the acquisition of the country." within the body of the county; and the
(Beard vs. Federy, 3 Wall., 478.) This court of sessions was expressly authorized
adjudication necessarily postpones the by the Act to license bridges and ferries
State, even in the exercise of her tide across such stream, provided navigation This Department can and ought to take
water sovereignty, to the rights of these should not be thereby impeded. Had this cognizance of the fact that long before the
claimants under the city; and but for the been deemed a body of water instead of a claimants had made a pretense of owner-
public character of the works made by or stream, its mouth would have been denom- ship the occupants were claiming the land
under State authority to improve the pub-inated an entrance, and all the descriptive under the Pueblo title, and by their
lic easements and water front of the city, terms would have corresponded to the money expended in improving them the
which works have also been co-operated proper appellation of a bay, gulf or sound, same became valuable, and their acquisi-
in by the city herself, the title might prob- as the case might be. I can not conceive tion desirable to claimants. For a nomi-
ably be held to extend through riparian how a claimant under the State can set up nal sum they now hope to acquire prop-
proprietorship to the present line and a construction so plainly at variance with erty worth millions of dollars, rendered
shores of the bay.
what was obviously the legislative under- hus valuable by the money and labor of
But, fortunately, there is no need to ex-standing in defining this water as a stream, those whom they now seek to despoil.
tend this question to that limit.

This statute in itself shows the opinion of the State Legislature to have been according to the actual fact; not that this creek formed a part of the bay of San Francisco, and a boundary of the penin

known as a creek, and made subject to
bridging and ferriage, with a saving only
of the easement attaching to other naviga-
ble streams.

through the Pueblo title, and who for years lived in ignorance of any adverse claims. The claimants under the State rely upon their naked legal rights, and demand their recognition by the Department without reference to the hardships such recognition will cause to those bona fide purchasers under the Pueblo title. As before stated, it is my duty to recognize the legal rights of the State claimants if clearly established; but it is also my duty to require sufficient and convincing decision that will disturb titles and deprive the occupants of their lands, their homes, and their places of business.

Before lending my aid to enforce naked legal rights of this character, the proofs must be made exceedingly clear and conclusive. But, fortunately, in this case I I might here dismiss this review without have no difliculty in determining that the alluding to the partial execution of the claim of the parties holding under the order of my predecessor; to the liberties State is not only without legal right, but taken with his instructions by the late Sur- subversive of equity and justice; and I veyor-General; and to the repeated efforts cannot permit myself, with the authority of various parties to force the Department of the Department committed to my to an acquiescence in the subsequent pro- charge, to assist a claim based upon such ceedings had and reported. I have only considerations, in overthrowing the settled to say that I do not look with favor upon an attempt to carry into effect by inference and evasive construction the execution of a survey so manifestly at variance with both the letter and spirit of the directions of the former head of this Department.

rights of the community, appropriating their property and their very homes, in the manner which would result from a modification of the decision already made.

The one thing for this Department is to find such shore line of high water as it existed in 1846. To this end my predecessor directed that the "Red Line Map" be made the basis of the survey. I do not regard this as commanding an inflexible adherence to such map, but construe it as intending to require that the former shore of the bay be followed, and not the banks of estuaries and streams. If at any point the red line traverses the land above the tide line, manifestly the tide line must be the boundary. So, also, where the line may chance to lie beyond the shore, out in the water of the bay, the tide line must still govern. But, following such tide line in its general course along the shore as it then existed, it must cross the mouths of It is said that great interests are inthese estuaries, including Mission Creek, volved, calling for intervention or such at the points where the banks of the recognition as to incline me to listen to stream came down to the bay, though such appeals of various property owners under banks may have been composed of marsh title granted by the State of California. lands, and were subject to tidal overflow I am not unaffected by proper consideraas banks of the streams. tions, where large and material interests Leaving in force the decision of August It is objected that this creek was from must suffer from official action; yet, being 2, 1882, as to the eastern boundary of the 140 to 270 feet in width, and navigable. but the minister of the law, cannot yield Presidio Military Reservation, a review So, many streams are miles in width, nav. my convictions of duty to favor such in- of which was declined October 26, 1882, I igable, and below high tide for many miles terests, however or in whomsoever vested. also direct a substantial adherence to my from their mouths. But they are not ex-But here are opposing interests, each clam- predecessor's decision of March 3, 1881, a

On the other hand, if the parties holding the State title have made improvements under such title, they are not without their remedy; inasmuch as the city is but the trustee of such occupants, who may at a nominal figure secure a title from the city authorities to the premises so occupied.

jection to the destruction of these fences by persons who desire to make bona fide settlement on the enclosed tracts, but are prevented by the fences or by threats of violence for doing so.

[Circular referred to above.-EDITOR.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, D. C., March 16, 1880.

"The Government will take proper pro-
ceedings against persons unlawfully en-
closing tracts of public land whenever,
after this notice, it shall appear that by TO REGISTERS AND RECEIVERS,
such enclosure they prevent settlements
on such lands by others who are entitled
to make settlement under the public land
laws of the United States."

In order that proper action may be taken to cause the removal of all such unlawful enclosures as may now exist, or may be hereafter erected, you are directed to promptly report the number and extent of all such enclosures now known to you, or which may be brought to your notice, with the necessary corroborating evidence, so that the cases may be promptly transmitted to the Department of Justice for proper action.

U. S. Land Offices.

It is found in examining the returns from some of the district offices that descriptions of tracts are often imperfectly written, as, for instance, "W. N E. N W. Sec."

Example: Northeast quarter of section this answer, the premises in controversy, 10; township 101 north, range 11 west, constituting a lode or vein of mineral. 5th principal meridian. must be held as matter of law to have been excepted or reserved from the granting clause of the patent. And this question is to be determined upon a consideration of § 2333 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. It is well enough, however, to state precisely what the answer avers. I have, in fact, already done so. It avers that this vein or lode was known and claimed at the time the application was made for the patent. There is no averment that the existence of the lode or vein was known to the patentee or to You are instructed to exercise great the party applying for the patent; nor is care in the preparation of certificates and there any averment that such vein or lode receipts, to write the descriptions in full | had been claimed or located by metes or with clearness and accuracy, so that they bounds, nor is there any averment that it will read as follows: The West half of was known in the sense of having been the Northwest quarter, and the Northeast developed or opened so that ore had been quarter of the Northwest quarter of Sec- actually found or discovered; and the tion 12, Tp. 4 South, Range 3 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Kansas. J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner.

question is whether any and all of these averments are necessary in order that the right of the public, or of these defendants, to go upon the premises and develop this vein or lode shall be considered as having

This department has no authority to remove fences or prosecute trespassers, and when the cases have been referred to the Department of Justice for appropriate UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. been reserved by the patent; and this, as I action, the duty of this department is performed, and its jurisdiction ceases.

N. C. MCFARLAND, Commissioner. Approved. H. M. TELLER, Secretary.

INSTRUCTIONS.

How lands embraced in certificates and receipts should be described.

ACTING COMMISSIONER HARRISON to Reg. and Rec., Duluth, Minn., Aug. 6, 1883. (C. H. B.) Your attention is called to circular letter "C," dated March 16, 1880, and letter "C" of June 29, 1881, respecting description of lands embraced in certificates and receipts issued by you. It is observed that you fail to comply with the instructions therein contained, and I have to request a compliance in future.

DISTRICT OF COLORADO.
June 22, 1883.

THE IRON SILVER MINING COMPANY VS.
SULLIVAN ET AL.

have said, depends upon the meaning of § 2333 Revised Statutes of the United States.

I do not know when I have had greater difficulty in construing any legislation Lode on Placer Claim.-Section 2333 United than I have had with this section. I have, States Revised Statutes, construed. however, reached a conclusion which I McCrary, C. J. (Orally)-This case is will proceed to state, and in order to the before the court upon demurrer to por- more convenient consideration of the sections of the answer; it is an action of tion, it may be better to state it in sepejectment, in which the plaintiff proceeds ate paragraphs, as it embraces and emupon a government patent. The answer bodies several distinct propositions, all admits the validity of the patent, and that somewhat connected together, but still in the plaintiff is the owner of whatever title a sense separate and distinct. Let me is conveyed by the patent, but justifies state the section then, without changing the possession in defendants upon the the language at all, in paragraphs or subground that they are developing a certain divisions, as follows: vein or lode of mineral, found within the First. "Where the same person, associaYou will please write the descriptions limits of the property described in the tion, or corporation, is in possession of a in full, and restrict entries to such num- patent. The patent is what is known as a placer claim, and also a vein or lode inber of subdivisions as can easily be writ-patent for a placer mine, or a placer cluded within the boundaries thereof, apten in the blank spaces left in the forms patent. The court can not, in an action plication shall be made for a patent for for that purpose, without interlining or of this sort, as we all very well understand, the placer claim, with the statement that doubling the lines. Where tracts in sev- go into any question as to whether the it includes such vein or lode, and in such eral sections are embraced in one entry, officers of the Land Department were a patent shall issue for the placer claim, the descriptions should appear in the properly advised as to the facts, nor make subject to the provisions of this chapter, numerical order of the sections; but entries should not cover more than 640 acres each, and should, when practicable, be confined to one township and range.

A failure to adhere to the practice above indicated in the past has led to many errors and great inconvenience to entrymen, as well as to your office and this.

including such vein or lode, upon the payment of five dollars per acre for such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof.

any inquiry into any question of fraud.
The only tribunal that has authority to
investigate questions of that sort is a
Court of Chancery, when its powers are
invoked by proceedings instituted on be- Second. "The remainder of the placer
half of the United States, for the purpose claim, or any placer claim not embracing
of setting aside the patent. All that we any vein or lode claim, shall be paid for
can inquire into in a case of this character at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents
is the question, what is conveyed by the per acre, together with all costs of pro-
patent under the statute by virtue of ceedings.
which it was issued?

[Letter referred to above.-EDITOR.] ACTING COMM'R HOLCOMB to Reg. and Rec., The answer in this case sets forth that Worthington, Minn., June 29, 1881. (C. H. B.) the portion of the premises occupied by You are instructed to mention in all these defendants constituted a vein or classes of entry papers issued by you the lode which was known and claimed to meridian governing the survey of land de- exist in said premises at the time of the scribed; state whether the township is application for the patent, and at the time north or south from base line, and whether the patent was issued, and the question the range is east or west from meridian. here is whether, upon the averments of

Third. "And where a vein or lode, such as is described in § 2320, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer claim, an application for a patent for such placer claim, which does not include an application for the vein or lode claim, shall be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer claim has no right of possession of the vein or lode claim.