proved to the State September 8, 1870. The railroad company applies for patents for these lands: Advised that the Secretary of the Interior is not authorized by the general laws or the provisions of the act of July 1, 1862, to issue such patents to the company. 17 Op. 406.

56. St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad between St. Louis and Pacific not a land-grant road. Upon the facts stated: Advised that so much of the road of the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company as lies between St. Louis and Pacific (a distance of about 35 miles) should not be treated as a land-grant road. 18 Op. 47.

57. Sale of unclaimed lands.-The term "bona fide purchasers of said unclaimed land," as used in the third proviso of section 3 of the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 556), means those persons who, without knowledge of wrong or error, have purchased from the railroad company lands which had been previously entered by a preemption or homestead settler, where entry had been erroneously canceled as described in the first clause of that section, and which land the preemption or homestead settler did not elect to claim after the recovery by the proceedings prescribed by the second section of the act. 19 Op. 68.

58. Same-Issue of patents.-Patents, the issue whereof is provided for in the fourth section of the same act, are only intended to be issued after it shall have been legally determined, in the mode prescribed in the second section, that the certification or patent to the railroad company had been erroneously issued. Ib.

59. Same. The word "grant," in the fifth section, should be construed to include (as it does in the preceding sections of the act) both the primary and the indemnity limits.

1b.

60. Northern Pacific Railroad Company Indemnity belts.-The joint resolution of May 31, 1870 (16 Stat. 378), added a second indemnity belt to the land grant made to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company by the act of July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. 365), such grant thus having two indemnity belts. 19 Op. 88.

61. Same. Indemnity selections within the first belt (i. e., that originally created by the act of 1864) are not restricted to the limits of the particular State or Territory in which

the granted lands were lost, but may be made outside of those limits. Ib.

62. Lands excepted from grant to Southern Pacific.-The proviso in section 23 of the act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. 573), excepts from the operation of the grant made by that. section to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company of California all lands within the primary limits of the road of said company which also fall within the primary or indemnity limits of the grant to the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company now forfeited, and such lands can be restored to settlement and entry under the general land laws. 19 Op. 134.

63. Railroad land grant-Application of case of Sjoli v. Dreschel (199 U. S. 564).-The Secretary of the Interior, in the administration of the several land grants to railroads, is not bound to follow the broad principles quoted in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sjoli v. Dreschel (199 U. S. 564), but may confine what is said therein to a state of facts similar to those then before the court. 25 Op. 632.

64. Lieu lands-Selection.-No title passes to lieu lands before approval by the Secretary of the Interior of the company's list of selections; and, when so approved, the lands are to be considered as fully selected as of the date of the listing, so as to give to the company superiority over the right of homestead or preemption claimants settling after the listing by the company. Ib.

IV. Transportation.

65. Army transportation.-The payment of accounts of land-grant railroads (i. e., such as have not received aid in Government bonds) for army transportation, under the appropriation act of September 22, 1888 (25 Stat. 481), is not controlled by the proviso in the acts of June 30, 1882 (22 Stat. 120), and August 5, 1882 (22 Stat. 261), but is governed by the provisions of the act of 1888 alone; and under these provisions such accounts can be lawfully paid by a quartermaster without previous action thereon by the accounting officers of the Treasury. 19 Op. 264.

66. The transportation of an officer in the Corps of Engineers of the Army, while traveling over the Michigan Central Railway in the discharge of duties connected with river and harbor

RES ADJUDICATA.

The principle of res adjudicata applies to departmental action of a final nature. 20 Op. 280.

without removing such improvements, and the Government should take possession, they would become the property of the latter. Ib.

RESCISSION.

OF CONTRACT. See CONTRACTS, IV.

RESERVED PERCENTAGE FUND.

See CONTRACTS, 117.

RESERVATIONS AND PARKS.

I. In General, 1-4.

II. Military, 5-34.

III. Naval, 35-36.

IV. Forest, 37-43.

V. Light-House, 44-47.

I. Generally.

1. Restoration to public domain-Authority of Congress required.—Public lands once reserved by the President for military or other purposes, and no longer needed for such purposes, can not be restored to the public domain without authority from Congress. (16 Op. 123; 10 Op. 360.) 17 Op. 168.

2. Hot Springs.-The Secretary of the Interior has power, under the act of December 16, 1878 (20 Stat. 258), to lease sites upon the Hot Springs Reservation in Arkansas for the term of five years, and to relet the premises for the same term, from time to time, as the leases expire. 18 Op. 266.

3. Same. Upon the facts stated: Advised that the Secretary may accept a surrender of a lease of a bath-house site heretofore made to S, and cancel the same, and then enter into a new lease of the premises with the same party for the term of five years. Ib.

4. Same. During the term of the lease, and while the tenant is in possession under the same, he may remove from the premises whatever improvements he has erected thereon for the purposes of trade, whether machinery or buildings; but if he leaves the premises

II. Military.

5. Jurisdiction.-Writs issued by the courts of Minnesota run into and upon the military reservation of Fort Snelling, in that State. 17 Op. 1.

6. Fort Brady-Title to site for.-Upon the facts submitted, which are set forth in the opinion: Advised that, under the deed of Thomas Ryan and wife, dated December 18, 1866, granting to the United States certain land at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., selected for a new site for Fort Brady, the title to the premises has become vested in the United States. 19 Op. 137.

NOTE.—An action of ejectment was subsequently brought by the United States against Thomas Ryan, in the United States circuit court for the western district of Michigan, to recover the premises conveyed by the deed of said Ryan and wife referred to in the foregoing opinion, and verdict and judgment went in favor of the Government. The case was afterwards carried by writ of error to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment of the court below. (See Ryan v. United States, 136 U. S. 68.)

7. Fort Brown Reservation-Acquisition of title to.―The provisions of the act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. 507), which appropriated a large sum of money "to enable the Secretary of War to acquire good and valid title for the United States to the Fort Brown Reservation, Tex., and to pay and extinguish all claims for the use and occupation of said reservation by the United States;" with a proviso that no part of said sum shall be paid "until a complete title is vested in the United States," and that "the full amount of the price, including rent, shall be paid directly to the owners of the property," do not authorize acquisition of title by condemnation under the eminent domain power of the United States. 18 Op. 327.

8. Same.-Claims of ownership of the property, or some portion thereof, having been asserted by different parties, who propose to convey the same to the Government, their titles respectively, at the request of the Sec