refuse to make any such declaration, but still continues an alien, and declines and refuses to take any step toward becoming a citizen of the United States."

"Deponent further says that by reason of the facts aforesaid, the applicants are unable to present any abstract of title showing a right in them to all of the mining claim aforesaid, and that the undivided fifty feet thereof stands in the name of said John Henry."

It is urged by the attorneys for the applicants for patent that an alien is incapable of acquiring a patentable interest in a mining location, and that the "attempt of Sweet to convey to Henry what the law prohibits the latter from holding, does not in any way affect the rights of these applicants, the act being void." Said attorneys ask therefore that the patent issue to said applicants.

No patent can issue upon this application as it now stands, as they have no title to the entire premises for which patent is sought.

Naturalization.

It is true that John Henry, being an alien, has no patentable interest in said mine at the present time, but should he become naturalized, his right to a patent upon compliace with the law would be perfect, for "naturalization has a retroactive effect so as be deemed a waiver of all liability to forfeiture and a confirmation of his former title." Vide Osterman v. Baldwin, 6 Wall. 116; Jackson v. Beach, Johns. Cas. 401.

It has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States, in numerous cases, that an alien can take by deed, and hold until office found. Vide Fairfax, Devisee, v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 603; Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheat. 453; Craig v. Leslie et al., 3 Id. 563; Craig v. Radford, 3 Id. 594; Cross v. De Valle, 1 Wall. 1; Osterman v. Baldwin, 6 Id. 116; Governeur's Heirs v. Robertson, 11 Wheat. 332.

Said application for patent will, therefore, remain suspended until the applicants shall show that they are in a condition to receive patent.

You will inform all parties in interest, and acknowledge the receipt hereof.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant.

J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner.

No. 9. 1. Several lode claims, separate in inception, should not be embraced in one application for patent.

2. Ruling of March 26, 1874, reversed.

3. This rule not applicable to placers which embrace several lodes within the boundaries sought to be patented.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, D. C., August 17, 1875.

Register and Receiver, Helena, Montana,

GENTLEMEN: Upon a review of the question I am convinced that several lode claims, separate in their inception, should not be embraced in one application for patent.

The slight saving in expense does not compensate for the delays in furnishing satisfactory proofs in the several claims sought to be patented, and the practice of including several lodes in one application should not be encouraged.

Ruling of March 26, 1874, reversed.

I therefore reverse the ruling of this office of March 26, 1874, and direct that hereafter you receive no application for patent that shall embrace more than one vein or lode.

Applications now in progress will be perfected under the former rule.

Rule not applicable to several lodes in placer claim.

You will understand that this decision does not apply to placers which embrace several lodes within the boundaries sought to be patented. Vide section 11 of the act of May 10, 1872 (Revised Statutes, section 2333), or to consolidated claims on the same vein or lode.

Be pleased to acknowledge the receipt hereof.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.

No. 10. Construction of section 5, act of May 10, 1872. Section 2324, U. S. Rev. Stat.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, D. C., August 27, 1872.

HON. C. DELANO, Secretary of the Interior.

*

*

SIR: * * The fifth section of said act of May 10, 1872, provides, among other things, that "on each claim located after the passage of this act and until a patent shall

have been issued therefor, not less than one hundred dollars' worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year," and that "on all claims located prior to the passage of this act ten dollars worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made each year for each one hundred feet in length along the vein until a patent shall have been issued therefor, but where such claims are held in common such expenditure may be made upon any one claim," etc.

Construction.

The only interpretation this office has been able to give to this language is that a "claim" on a lode located after the tenth of May, 1872, may be fifteen hundred feet in length and no more, whether located by one or more persons; and that to hold such claim of fifteen hundred feet will require an annual expenditure thereon of not less than one hundred dollars, and that on all lodes located prior to the passage of said act of May 10, 1872, there must, hereafter, be an annual expenditure of not less than ten dollars for each one hundred feet claimed on the course of the lode, under such prior locations, but that where a number of such claims of one hundred or two hundred feet each, as the case may be, upon the same lode are held in common, either by one or more persons, under locations made prior to said act of May 10, 1872, the aggregate amount necessary to hold all the claims so held in common upon the same lode, at the rate of ten dollars for each one hundred feet, may be expended upon any one claim thereon, or, in other words, at any one point on the lode so held in common; the words "where such claims are held in common such expenditure may be made upon any one claim," being held to mean that where several claims are held in common upon the same lode the entire expenditure necessary to hold all the claims thereon may be made on any one claim on such lode, but that expenditures made upon any one lode or claim, however great, can, in no way, be made to apply to other lodes claimed by the same parties.

In the case referred to by Mr. Douglas it would seem that the Helnuck Silver Mining company are the claimants of nine separate lodes, all of which it is their purpose to de

velop and improve by a mining tunnel now being run for the purpose of intersecting such lodes below the surface.

If this interpretation of the law is correct, work done and expenditures made in constructing a tunnel intended for the development and improvement of lodes will not satisfy the legal requirements as to expenditure as aforesaid; but the required amount of labor or expenditure must be made upon each lode claimed, in good faith, otherwise the same will be subject to relocation by other parties as provided by said statute.*

As Mr. Douglas, and those whom he represents, entertain a different view of the law. I respectfully submit the question for the consideration and advice of the head of the department. With great respect, your obedient servant, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

WASHINGTON, D. C., September 4, 1872.

SIR: I return herewith the two letters addressed to your office by R. M. Douglas, Esq., of this city, in relation to the proper construction of the fifth section of the mining act of tenth May, 1872, and transmitted with your letter of the twenty-seventh ultimo.

The views set forth in your letter appear to me in entire consonance with the letter and spirit of the act, and are therefore approved. I am, sir, very respectfully, your

obedient servant,

W. H. SMITH, Acting Secretary.

HON. WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner General Land Office.

No. 11. Lode and placer claims when separate premises.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 10, 1879.

HENRY O'CONNOR, Jr., Deadwood, Dakota.

SIR: In reply to your letter of thirty-first ultimo, inclosing copy of one dated eleventh of November, asking "whether or not a patent will issue including a placer and ledge claim when said claims are not contiguous, and the

* See act of February 11, 1875. No. 9, Laws.

ledge is entirely without the placer location," you are informed that a placer and lode claim situated as aforesaid can not be embraced in the same patent, or the same proceeding for patent. Very respectfully,

J. M. ARMSTRONG, Acting Commissioner.

No. 12. In the absence of adverse claim or protest, the substitution of valid for defective affidavits allowed.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

WASHINGTON, February 3, 1880.

SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the twenty-fourth ultimo, transmitting the papers in the case of Mineral Entries Nos. 1 and 2, at Oxford, Idaho Territory, of Arie Pinedo, upon the Soda Springs Sulphur mine.

You held said entries for cancellation on the fifteenth ultimo, for the reason that the oath, under which the application for a patent was filed, together with the affidavit of applicant that the plat and notice of intention to apply for patent remained posted on the claim during the period of publication, and the sworn statement of the fees and moneys paid in the case, were not verified before an officer authorized to administer oaths, in the land district wherein the claim is situated, but were executed and sworn to at Salt Lake City, Utah.

It appears that neither an adverse claim, nor a protest, has been filed in this case. It is ex parte, the question being one simply between the applicant and the government, and the proceedings are all regular with the exception above noted.

Nunc pro tunc proceeding.

The applicant now requests that he be allowed to make the affidavits above specified as defective, before the local officers at Oxford. The substitution of said affidavits would be in the nature of a nunc pro tunc proceeding. The other proceedings being regular, and in the absence of an adverse claim and of a protest, I see no reason why this request should not be granted, as it will in effect be simply the correction of a mistake made under a directory statute, in which no parties except the government and the applicant are interested, and no rights of other parties are involved.