Your decision is therefore modified, and you will proceed in the case in accordance with the views herein expressed. papers in the case are herewith returned. Very respectfully, The C. SCHURZ, Secretary. The Commissioner of the General Land Office. No. 13. CITIZENSHIP. The act of January 22, 1880, does not change manner of proof. GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 10, 1880. Register and Receiver, Eureka, Nevada. GENTLEMEN: Mineral entries Nos. 368, 369, 370, and 371, made in your office September 30, 1878, by John C. Phillips, upon the Richmond, Boston, Zealous, and Argonaut mines, are suspended for proper proof of citizenship. These entries were held for cancellation, the applications for patent having been sworn to by Alexander Tripple, attorney in fact for said Phillips; section 2325 U. S. Revised Statutes requiring that said affidavits must be made by claimant. The act of Congress approved January 22, 1880, however, has cured this defect, and the proofs in the cases, with the exception of that of citizenship, are sufficient. Affidavit of claimant must be verified within the land district. The affidavit of John C. Phillips, claimant, verified at Boston, Mass., before a commissioner for the State of Nevada, is in evidence, but this does not comply with the law, which requires (Sec. 2325, R. S.) that this affidavit shall be verified before a duly qualified officer within the land district where the claim is situated. The claimant need not necessarily adopt this mode of proving his citizenship. Of itself it is the lowest grade of evidence of the fact sought to be established, but the law makes it sufficient, and when properly verified must be accepted by this office as conclusive. It must be made by claimant himself, and verified within the proper land district. The act of January 22, 1880, does not change or relate to the proof of citizenship. While the law permits this form of proof, it does not preclude other modes, and citizenship, like any other fact, may be established in accordance with ordinary rules of evidence, but unless verified as required by law, the affidavit of the claimant can not be regarded as sufficient evidence. Very respectfully, J. M. ARMSTRONG, Acting Commissioner. No. 14. In Montana, under the act of the territorial legislature of December 26, 1874, the locator is entitled to fifty feet on each side of the lode, in addition to the width of the lode itself. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., July 24, 1876. SIR: I have considered the appeal of Tootle, Hanna et al., claimants of Stapleton Lode M. E., No. 120, and Tuscarora Lode No. 118, from your adverse decision of May 5, 1876, upon their application for patents for said lodes. Each of these lodes has been surveyed in due form, with a width of one hundred and twenty feet-twenty feet representing the width of the lode, and fifty feet on either side. for working purposes. These locations were made under the territorial act of Montana, approved December 26, 1864, which provides that "claims on any lead, lode, or ledge, either of gold or silver, hereafter discovered, shall consist of not more than two hundred feet along the lead, lode, or ledge, also fifty feet on each side of the lead, lode, or ledge, for working purposes." In the case of the "Gem Lode," decided by my predecessor January 22, 1875, this statute was so construed as to limit the width of every lode to one hundred feet, namely, fifty feet on each side of the center of the vein. Following that decision, you deny the application of claimant, and order a survey of the lode, limiting its width to one hundred feet. Since the decision of my predecessor above referred to, the supreme court of Montana has given construction to the act in question, holding that it authorizes the location and patenting of fifty feet on each side of the lode, in addition to the lode itself.* *The statute of Montana allowing to discoverers, as the width of their claim, “fifty feet on each side of said lead, lode, or ledge," means fifty feet on each side, in addition to the width of the lode itself. It does not mean from the center of the lode. Foote v. National M. Co., 2 Mont. 402; Frohner v. Rodgers, 2 Mont. 179. The act being one of the territorial legislature, the construction given it by the highest court of said Territory should be adopted by this department. I am therefore compelled to reverse your decision, and hold that the claimant is entitled to fifty feet on each side of the lode, in addition to the width of the lode itself. As the width of the lode in these cases appears to be twenty feet, I approve the survey, and direct the patents to be issued pursuant to the application therefor. The papers transmitted with your letter "N" of June 12, 1876, are here with returned. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Z. CHANDLER, Secretary. The Commissioner General Land Office. No. 15. Affidavits required of claimant in an application for patent. GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., August 26, 1879. Register and Receiver, Eureka, Nevada. GENTLEMEN: The papers in Mineral Entry No. 371, Lot No. 41, made in your office September 30, 1878, by John C. Phillips, upon the Argonaut Mine, Danville Mining District, have been examined. A copy of the mining laws of said district in force at the date of location, to wit, June, 1878, will be required. The affidavits of continuous posting of notice on claim, and affidavit of compliance with mining laws, etc., in application for patent, are made by Alexander Tripple, attorney in fact for claimant. The statute, however, prescribes that these affidavits shall be made by claimant, and they can not be made by agent.* You will, therefore, require claimant to comply with the requirements of the law in this respect, and also to furnish affidavit of citizenship, made before an officer authorized to administer oaths in the land district in which the claim is situate. Respectfully, J. M. ARMSTRONG, Acting Commissioner. * The Act of Congress, approved January 22, 1880, provides that these affidavits may be made by agent when the claimant is not a resident of, or is not in the land district at date of application. No. 16. ACT OF 1866. Character of diagram and notice required. GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., December 8, 1871. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado. GENTLEMEN: It again becomes necessary to call your attention to the fact, that in many cases the mining diagrams and notices are too indefinitely drawn to answer the requirements of the law or instructions. Must be so drawn as to give notice. The purpose of the diagram and notice is analogous to a legal summons, by which any and all parties are notified that unless, within a given time, they come forward and defend any right or interest they may have in certain premises, their right to do so shall become barred, and judgment rendered for claimant. This being the case, you will at once perceive the importance of having the diagram and notice very carefully prepared. *** An honest claimant will certainly have no hesitation in giving such a description of what he claims, as will enable any neighboring claimants to fully inform themselves of his intentions. * * * Should it be shown in any of the cases now pending, that parties have been injuriously affected by proceedings under a diagram or notice drawn in a manner calculated to deceive, or throw them off their guard, it will of course be the duty of this office to open the case for investigation, or to reject the claim, and require proceedings thereon de novo. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. No. 17. Proceedings where application is made for patent on a claim located in two land districts. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., November 12, 1875. Register and Receiver, San Francisco, California. GENTLEMEN: With your letter of the twenty-second ultimo you transmitted certain papers in case of the application of the Lake Quicksilver Mining Co. for patent for fourteen quicksilver mines and a mill site. You refused to receive this application for the reason that a portion of the premises described in said application lies within the Marysville land district, and for the further reason that the said mill site is contiguous to the mine. On the seventeenth of August, 1875, this office, after a careful review of the question, ruled that an application for patent could embrace but one lode or vein, except in cases where placer claims embrace within their exterior boundaries several lode claims. Vide Revised Statutes, sec. 2333; sec. 11 of the act of May 10, 1872. It will therefore be necessary for said company to file fourteen separate and distinct applications for patents. It is observed that the mill site No. 9 is claimed with Lake No. 9 mine, and that it is not contiguous to said mine; hence the application for patent for Lake No. 9 mine may embrace the said mill site. It is observed that Lake No. 1 and Lake No. 2 mines lie wholly within the Marysville district, and applications for patents for these mines should be filed in the Marysville land office. Lake Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 mines, and No. 9 mill site, lie wholly within the San Francisco district, and applications for patents for these mines and the mill site should be filed in the San Francisco office. Lake Nos. 3, 4, and 5 mines lie partly in the Marysville and partly in the San Francisco districts. Application filed in district where principal workings are situated and notice of application to be posted in both land offices. In all cases where mining claims lie partly in one land district and partly in another, applications for patents therefor should be filed in that district where the principal workings of the claim are situated, as shown by the plat and field notes; and the diagrams and notices should be posted near to such workings. A copy of the notice and of the diagram should be posted in the register's office in each district. The notice posted in the office of the register, where the application for patents is not filed, should state where the |