Tenth. No person will, while holding an office which authorizes him to take final proofs, be recognized or permitted to appear as an agent or attorney for others in any matter affecting in any way the title to public lands which may be pending before the Department of the Interior, or any of its subordinate offices or officers, nor will such persons while holding such offices be permitted to enroll themselves in that Department, or before any of its offices, as agent or attorney.

Eleventh. No officer authorized to take final proofs shall, directly or indirectly, either as agent, attorney, or otherwise, in any manner or by any means, cause, aid, encourage, induce or assist any person to in any manner wrongfully or illegally acquire or attempt to acquire any title to, interest in, use of, or control over, any public lands belonging to the United States.

Twelfth. No officer authorized to take final proofs should, either for himself or as agent, attorney, or representative of another, induce or attempt to induce any owner, entryman, or other person, to purchase, sell, mortgage, exchange, lease or relinquish any lands which are involved, may be involved, or have been involved, in any affidavit, application, or proof, executed before him, and he should not, either for himself or as agent for any other person, in any manner, solicit or make to any entryman, owner, or claimant, any loan or attempted loan, the payment of which is to be secured by a lien or mortgage upon such lands, and he should not be or remain a member or stockholder of any copartnership or company which shall, either directly or indirectly, be interested in or benefitted by any such sale, mortgage. exchange, lease, relinquishment, or loan, nor accept nor receive in any manner any fee, commission, compensation, emolument or benefit arising therefrom, except for the lawful discharge of his official duties.

Thirteenth. Any officer violating any of these rules suggested for the government of their actions may, after such violation, be deprived of the right of further taking final proofs, and when any commissioner has so offended. his action may be called to the attention of the court by which he was appointed, with appropriate recommendations. All registers and receivers and special agents have been charged to use their utmost diligence in seeing that the rules here suggested are fully and in good faith complied with, and directed to investigate and fully report any apparent violations thereof which may come to their notice.

Approved, March 24, 1905:

E. A. HITCHCOCK, Secretary.

W. A. RICHARDS, Commissioner.

SCHOOL LANDS-INDEMNITY SELECTION-TEMPORARY RESERVATION.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

By the action of the Department in its decision of February 13, 1904, permitting certain indemnity school land selections filed by the State, previously accepted and placed of record, and based upon lands alleged to be lost to the State because included within a temporary withdrawal with a view to their examination preliminary to the creation of a forest reserve, to stand, pending final determination of the boundaries of the proposed reserve, which would fix the status and determine the question of availability of the base lands, it was not the intention to include mere applications previously presented by the State, but which had not been formally accepted.

Secretary Hitchcock to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, (F. L. C.) March 27, 1905. (F. W. C.) The Department has considered the appeal by the State of California from your office decision of June 13, 1904, rejecting certain indemnity school land selections, filed by the State of California upon the dates named and for descriptions specifically set forth in said decision, aggregating more than fifty thousand acres within the Eureka land district.

These selections were presented between June 5 and September 21, 1903, and were all based upon lands alleged to be lost to the State because included within a temporary withdrawal with a view to their examination preliminary to the creation of a forest reserve.

It appears that at the time said lists were filed in the local land office no action was taken thereon, there being some question raised as to the payment of fees upon a portion of the selections. Following the departmental decision of December 10, 1903 (32 L. D., 346), wherein it was held that the mere inclusion of portions of sections 16 and 36 within a withdrawal made for the purpose of permitting investigation and examination of lands withdrawn with a view to their possible inclusion within a forest reserve, does not afford a sufficient base for the selection of school indemnity lands under the provisions of the act of February 28, 1891 (26 Stat., 796), the local officers took up and rejected all of the selections here involved; from which action the State appealed to your office.

Upon consideration of said appeal, the decision appealed from was rendered, wherein it is said that "the lands selected, with a few exceptions, have since the filing of the State's applications been temporarily withdrawn for a like purpose; " that is, for the purpose of determining the advisability of including them within a forest reserve, and upon inquiry at your office it is now learned that a reservation has been finally determined upon which will include all of the lands previously withdrawn.

Since forwarding the record on appeal, there has been transmitted a relinquishment by the State of a portion of the selections. It is

unnecessary to specifically describe the lands relinquished, in view of the action herein taken.

The real basis of the State's appeal seems to be the action taken in departmental decision of February 13, 1904 (32 L. D., 454), on review of the decision of December 10, 1903 (32 L. D., 346), before referred to, wherein the State's request was granted in the following

terms:

The Department sees no objection to granting the same upon the condition that the lands selected are not desired in the creation of other reserves, and wherever any such selections have been included within the limits of a withdrawal made prior to the time when the validity of the bases for such selections are fixed by the final establishment of a forest reserve including such base lands such selections will be canceled.

And it is now urged that the effect of said departmental decision was to allow all pending applications to select lands where the base lands were of the character before described.

The decision appealed from holds that in permitting certain selections previously accepted and placed of record to stand, pending the final determination of the boundaries of the proposed reserve, which would fix the status and determine the question of availability of the base lands, it was not the intention to include mere applications previously presented by the State but which had not been formally accepted, and with this the Department agrees; and after careful consideration of the entire matter the decision appealed from is affirmed and the proffered applications by the State will stand rejected. You will direct the local officers to make proper notation upon their records.

HOMESTEAD-DECEASED ENTRYMAN-HEIRS-PATENT.

HEIRS OF WILLIAM B. CRENSHAW.

In the case of a homestead entryman who dies within six months after making entry, without having established residence, leaving surviving him as his only known heirs a widow and also a minor child which soon thereafter dies, and his widow subsequently complies with the law and earns title to the land, but dies prior to submitting final proof, her estate will not be divested of the inchoate right of property acquired by her compliance with law, merely because the law does not in terms provide for the completion of title in such cases, but upon the submission of final proof by persons claiming to be her heirs, showing her compliance with law, patent will issue in the name of the heirs of the deceased entryman, leaving it to the courts to determine who under the law is entitled to the property.

Secretary Hitchcock to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, (F. L. C.) March 31, 1905.

(G. B. G.)

This is the appeal of Alexander Walters, transferee, from your office decision of August 4, 1904, which rejected the final proof sub

H

mitted by Wallace E. Fightmaster upon the homestead entry of William B. Crenshaw for the SE. of Sec. 6, T. 9 N., R. 14 W., Elreno land district, Oklahoma.

It appears that William B. Crenshaw made homestead entry of this land April 20, 1893, but died the following September, leaving surviving him a widow, Mary C. Crenshaw, and an infant son, who died about six months later. In September, 1897, his widow married Wallace E. Fightmaster, but died in February, 1899, leaving as her surviving heirs her husband, the said Wallace E. Fightmaster, and a child, Edward Fightmaster, the issue of her second marriage.

In 1901 the entry was contested upon the ground that the widow of Crenshaw had died without submitting final proof upon said entry, and that there were no known heirs of Crenshaw, or, if there were such, that they had wholly failed to cultivate the land as required by law. Upon the testimony taken at a hearing ordered upon this contest your office found that Crenshaw's widow had complied with the law as to cultivation, and that "she earned a patent for the land.” The contest was thereupon dismissed, but your office, May 6, 1903, directed the local officers to issue the usual expiration notice calling upon the heirs of W. B. Crenshaw to show cause why the entry should not be canceled for failure to make proof during the seven year period. This notice appears to have been given, and no heir of Crenshaw has appeared to claim any interest in the entry. July 21, 1903, however, the said Wallace E. Fightmaster submitted final proof thereon as "one of the heirs of Mary Catherine Fightmaster, formerly Mary Catherine Crenshaw," showing that she, as the widow of the entryman, took possession and control of said land and continued to cultivate and improve it up to the time of her death. Specifically, the final proof shows that Crenshaw died before he established residence upon the land, that his widow lived on the claim a part of the time each year after his death, that she cultivated and improved it until her death. that at the time proof was submitted the whole tract was under fence, one hundred and twenty acres thereof had been broken, and that the improvements were valued at $400.

Upon this proof final certificate issued July 24, 1903, stating that "Wallace Fightmaster, one of the heirs of Mary Catherine Fightmaster, deceased, formerly Mary Catherine Crenshaw, widow of William B. Crenshaw, deceased, has made payment in full" for said land, and that upon presentation of said certificate "the said heirs of William B. Crenshaw, deceased, shall be entitled to a patent for the land."

December 22, 1903, the said Wallace E. Fightmaster and his then wife, Ella O. Fightmaster, for themselves, and the said Wallace E.

Fightmaster as the duly appointed and authorized guardian of Edward Fightmaster, sold and conveyed the land in controversy to the appellant, Alexander W. Walters, for the sum of $2,250 cash in hand paid, and Walters swears that he has since spent $1,000 in improving the land.

Under all the circumstances, it is believed that the ends of justice can be best served by the issuance of patent upon said final certificate. This conclusion has been reached without reference to the general regulations of your office governing the submission of final proof under section 2291 of the Revised Statutes. This case is not within the statute, and the regulation in question is without application. Crenshaw had done nothing towards earning title to this land, and so far as appears from this record he has no heirs. His widow complied with the law and earned the title. She might have submitted final proof under section 2291 of the Revised Statutes and received the patent. She might have relinquished the land to the government and thereby defeated the claim of the Crenshaw heirs, if he had had such heirs. Steberg v. Hanelt (26 L. D., 436). This being so, it would seem absurd to say that after she had earned the title, her estate may be divested of this inchoate right of property because the law does not in terms provide for the completion of title in such cases. It is believed that upon the issuance of patent the title to this property will inure to her estate. But however this may be, the patent will follow the final certificate, and this runs to the "heirs of William B. Crenshaw." These heirs are designated also as the "heirs of Mary Catherine Fightmaster," but whether this be true is a question for the courts of Oklahoma to decide, if such question should arise. All the parties in interest, so far as appears from this record, are satisfied to have the patent issue in accordance with the recitals of the final certificate, and if their claim to the land should be disputed, it will be competent for the court to say who under the law is the owner or owners of the property, and declare a trust for his or their benefit, if found necessary.

The decision appealed from is reversed, with directions to issue the patent, unless further objection appear.