as well as the original entry, so that one patent may issue for the lands in both entries; yet where the original entry and the additional entry are made in different land districts, this rule must be departed from, so far as regards the issuing of one final certificate and receipt for both. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. REGISTER AND RECEIVER. No. 336. CIRCULAR. DEPARTMENT of the InterIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., August 5, 1874. TO REGISTERS AND RECEIVERS OF U. S. LAND OFFICES. GENTLEMEN :-In view of the many complaints presented to this Office of the hardships, by reason of distance, insufficient means, physical disability, &c., involved in the regulation which requires the personal attendance of applicants for additional Homestead entries at the Land-Office of the District in which the desired additional land may be situated, I have been led to make a careful examination of the several Homestead laws in respect to this point. I find that the regulation complained of is not a necessary incident to the statute, but is such a discretionary ruling only as may properly be modified whenever, in the practical administration of the law, it is found to work great general hardship. Under the law, the only tests of an applicant's right to take additional land are, first, the fact of his military or naval service; and, second, the fact of his original entry prior to June 8, 1872,* of less than 160 acres. All the requirements as to proof of settlement and improvement relate exclusively to the original tract, the additional land being considered as practically an integral part of the original entry, and may be included in one and the same patent in cases where the original entry is not already perfected. I have therefore to direct that hereafter a party who is entitled to make an entry of additional land under the second section of the act of June 8, 1872, as amended by the act of March 3, 1873, be permitted to make the required affidavit before the clerk of any court of record for the county in which he resides, or before the Register or Receiver of any U. S. Land-Office, and to transmit the same, together with his formal application and proof of military or naval service, and the fee and commissions prescribed by law, by mail, or through an attorney, to the Land-Office of the District in which the land applied for may be situated. The proof of military or naval service to be transmitted may consist either of the original certificate of discharge, or a copy thereof duly certified under the hand and seal of the clerk before whom the affidavit is made, or under the hand of the Register or Receiver of any U. S. LandOffice; and in all cases of this kind the application and affidavit must contain a reference to the original entry by its number and district, and to the land embraced therein by a subdivisional description thereof, with numbers of section, township, and range. S. S. BURDETT, Commissioner. Approved: W. H. SMITH, Acting Secretary of the Interior. * Prior to June 22, 1874, date of passage of Revised Statutes. See Section 2306. No. 337.. WHITE v. LAFFERRY. A receiver of a land-office is entitled to make final proof on a homestead entry made by him prior to his appointment. A receiver of a land-office who has made final proof upon a homestead entry made by him prior to his appointment as receiver may make an additional entry under the provisions of the act of June 8, 1872. A contest for abandonment of an additional entry made under the act of June 8, 1872, will not be entertained. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Oct. 5, 1874. REGISTER AND RECEIVER, Dardanelle, Arkansas. GENTLEMEN-I am in receipt of yours of May 19, 1874, enclosing papers in the contested case of Silas White v. James R. Lafferry for abandonment of homestead entry No. 8,689 upon the W. of S. W. 4, sec. 23, T. 7 N., R. 21 W. It appears that at the time of making entry Mr. Lafferry was receiver of the land-office at Dardanelle, but said entry was made as an additional entry under act of June 8, 1872, to homestead entry No. 1,128, made June 11, 1868, prior to his appointment as receiver. Mr. Lafferry has made final proof on his entry No. 1,128, per certificate No. 87, and under the rulings of this office was entitled to make an additional entry under the act of June 8, 1872, while acting as receiver of the land-office as aforesaid. A contest for the abandonment of his additional entry under act of June 8, 1872, cannot be entertained, as under the law he is not required to make settlement and cultivation thereon. You will, therefore, notify the parties that the above contest is dismissed. Very respectfully, S. S. BURDETT, Commissioner. No. 338. CHARLES RADAMACKER. A soldier or sailor who homesteaded 80 acres and entered 40 acres additional under the act of June 8, 1872, will be allowed to enter enough more under the act of March 3, 1873, to make up 160 acres, if he served ninety days or more during the rebellion, &c. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D. C., August 25, 1874. SIR: I have examined the application of Charles Radamacker to enter as an additional homestead the N. E. S. E. section 24, 90, 46, Sioux City, Iowa, on appeal from your decision of Dec. 29, 1873, rejecting his said application. It appears from the record that Radamacker, who was a soldier, and entitled to the benefits of the 2d section of the act of June 8, 1872, (17 Stat., 333,) August 15, 1872, made an additional entry of a contiguous tract of 40 acres, making his entire claim then consist of 120 acres. The 2d section of the act of June 8, 1872, was amended by the act of March 3, 1873, (17 Stat., 605,) by such a change in the language as in effect to remove a previous restriction of the right of entry to contiguous land. The question presented is whether, under these circumstances, the claimant is now entitled to enter an additional quantity of 40 acres, not contiguous, under the act as amended. I think he is entitled. He is clearly within the spirit, and I am satisfied also within the letter, of the act. The 2d section as amended reads as follows, viz: "That any person entitled under the provisions of the foregoing sections to enter a homestead, who may have heretofore entered under the homestead laws a quantity of land less than 160 acres, shall be permitted to enter so much land as, when added to the quantity previously entered, shall not exceed 160 acres." Under this 2d section, any person entitled under the preceding section of the act, and who had therefore entered under the homestead laws, a less quantity than 160 acres, is entitled to an additional entry to make up the deficiency. The only requirements of the preceding section are that the claimant shall have served in the army of the United States for 90 days or more during the recent rebellion, been honorably discharged, and remained loyal to the government. It is admitted that the claimant herein did serve in the army of the United States during the recent recent rebellion for a period exceeding 90 days; that he was honorably discharged; that he has remained loyal to the Government, and that he had, previously to said act of 1873, entered under the homestead laws a less quantity of land than 160 acres, to wit, 120 acres. In my opinion he is entitled to an additional entry. He is within the letter and spirit of the act, and to hold otherwise would be to inflict a penalty upon a deserving claimant for promptly taking advantage of the prior statute. I therefore reverse your decision and return herewith the papers transmitted with your letter of April 25, 1874. Very respectfully, W. H. SMITH, Acting Secretary. To the Commissioner of the General Land-Office. No. 339.' JOHN N. LANGFORD. A homestead declaratory statement can only be filed in case of an original homestead entry, and not for an additional tract. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D. C., Sept. 23, 1874. SIR-I have considered the appeal of John N. Langford from your decision of February 21, 1874, cancelling his additional soldier's homestead entry, made November 8, 1873, under acts of June 8, 1872, and March 3, 1873, of the N. of S. W., section 2, T. 11 N., 63, Lincoln district, Nebraska. It appears that on June 21, 1869, Langford made an original homestead entry of the N. of N. E. 4, section 14, same township and range, and on May 13, 1873, filed H. D. S. for the additional tract described. May 21, 1873, the additional tract was included in a homestead entry by one Flanagan. You held that homestead declaratory statement can only be filed in case of an original entry, and not for an additional tract; that Langford's filing being unauthorized did not protect the land it covered against the subsequent formal entry of Flanagan. This is a good rule in practice, and I think authorized by the law. I affirm your decision, and return the papers in this case transmitted with your letter of June 11 last. Very respectfully, C. DELANO, Secretary. To the Commissioner of the General Land-Office. No. 340. ERI P. SWEET. A soldier is entitled to 160 acres of land under the homestead law of June 8, 1872, provided his original entry of less than 160 acres was made prior to the passage of said act, as an adjoining farm or as a homtstead entry. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D. C., February 27, 1875. SIR-I have examined the appeal of Eri P. Sweet from your decision of December 10, 1874, refusing to allow him to make an entry of the S. E. of N. W. 4, and N. W. of S. E. 4, of sec. 13, Tp. 23, R. 12 W., La Crosse, Wisconsin, under the act of June 8, 1872. Sweet was a soldier in the war of the rebellion, and is personally qualified to make an additional homestead entry under the second section of said act, unless his former entry was such as to deprive him of that privilege. In 1866, being the owner of 80 acres in said section 13, he made an entry under the homestead law of 80 acres in the same section, as a contiguous homestead. In October, 1872, he applied to enter the lands in controversy, which were adjoining those included in his original homestead entry. You held that he was not entitled under the act of 1872 to make the entry. In this, I think, you erred The second section of that act provides "that any person entitled under the provisions of the foregoing section to enter a homestead, who may have heretofore entered under the homestead laws, a quantity of land less than one hundred and sixty acres, shall be permitted to enter, under the provisions of this act, so much land contiguous to the tract embraced in the first entry as, when added to the quantity previously entered, shall not exceed one hundred and sixty acres." Sweet was entitled under section 1; he had entered 80 acres only under the homestead laws. His original 80 he did not acquire under the homestead laws. He was, therefore, clearly entitled to enter another contiguous 80 acres. I reverse your decision, and herewith return the papers transmitted with your letter of the 19th inst. Very respectfully, C. DELANO, Secretary. To the Commissioner of the General Land-Office. [See foot note to No. 336.] III. INDIAN HOMESTEADS. No. 341. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D. C., February 11, 1870. SIR-I have considered your letter of the 4th ultimo in relation to the right of certain Indians of Wisconsin to enter public lands under the homestead law. After carefully considering the question involved, I conclude that, in the absence of more explicit legislation on the subject, an Indian, if otherwise qualified, is entitled to the benefits of the homestead law if he has voluntarily dissolved all connection with his tribe, so that by reason thereof he can no longer lawfully share in the annuities, exemptions, or privileges secured to it by acts of Congress or treaty stipulations. He is not, however, so entitled if he is in full relation with the tribe and enjoys such privileges, exemptions, or annuities. He certainly cannot be a citizen of the United States and at the same time a member of a tribe, or of, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, "a domestic dependent nation," with whom we have recognized treaty stipulations. He can only exercise the rights and assume the obligations of a citizen when his tribal relations have been permanently and wholly dissolved. You will prepare and submit for my consideration rules and regulations for the government of the local officers in the premises. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. D. COX, Secretary. The Commissioner of the General Land-Office. No. 342. CIRCULAR. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, April 1, 1870. GENTLEMEN:-The honorable Secretary of the Interior, under date of February 11, 1870, has rendered a decision which, on the one hand, recognizes the right to the benefits of the homestead laws of otherwise qualified Indians who have voluntarily dissolved all connection with their tribes (so that by reason thereof they can no longer share in the annuities, exemptions, or privileges secured to them by acts of Congress or treaty stipulations); while, on the other hand, this privilege is denied to those in full relations with their tribes, and enjoying all the benefits accruing therefrom. With the view, therefore, of giving this decision effect, you will, should an Indian apply to enter lands under the provisions of the homestead law, require him, in addition to the regular homestead affidavit, to swear and subscribe to the inclosed form "A" of affidavit, supporting the same by the form "B" of testimony, and report the cases with these additional papers in your monthly homestead returns in their regular order. Be pleased to acknowledge the receipt of this circular letter. Very respectfully, JOS. S. WILSON, Commissioner. REGISTER AND RECEIVER, U. S. Land Office at |