should solicit the proper judge to give him judicial possession, was not forfeited, under the Mexican law, by a failure to comply with the condition, but only left the land open to denouncement by other parties. Ibid. Some formal and regular proceedings were required to effect a divestiture of the grantee's interest, and these had their inception in a denouncement by a party desirous of obtaining the land; an inquisition then followed, as to whether or not the condition had been complied with, or so disregarded as to justify a decree of forfeiture. Ibid. An instrument reciting the purchase of a tract of land from the original grantee, and granting and transferring all the party's right therein to another, "who shall make such use thereof as may be most convenient to him," operated, under the law of Mexico, as a conveyance of the title. Steinbach v. Stewart, 11 Wall., 566. A Mexican grant of land made after the conquest of California, is utterly void. Alexander v. Roulet, 13 Wall., 386. The departmental assemblies had no power to alien the public domain, except for purposes of settlement or cultivation; the right to dispose of it for other purposes rested with the supreme government alone. United States v. Vigil, 13 Wall., 449. A Mexican grant which does not identify the precise tract granted, either by description or by reference, is an imperfect title, which needs the further action of the government of the United States to confirm it. Carpentier v. Montgomery, 13 Wall., 480. An alcalde of the pueblo of San Francisco, in 1846, had no authority to revoke a grant once made by him and delivered; a mutilation of the record could not divest the title of the grantee. Montgomery v. Bevans, 1 Saw., 653. A grant to a person deceased was void. Ibid. In the following cases, Mexican titles were held to be valid on the evidence: U. S. v. Sutter, 21 H., 170. Gonzales v. U. S., 22 H., 161. U. S. v. Pacheco, Ibid., 225. U. S. v. De Haro, Ibid., 293. U. S. v. Alviso, 23 H., 318. U. S. v. Castellero, Ibid., 464. U. S. v. Berreyesa, Ibid., 499. U. S. v. Vallejo, 1 Bl., 283. U. S. v. Moreno, 1 Wall, 400. U. S. v. Yorba, Ibid., 412. Rodriguez v. U. S., Ibid., 582. U. S. v. Yount, Hoff. L. Cas., 49. U. S. v. Bernal, Ibid., 50. Mesa v. U. S., Ibid., 66. Feliz v. U. S., Ibid., 69. U. S. v. Greer, Ibid., 72. Castro v. U. S, Ibid., 72. U. S. v. Sunal, Ibid., 74. U. S. v. Reid, Ibid., 74. U. S. v. Larkin, Ibid., 75. U. S v. Amador, Ibid., 76. U. S. v. Murphy, U.S. Ibid., 77. U. S. v. Horrell, Ibid., 78. U. S. v. Pacheco, Ibid., 79. ̄ Ü. S. v. Thompson, Ibid., 79. U. S. v. Page, Ibid., 80. U. S. v. Murphy, Ibid., 81. U. S. v. Thomes, Ibid., 82. U. S. v. Rodriguez, Ibid., 82. U. S. v. Thomes, Ibid., 83. U. S. v. Wilson, Ibid., 84. Brackett v. U. S., Ibid., 85. U. S. v. Cambuston, Ibid., 86. Dana v. U. S., Ibid., 87. U. S. v. Peralta, Ibid., 89. U. S. v. Cazares, Ibid., 90. U. S. v. Bale, Ibid., 92. U. S. v. Guerrero, Ibid., 94. U. S. v. Carrillo, Ibid., 96. U. S. v. Palomares, Ibid., 97. De Zaldo v. U. S., Ibid., 98. U. S. v. Berreyesa, Ibid., 99. U. S. v. Bernal, Ibid., 99. U. S. v. Cooper, Ibid., 101. U. S. v. Moraga, Ibid., 103. U. S. v. Castro, Ibid., 105. Grimes v. U. S., Ibid., 107. U. S. v. Boggs, Ibid., 109. U. S. v. Sunol, Ibid., 110. U. S. v. Briones, Ibid., 111. U. S. v. Leese, Ibid., 124. Ú. S. v. Castro. Ibid., 125. U. S. v. Reid, Ibid., 129. U. S. v, Ortega, Ibid., 135. U. S. v. Grimes, Ibid., 137. U. S. v. Payson, Ibid., 138. U. S. v. Bernal, Ibid., 139. U. S. v. Pope, Ibid., 141. Martin v. U. S., Ibid., U. 146. U. S. v. Stevenson, Ibid., 156. U. S. v. Rico, Ibid., 161. U. S. v. Rodriguez, Ibid., 170. U. S. v. Sheldon, Ibid., 171. U. S. v. Pico. Ibid., 172. McKee v. U. S., Ibid., 173. Vallejo v. U. S., Ibid., 174. Rodriguez v. U. S., Ibid., 175. U. S v. Alvisa, Ibid., 176. Soto, Ibid., 177. U. S. v. Soto, Ibid., 182. U. S. v. The following were held to be invalid claims to Mexican grants: U. S. v. Sutter, 21 H., 171. U. S. v. Nye, Ibid., 408. U. S. v. Bassett, Ibid., 412. s. c., Hoff. L. Cas., 112. U. S. v. Galbraith, 22 H., 89. U. S. v. Feschmaker, Ibid., 392. s. c., Hoff. L. Cas., 28. U. S. v. Pico, 22 H., 406. s. c., Hoff. L. Cas., 188. U. S. v. Vallejo, 22 H., 416. s. c., Hoff. L. Cas., 174. Fuentes v. U. S., 22 H., 443. U. S. v. Bennitz, 23 H., 255. s. c., Hoff. L. Cas., 104. U.S. v. Rose, 23 H., 262. s. c., Hoff. L. Cas., 279. U. s. c., Hoff. L. Cas., 197. U. S. v. Osio, 23 H., 273. Palmer v. U. S., 24 H., 125. s. c., Hoff. L. Cas., 216. U. S. v. Chana, 24 H., 131. s. c., Hoff. L. Cas., 155. U. S. v. Castro, 24 H., 346. U. S. v. Hensley, 1 Bl., 35. U. S. v. Knight, Ibid., 227. U. S. v. Neleigh, Ibid., 298. U. S. v. Vallejo, Ibid., 541. U. S. v. Castillero, 2 Bl., 17. U. S. v. Galbraith, Ibid, 394. U. S v. Chaboya, Ibid., 593. White v. U. S., 1 Wall, 660. U. S. v. Workman, Ibid., 754. U. S. v. Jones, Ibid., 766. Swat v. U. S., Hoff. L. Cas., 231. Palmer v. U. S., Ibid., 249. Redman v. U. S., Ibid., 305. Larkin v. U. S., Ibid., 313. Little v. U. S., Ibid., 325. U. S. v. Limantour, Ibid., 389. TITLE VII.-TIMBER CULTURE AND DEPREDATIONS. No. 512. INSTRUCTIONS Under the act of March 3, 1873. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND-OFFICE, Washington, D. C., April 21, 1873. REGISTERS AND RECEIVERS OF UNITED STATES LAND Offices. GENTLEMEN:-Your attention is called to the annexed act of Congress, entitled "An act to encourage the growth of timber on western prairies," approved March 3, 1873. (Part II., No. 92.) * * * (The instructions of this date were superseded by the instructions of Oct 30, 1873, No. 513, with which they were identical, except as follows:) In the States and Territories in which fifty per centum additional is allowed by the sixth section of the act of March 21, 1864, the additional allowance will apply to the fee and commissions herein named. The fees and commissions upon entries under the first section of the timber-culture act of March 3, 1873, payable at date of entry, will be: On 160 acres, at $1.25, fee $10; commissions $8. ($4.00 see No. 513.) On 160 acres, at $2.50, fee $10; commissions $16. ($8.00 see No. 513.) In the following States and Territories, viz: California, Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana, the fees and commissions will be: On 160 acres, at $1.25, fee $10; commissions $12. No. 513. INSTRUCTIONS Under the act of March 3, 1873. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LANd Office, Washington, D. C., October 30, 1873. REGISTERS AND RECEIVERS OF UNITED STATES LAND-OFFICES. GENTLEMEN:-Your attention is called to the annexed act of Congress, entitled "An act to encourage the growth of timber on western prairies," approved March 3, 1873. (Part II., No. 92.) This act provides: First. That any person who shall plant, and for a continuous period of ten years shall protect and keep in a healthy growing condition, forty acres of timber (the trees thereon being not more than twelve feet apart each way) on any quarter-section of any of the public lands of the United States that are prairie lands, or naturally devoid of timber, shall be entitled to a patent for the whole of said quarter-section at the expi ration of the said ten years, on making proof of such facts by not less than two credible witnesses: Provided, That only one quarter of any one section shall be thus granted. Second. That a party applying to enter lands under the first section of this act shall make affidavit before the Register or Receiver of the proper land-office that the said entry is made for the cultivation of timber, and on filing such affidavit with the said Register and Receiver, and on payment of ten dollars fee and the prescribed commissions, the said party shall thereupon be permitted to enter the quantity of land hereinbefore specified: Provided, That no certificate shall be given, or patent issue therefor, until the expiration of at least ten years from the date of such entry; and if at the expiration of such time, or at any time within three years thereafter, the party making such entry, or, if he be dead, his heirs or legal representatives, shall make proof by two credible witnesses of the fact of such cultivation for the period aforesaid, he or they shall receive a patent for the said land. Third. That if at any time after the filing of said affidavit, and prior to the issuing of patent for the said land, it shall be proven, after the manner of contests in homestead cases, that any person who may have made an entry of land under the first section of this act has abandoned, or failed to cultivate, protect, and keep in good condition such timber, then, and in that event, the said land shall revert to the United States. Fourth. That any person who may have made a homestead entry of a tract of land of the character contemplated by this act, and who at the end of the third year of his or her residence thereon shall have had under cultivation for two years one acre of timber, planted, cultivated, etc, in the manner designated by the first section of the said act, for each and every sixteen acres of the said homestead, such person shall, upon due proof of said fact by two credible witnesses, receive his or her patent for the said homestead. Fifth. That no lands acquired under the provisions of this act shall, in any event, become liable to the satisfaction of any debt or debts contracted prior to the issuing of patent therefor. The sixth section authorizes the Commissioner of the General LandOffice to prepare and issue such rules and regulations, consistent with this act, as shall be necessary and proper to carry its provisions into effect. The seventh section applies the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1857, entitled "An act in addition to an act to punish crimes against the United States, and for other purposes," to all oaths, affirmations, and affidavits required or authorized by this act. When applications shall be made in the accompanying form A, to enter a tract of land under the provisions of the first section of this act, I have to direct:- First. That, pursuant to the terms of the law, you will require such entry to be confined to the N. E. 1, the N. W. 1, the S. E. 4, or the S. W., of a given section, or, in other words, to a technical qunrtersection of public land. You will then assure yourselves, by reference to the plat and tract books of your office, that no previous entry has been made under this act of any other quarter of the section described in the party's application. You will next require the affidavit, form B, and on payment of the proper fee and commissions the Receiver will issue his receipt therefor. The entry will thereupon be noted on your records, and reported with your monthly returns in distinct abstracts, under the head of "Timberculture entries under the provisions of the first section of the act of March 3, 1873," commencing the series with No. 1. Parties making entries under the provisions of this section of the act will be required to complete the planting of the prescribed area with trees within one year from the date of entry. [The balance of this circular is the same as paragraphs numbered 6th, 7th and 8th, on page 652, of No. 515, with the following table.] The fees and commissions upon entries under the first section of the timber-culture act of March 3, 1873, payable at date of entry, will be: On 160 acres, at $1.25, fee $10; commissions $4. On 160 acres, at $2,50, fee $10; commissions $8. In cases of homestead proof, under the fourth section of this act, the following ratio of timber must be shown to have been planted and cultivated, viz: In case of a homestead entry of 160 acres, 10 acres of timber required. In case of a homestead entry of 80 acres, 5 acres of timber required. Iu case of a homestead entry of 40 acres, 2 acres of timber required. (For Forms, see No. 265, page 200.) Refusing to modify previous instructions. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND-OFFICE, Washington, D. C., June 30, 1873. REGISTERS AND RECEIVERS, U. S. LAND-OFFICES. GENTLEMEN:-I have received numerous letters requesting a modification of the instructions issued by this office April 21, 1873, under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1873, entitled "An act to encourage the growth of timber on western prairies." It is claimed that parties making entries under the 1st section of the act are entitled, by its terms, to three years to complete the planting of the prescribed area with trees, and that they should not be limited to one year in the regulations. While it is true that the act does not specifically mention any particular time within which the planting shall be done by parties making entries under the 1st section, the 4th section clearly limits the time for planting, by a homestead claimant, to one year from the date of entry, as it requires him to show at the end of the third year that he has had the trees which he is required to plant under cultivation for two years. This he cannot do, unless the trees are planted within one year from the date of entry. Congress thus fixed a time for homestead claimants under the 4th section, and as no time was fixed in the case of parties making entries under the 1st section, I adopted, in entries of that class, the time which Congress considered reasonable and proper to allow homestead claimants, and limited them to one year. A different construction might have been reached by separating the 1st and 2d sections of the act from the other portions thereof; but considering the whole act, I did not feel authorized to give to parties making entries under the 1st section more time than Congress granted to homestead settlers by the 4th section. Admitting that the act is ambiguous, and that there is room for a difference of opinion on the point under consideration, I cannot conclude that Congress intended to make a discrimination against settlers under the homestead law, who, |