time of the offering of proof by Roberts upon which his cash entry was allowed. It might be noted that by the act of July 18, 1874 (18 Stat., 80), provision was made for the issuance of patents to the lands granted said company, upon payment of the necessary expenses thereof by it (the said company). No patent appears to have issued for this land but as there was no provision for the issuance of patent on account of this grant, at the time of the certification of the land in question, it must be held that by said certification, which appears to have been a proper one, the land being within the limits and free from adverse claim at the time of approval, said land passed beyond the jurisdiction of this Department, and while the company might receive a patent upon payment of the necessary expenses for the issuance thereof, yet its failure can in no wise affect its right to the land in question, under its grant and certifi cation, as before stated. The land having been legally appropriated prior to the allowance of the entry by Roberts, the same was improperly allowed. The failure of the company to respond to Roberts' notice of intention to offer proof can in no wise affect its right to the land in question. In answer to the objection that the company never specified a basis for the selection of this land, it is sufficient to state that prior to the issue of the circular of November 7, 1879, a specification of losses as a basis for indemnity selections made on account of railroad or wagonroad grants was not required by this Department. From the papers forwarded in the case, it appears that on June 19, 1893, Messrs. Britton and Gray, attorneys for the California and Oregon Land Company, transferees of the Oregon Central Military Wagon Road Company, reported that they were authorized to say that the company is willing to relinquish the land in question in favor of Roberts, provided it be held entitled to select other lands in lieu of said tract under the act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 194). Under date of June 24, 1893, your office advised the company that the act of June 22, 1874, supra, did not apply to wagon road grants but related only to grants to aid in the construction of railroads, and for that reason held that it could not be entitled to select other lands in the event of the reconveyance of the tract in question under said act, but that you would forward the letter in which the proposition was made for the consideration of this Department, in connection with Roberts' appeal. While it is true that the act of June 22, 1874, supra, specifically refers to railroad land grants, yet its scope and purpose would seem to have equal application to grants made to aid in the construction of wagon roads. Said act offers inducement to the amicable adjustment of controversies arising from the erroneous acts of the local officers in permitting parties to make entry of land for which a previous grant had been made, the rights under which had attached prior to the allowance of such entries. The grants to aid in the construction of railroads and wagon roads are, in all material matters, the same, and being a remedial statute, it would seem to have equal application to grants for both railroads and wagon roads. The fact that the words "railroad land grants" were specifically named in the act, should not be held to control, the act being a remedial act and the purpose of the legislators being apparent, viz., the protection of the settler who was at the mercy of the grantee company. I must, therefore, hold that upon a proper reconveyance of the tract here involved to the United States, accompanied by an abstract showing that title to be clear and unincumbered, Roberts' entry may be passed to patent and that the company shall be deemed entitled to select other lands within the limits of the grant, of the character contemplated thereby and upon the conditions therein named. You will call upon the company, advising them of this action and allowing them ninety days within which to make reconveyance as stated. Should they fail to make reconveyance, however, Roberts' entry must be canceled. Your office decision is accordingly modified. 1801-VOL 19-38 INDEX. Page. The rule that holds an entry invalid it To make entry of land embraced within To enter embracing non-contiguous tracts To enter properly rejected, and pending The tender and rejection of, can not oper. It is no objection to, that it is tendered 570 467 547 442 547 547 A departmental decision allowing an ap Page. Page HOMESTEAD. Though an applicant for, may not be en- A petition for, will not be granted in the An application for, will be granted where 547 257 32 331 472 Circulars. See Tables of, page XVIII. Citizenship. See Naturalization. Evidence of voting will raise a presump- The children of a citizen of the United A citizen of the United States who, in 270 282 282 A claim of membership in an Indian tribe An entry allowed on defective declaratory ........ Confirmation. SECTION 7, ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891. The inadvertent issuance of final certifi 168 522 279 Said section does not confirm an entry A transferee is not entitled to the benefit An entry falling within the confirmatory 441 |