suspended nearly four years, at the instance of said adverse claimants, which is certainly as much time as can reasonably be expected. No suit is now pending which was commenced within the time allowed by said decision of April 5, 1872. Case will not be suspended upon second suit brought after thirty days. The only suit now pending was commenced more than eighteen months after the said decision was rendered, and the case will be taken up for final action in its regular order as though no adverse claim had been filed. You will inform all parties in interest, and acknowledge the receipt hereof. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. S. BURDETT, Commissioner. No. 8. Adverse claim to lode under Act of July 26, 1866. GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., July 8, 1872. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado. GENTLEMEN: On the sixteenth of February, 1872, this office directed you to inform Harley B. Morse that thirty days from the date of your notification would be allowed him to bring suit in the proper local court, to adjudicate the right of possession to the Pelican lode, situate in Griffith mining district, Clear Creek county, Colorado. On the twenty-third of February, 1872, the Register and Receiver at Central City, Colorado, informed Mr. Morse of the ruling of this office in said case, and on the twenty-third of March, 1872, said Morse filed his bill of complaint against said applicants for patent, and summons issued the same day upon said complaint, which summons was served upon said applicants for patent upon the first day of April, 1872. On the third of April, 1872, said defendants filed their answer to said complainant's bill of complaint. On the nineteenth day of April, 1872, said suit was dismissed on complainant's motion, and it appears by a certificate of the clerk of the Clear Creek County District Court, under seal, that on the nineteenth day of April, 1872, there was no suit, or suits, pending in said court, bringing into controversy the title to the Pelican lode, except a suit brought by Charles H. Morris against Eli S. Streeter and Thomas McCunniff. Morris' adverse claim to said application for patent, not having been filed within the ninety days notice by publication, can not be considered, as will be seen by reference to the decision of the Honorable Secretary of the Interior, dated July 5, 1872, in case of the Pelican and Zillah lodes, copies of which decision have this day been sent to your address. On the twentieth of April, 1872, H. B. Morse filed a bill of complaint against Eli S. Streeter, John McCunniff, Thomas McCunniff, James R. Hugunin, Robert L. Martin, Silas C. Bennett, Zadock Kalbaugh, Americus Medley, John Dee, John Murley, James O'Neil, Charles Dougherty, Jasper N. Roberts, James Lees, Howard C. Chapin, Joseph H. Rogers, John Shillto, and William H. Cushman, bringing into controversy the title to the said Pelican. From the foregoing it will be seen that Morse commenced his suit on the last day of the thirty days allowed him to commence suit by our decision of February 16, 1872, and that on the nineteenth of April, 1872, he dismissed said suit. Second suit commenced after thirty days. The fact that Morse commenced another suit against the applicants for patent and other parties, long after the thirty days allowed in our said decision had expired, will not be considered by this office. You will, therefore, on the receipt hereof, allow the entry of said Pelican lode to be made, and transmit all the papers in the case to this office. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. Decision of the Secretary of the Interior, affirming the foregoing. WASHINGTON, D. C., November 16, 1872. SIR: I have considered the appeal taken by H. B. Morse from your adverse decision in the case of Harley B. Morse, Eli S. Streeter, and Thomas McCunniff, applicants for patent for the Pelican lode, Central City District, Colorado Territory. By your decision of February 16, 1872, Morse was ordered to begin suit in the local court, within thirty days after service of notice to adjudicate the right of possession of the mine. The notice was served on him February 23, 1872. He began his suit on the last day of the thirty. The case coming up for trial on April 19, 1872, he moved that it be continued to the next term of the court. This motion the court denied, "because of there being no equity in said complainant's bill of complaint, and the evidence set forth in complainant's affidavit (supporting his motion for continuance) would not be admissible upon the hearing of the cause." Thereupon, on motion of Morse, the cause was then dismissed, without prejudice to the parties. On April 20, the day succeeding the dismissal, he began a new suit against the same parties and sundry others, whom he joined with them as defendants. The appellant severely censures the judge for overruling the motion for a continuance, and thereby forcing him to suffer his bill to be dismissed. It is not the province of this department to review the discretionary action of the judge. It will assume that he acted properly, until it is shown that he acted maliciously or corruptly. I agree with you, that this second suit, begun long after the expiration of the thirty days, can not be considered by your office, nor allowed to retard the progress to patent of the claim of the applicants. The adoption of such a rule would put it in the power of every adverse claiment to postpone indefinitely the issue of the patent. Your decision is affirmed, and the papers in the case transmitted with your letter of September 23, as herewith returned. Very respectfully, C. DELANO, Secretary. To the Commissioner of the General Land Office. No. 9. Adverse claim under act of 1866. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 4, 1872. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado Territory. GENTLEMEN: The papers in the matter of Jacob Tascher's application for a patent for five hundred feet in length on the Alger lode, with surface ground fifty feet in width, have been carefully examined. It is shown that said application was filed in your office, on the seventeenth July, 1871, and notice thereof given, by publication and posting in the usual manner. Before a survey of the claim was made or approved by the Surveyor-general, and on the sixteenth day of October, 1871, Joseph M. Marshall filed his sworn statement, to the effect that said application of Tascher embraces and is identical with claim No. 13 East, on the Kansas lode, owned by the Empire State, Texas and Lincoln Gold Mining Company, of Colorado, in whose behalf he files this sworn statement, "solely that justice may be done in the premises, and the said company protected in their title to said property." This affiant is not shown to have any interest whatever in the premises, or any authority for appearing in behalf of. said company, even if any such exists, a fact not established, however, by the papers. It is not understood by what possible construction of the mining act, or the instructions thereunder, you received or filed this paper. The sixth section of the mining act provides that, "whenever any adverse claimants to any mine, located and claimed as aforesaid, shall appear," etc. Can not be filed by party having no interest. Mr. Marshall having no interest whatever in the mine, "located and claimed as aforesaid," and no authority to represent parties having such interest, his affidavit entirely fails as an adverse claim upon which to suspend proceedings under the act, even if he had furnished the abstract of title or proof of possessory right of said company to the Kansas lode, as required by circular instructions. * * On the twenty-fifth October, 1871, Theodore H. Becker, on behalf of himself and Anselm H. Barker, filed his affidavit and protest against said application for patent, on the ground of identity with the Dickerson lode, claimed by them, the said Becker and Barker, and for reason also, that the premises, as described in the notice and diagram, “are not the property of the said Jacob Tascher, and the said applicant is not entitled to hold the same, under and by virtue of the local laws," etc. Must file abstract of title. These adverse claimants have failed to produce any abstract of title, and offer no evidence whatever in support of Mr. Becker's allegation of their joint ownership of the Dickerson lode. The assertion that the applicant for patent is not entitled to hold the lode under the local laws, without specifying the grounds of such allegation, is a mode of testifying, which, if accepted, would enable deponent not only to determine the facts, but also the legal deductions therefrom, thus substituting his judgment for that of the department. We can not accept as evidence the conclusions of law, stated in general terms; the specific facts set out in detail, which such conclusions are based, being required. These opposing parties, Messrs. Becker and Barker, it is held, have entirely failed to make out an adverse claim, and their filing is accordingly rejected. upon Very respectfully, * * * WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. No. 10. ACT OF 1866. Adverse claim, for surface ground, does not lie by subsequent location against the application for patent under the first location where separate and distinct lodes are claimed. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 1, 1872. Register and Receiver, Austin, Nevada. GENTLEMEN: On the thirteenth June, 1871, Ed. Powers, M. M. Egan, J. W. Kenneda, Ed. Curran, Thomas Kelly, and John H. Daly filed in your office an application for patent for one thousand linear feet of the Sierra Nevada lode south, situate in White Pine district, White Pine county, Nevada. On the sixteenth of the same month they published their notice of intention to apply for a patent. From an abstract of title on file in the case, from the office of the county recorder, it appears that said lode was located on the twentyfifth April, 1868, and record thereof made on the same day, |