PRACTICE. No. 33. No. 34. Appeal brings before appellate authority the entire record. No. 35. Defective appeal. No. 36. Official letters the property of the United States. No. 37. No. 38. No. 39. Applicant for patent allowed, under certain circumstances, to fur- SCRIP LOCATIONS, ETC. No. 40. Proceedings for correction in description of patent by the issue of No. 1. Claimant of mill site must furnish satisfactory proof that land claimed does not contain any valuable mineral deposit. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., July 29, 1872. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado. GENTLEMEN: * * * The affidavits referred to do not allege the non-mineral character of said mill site, but only allege that the same "does not to his knowledge contain any vein or lode of quartz, or other rock in place, bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, or copper.' Before patent can issue for this mill site, additional proof will be required that there are no "valuable deposits," such as placer or gulch mines, embraced within the exterior boundaries thereof. * * * * Very respectfully, your obedient servant, * No. 2. MILL SITES. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., October 21, 1875. E. T. GEORGE, Esq., Recorder Lewis District, Lander County, Nevada. SIR: Referring to your letter of the eleventh ultimo, I have to state that mill sites may be located under the provisions of the mining act, and if located should be recorded. Locators of mining claims, their heirs and assigns, have the exclusive right of possession of the surface ground included within the lines of their locations, upon compliance with the laws of the United States, and with the State, Territorial, and local regulations governing their possessory titles, where no adverse claim thereto existed on the tenth of May, 1872. The parties having the right of possession to the surface have also the right of possession to the timber growing thereon. Very respectfully, S. S. BURDETT, Commissioner. No. 3. A mill site which abuts against the end of a lode claim can not be patented, although a mill site contiguous to the side lines (surface contiguity) may be. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., September 24, 1879. Register and Receiver, Central City, California. GENTLEMEN: In the matter of mineral entry No. 1071, in the series of your office, for the claim of James M. Freeman et al., upon the Mollie Mullen lode and mill site, being surveys Nos. 305 A and B, the plat shows that the mill site (survey No. 305 B) abuts against the end of the lode, and evidently contains within its limits the continuation thereof. Section 2337 United States Revised Statutes provides that "where non-mineral land not contiguous to the vein. or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes, such non-adjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith." Side lines. It has been uniformly construed by this office that land contiguous only to the surface ground of a lode claim was not within the prohibition named, and this would ordinarily occur when the mill site is located contiguous to the side lines of the surface ground. End lines. In this case, as has been stated, the mill site abuts against the end of the lode, and is not therefore subject to purchase and entry under said section, as now surveyed. In view of the foregoing, the application for a patent to the mill site (survey No. 305 B) is hereby rejected, and the entry thereof held for cancellation. Duly notify parties, etc. J. M. ARMSTRONG, Acting Commissioner. No. 4. Mill site approved after the exclusion of a lode claim. GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., January 14, 1876. Register and Receiver, Stockton, Cal. GENTLEMEN: On the sixteenth of January, 1873, William Patterson filed in your office an application for patent for the Patterson quartz mine and mill site. Proof of the non-mineral character of the mill site was not filed with the application for patent, as is required in all cases of applications for patents for mill sites, under the mining act of May 10, 1872. With your letter of the sixteenth of December, 1873, you transmitted the sworn statements of Owen Lennon and W. Fowler, in which it was alleged that said mill site embraced a portion of the Lennon lode. On the twenty-seventh of May, 1874, you were instructed to cause a hearing to be held to determine the true character of the tract claimed as a mill site, and whether the same is of more value for a mill site or for actual mining. A hearing was held in July, 1874, after due notice to all parties in interest. From the evidence submitted it appears that said mill site was located in 1858, and that the same has been improved to the amount of about forty thousand dollars. No part of such improvements is found upon that portion of said mill site, claimed as the Lennon quartz mine, except a road which has been constructed across the same for the purpose of transporting ore from the north-westerly part of the Patterson mine, to the mill owned by Patterson. The testimony in regard to the value of the Lennon mine is conflicting, but it is clearly shown that it is a goldbearing vein, and that about two thousand dollars have been expended thereon in sinking shafts, running tunnels, and other work. The claimants of the Lennon lode have submitted evidence to show that said Lennon lode was located and that it has been held in accordance with the local laws and customs. It is also shown that Patterson knew that O. Lennon claimed said Lennon lode at the time of the survey of said mill site. From a careful examination of the testimony and papers submitted I am of the opinion that Mr. Patterson should receive patent for that portion of the premises claimed by him as a mill site, which is not embraced by the official survey, made of the Lennon mine, approved by the Surveyor-general, March 19, 1874, and designated Lot No. 44, T. 2 N., R. 14 E., Mt. Do. Mer. I am of the opinion that the claimants of the Lennon. mine, as described in said lot number 44, should be permitted to obtain patent therefor, upon full compliance with the law and instructions. You will inform all parties in interest and acknowledge the receipt hereof, allowing sixty days from the date of notification within which an appeal may be taken to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, if desired. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. S. BURDETT, Commissioner. No. 5. Where a party applies for a mill site and lode in the same application, the law does not require that $500 shall have been expended on the mill site, but upon the lode claim only. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 10, 1874. W. H. Lessig, Esq., Surveyor-general, Cal. SIR: In reply to your letter of the fourteenth ultimo, I have to state that the fifteenth section of the Mining Act of May 10, 1872, provides: "That where non-mineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes, such non-adjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith, subject to the same preliminary requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable under this act to veins or lodes." Mill site entered without expenditure of five hundred dollars thereon. If, therefore, a party who has improved, held, and worked his mine in accordance with the local law and congressional enactments, and who has expended in actual labor and improvements thereon an amount of not less than five hundred dollars, desires to include in his application for patent therefor "non-mineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode "which" is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes," it will only be necessary for such applicant to furnish evidence that five hundred dollars have been expended upon the lode claim. In other words, where a party applies for a lode claim. and mill site in the same application, the act does not require that five hundred dollars shall have been expended upon the mill site, but upon the lode claim only. Five hundred dollars to be expended on claim. The Mining Act of May 10, 1872, provides for patenting: 1. Lode claims; 2. Placer claims; 3. Mill sites, and 4. Lode claims and mill sites; and the plat and field notes of survey of either of these classes of claims should show that an amount of not less than five hundred dollars has been expended upon the claim in actual labor and improvements. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner, No. 6. The right of ingress and egress to and from a claim, across the location of a mining claim, is reserved by a clause inserted in a patent to the mine. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Hon. T. A. Hendricks, Indianapolis, Ind. SIR: I am in receipt of your communication of tenth of |