It is evident from the former action in the case, and from the date of this communication, that it was intended by Ogg as an appeal from your decision, but owing to the want of information, or the carelessness of Hutchings & Denison, his attorneys, that appeal was not perfected, and the communication above cited, in reality amounts to nothing, inasmuch as it fails to state in an intelligent or definite manner what decision was appealed from, or to what authority the appeal was taken.

It would have been proper for your office, at the expiration of sixty days from the date of your decision, to have transmitted the case with the above communication, and your report thereon as to its validity as an appeal, to this department, where instructions would have been given to treat it as an appeal, in view of the intention of Ogg, or to dismiss the same and close the case. Or it would have been competent for you to have notified him that his application was defective, and that he would be allowed a reasonable time to perfect the same.

In my decision of July 14, 1877, in the case of Bell v. Aitken (Copp's Land Owner, vol. 4, p. 66), the rule established by my predecessor in the Boston mining case was approved, but it was upon the theory that under the mining law, there can be no adverse claimant entitled to the right of appeal before this department, hence cases of that ebaracter should be transmitted to this department for final supervisory action. But in cases where the rights of adverse claimants are to be determined by the department, different rules must be applied. In such cases, when in your opinion an appeal is defective, you will so notify the party and allow him a reasonable time to perfect the same. Upon his failure to comply with your notice, you will dismiss the appeal and close the case. Should an appeal be taken from your decision on that point, you will transmit all the papers in the case to this department for such final action in the premises as may be deemed proper. Cases submitted in this manner will be docketed and examined as regular appeal cases.

In the case before me, while the communication before. cited is not a perfected appeal, yet in view of the evident intention of Ogg to appeal, and his failure to so do is the

result of the action of his attorneys, I think the case should be considered by the appellate authority upon its merits.

The evidence shows that Ogg settled upon the tract, knowing that McDonald, who had paid a valuable consideration for the same, was claiming the land, and that it had been in his possession for a number of years, and that he had improvements thereon of more or less value. He deliberately attempted to appropriate to his own use and possession that which he knew to be the property of another, in equity at least. In view of this fact, he can not be considered, in any sense, a bona fide settler entitled to purchase land. I concur with you in the opinion that McDonald is entitled to purchase under the second section of the act of Angust 11, 1876.

Your decision is therefore affirmed, and the papers in the case are herewith returned.

Very respectfully,

C. SCHURZ, Secretary.

To the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

No. 35. Proceedings on imperfect appeal.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

WASHINGTON, July 9, 1877.

SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the third instant, transmitting the papers in the case of J. B. McKean v. D. E. Buell, Salt Lake City, Utah Territory.

This case was decided by you on the ninth of April last. On the seventh ultimo, J. B. McKean filed an appeal from your decision, in which he states explicitly the points of your decision from which he appeals, but he failed to state any ground of appeal, or to give any reason for such action. Herein he failed to comply with the Rules of Practice, adopted November 29, 1875; and on the twenty-eighth ultimo you notified the local officers that on account of such non-compliance, your decision had become final.

In the case of Ricketts v. The California and Oregon Railroad Company (Copp's Land Owner for July, 1877), the following instructions were given to your office: “I would suggest that in the examination of appeals, careful scrutiny be given to the same, and if in your opinion it is not properly taken, or, in other words, the document filed

does not constitute an appeal, you will so inform the party, and if it is not perfected, you are authorized, under the instructions of my predecessor, dated March 24, 1876, in the Boston Mining case, to at once transmit the papers to this office for immediate consideration."

It does not appear that McKean has been called upon to perfect his appeal. You will allow him a reasonable time, not to exceed thirty days, in which to take such action.

If the appeal is not perfected, you will dismiss the same and close the case.

The papers transmitted are herewith returned.

Very respectfully,

C. SCHURZ, Secretary.

To the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

No. 36. Official letters sent to, and the record of letters sent by the Register and Receiver, are the property of the United States, and should be retained in the office of such Register and Receiver.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 14, 1873.

Register and Receiver, Austin, Nevada.

GENTLEMEN: In the Register's letter of the thirtieth ultimo, he states that, "I do not know the status of this application, as the ex-Register refuses to let me see his letter-book."

All official letters sent to, as well as the official record of letters sent by the Register and Receiver, are the property of the United States, and as such should be retained in the office of such Register and Receiver.

If, therefore, the former Register has taken from the office any letters, documents, or records, which are of the character of official communications or records, you will immediately demand their return to your office.

You are requested to give this matter your immediate attention, and report to this office what action you take. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

No. 37. A case in which the applicant was allowed to furnish the affidavits of two credible persons, having knowledge of the facts, as to posting of notice and diagram, in lieu of the testimony of the persons who posted same. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, D. C., November 4, 1873.

Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado.

GENTLEMEN: The applicant for patent for the Fingel lode, Griffith mining district, Colorado, informs this office that he is unable to furnish the affidavits of the parties who posted the notice and diagram upon said lode, one being dead, and the other having left the district.

Mr. Brown informs this office that he can furnish the affidavits of responsible and credible persons who are cognizant of the facts, that such notice and diagram were duly posted upon the claim, and that the same remained posted. of time required by law.

In view of the circumstances of this case, you will receive the affidavits of at least two credible persons, in proof of such posting, who are cognizant of the facts. This is not to be treated as a precedent in other cases.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

No. 38. Proceedings to obtain patent in case of loss of duplicate receipt. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, April 18, 1870. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado.

GENTLEMEN: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the seventh instant, in which you state that you have received a letter from G. F. Sadd, Esq., secretary of the Cascade Silver Mining Company, to the effect that duplicate receipt for mineral entry No. 11, Cascade lode, has been lost, and after careful and diligent search can not be found, and desiring to be informed how he can obtain the patent.

In reply, I may state that the patent may be transmitted to Mr. Sadd, upon a compliance with the following conditions, viz.:

1. That he furnish you with satisfactory proof, under

the corporate seal of the company, that he is the duly elected secretary thereof, and authorized to receive the patent for their claim; and

2. His affidavit setting forth that he was in possession of said duplicate receipt, No. 11, for the Cascade lode; that the same has been lost, and that, up to the present time, after careful and diligent search, he is unable to find it.

This affidavit must be taken before an officer duly qualified to administer oaths, and attested by his seal; and upon filing the same, with the evidence before recited, the patent may be sent to him, requesting an acknowledgment of its receipt. Very respectfully,

Jos. S. WILSON, Commissioner.

No. 39. Proceedings to correct patent.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, April 11, 1871.

J. R. HARDENBERGH, Esq., Surveyor-general, San Francisco, California.

SIR: Referring to your letter of the twentieth ultimo, returning the patent issued to the Empire Mining Company for their claim on the Ophir Hill ledge or lode, dated March 14, 1870, which, through an error in the plat and field notes, had been described as located in T. 15 N., R. 8 E., Mt. Do. Mer., but which is now shown to be located in T. 16 N., R. 8 E., I have to state that a new patent has been prepared, and will be issued to said Empire Mining Company, for their said claim, as in township sixteen (16), north of range eight (8) east, Mt. Do. Mer., upon the claimants thereof making a relinquishment in writing on the back of the patent already issued, of all right, claim, title, or interest to the premises described therein; said relinquishment to be attested under seal, by the clerk of any court within the land district in which the claim is situated.

The patent referred to is herewith returned for that purpose, and you will inform the Empire Mining Company of the contents of this letter, and return said patent to this office, when the proper indorsement has been made thereon. Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.