act of Congress approved July 25, 1866, "granting to A. Sutro the right of way and granting other privileges to aid in the construction of a draining and exploring tunnel to the Comstock lode, in the State of Nevada.

The instructions contained in said letter, of which you have been furnished a copy, are still in force.

In issuing patents for the Comstock lode, or those in the immediate vicinity thereof, the following clause is inserted, viz :

"That the claim hereby granted and conveyed shall be subject to the condition specified in the third section of the act of Congress approved July 25, 1866," granting the right of way and other privileges to aid in the construction of a draining and exploring tunnel to the Comstock lode, in the State of Nevada, "and the grantee herein shall contribute and pay to the owners of the tunnel, constructed pursuant to said act, for drainage or other benefits derived from said tunnel or its branches, the same rate of charges as have been or may hereafter be named in agreement between such owners and the companies representing a majority of the estimated value of said Comstock lode, at the time of the passage of said act, as provided in said third section."

1

By reference to the inclosed circular you will perceive that both the acts of July 9, 1870, and May 10, 1872, contain clauses guarding the rights of the owners of the Sutro tunnel.

The land which is embraced by the location of the tunnel has been withdrawn from sale, in accordance with said letter from this office of July 29, 1870.

Very respectfully, etc.,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Before Patent is Issued, Agricultural Entries may be Cancelled to Portions Embracing Valid Mining Claims.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., March 12, 1873. Hon. JOHN P. JONES, U. S. Senate:

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the eleventh instant, and in reply would state, that where valuable deposits of gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin or copper are discovered upon the public domain, the parties having the right of possession thereto may obtain a patent for the same upon a full compliance with the law and instructions from this office.

In case valuable deposits of mineral are discovered upon a legal subdivision of the public lands after the same has been entered as agricultural, but before patent has issued

therefor, the parties owning the possessory right to said mine may make application for patent for the same, and the agricultural entry would be cancelled to that portion of the tract embraced by said mining claim.

Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Affidavits taken without notice to Opposing Party cannot be Considered.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D.C., March 14, 1873. Register and Receiver, Sacramento, California:

GENTLEMEN: With the Receiver's letter of July 25, 1872, were received certain affidavits purporting to be evidence in behalf of the mineral contestant in case of Wm. Holland, pre-emption claimant, v. Antonio Gulielmi and Pelegrino Corfini, mineral affiants. As these affidavits appear to have been taken without notice to the opposing party, and with no opportunity for cross-examination, they cannot be considered in rendering a decision in the premises. However, in view of the developments claimed to have been made since the date of last hearing, the mineral contestants will, at their own expense, be allowed a hearing in accordance with circular instructions from this office. Within thirty days from the date of your notification, they will be required to inform you whether or not they desire a rehearing; if they do, sixty days thereafter will be allowed to hold the same. In the event of failure to notify you within thirty days, or to hold a rehearing within sixty days thereafter, the case will be decided on the evidence presented at the hearing held August 28, 1871, and following.

You will inform all persons in interest of the contents hereof, and in your reply, please refer to the letter as "N" by its date.

Very respectfully, etc.,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.

Only One Hundred Feet Square of Placer Ground can be Located if Local Laws allow no More.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., March 19, 1873. A. B. BEAUVAIS, Esq., Columbia, California:

SIR: Referring to your communication of the 25th ult., I would state that the mining act of July 9th, 1870, declares

that "no location of a placer claim hereafter made shall exceed one hundred and sixty acres," etc.

The act of May 10, 1872, provides that no such locations hereafter made shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant," etc.

The mining regulations of the different mining districts remain intact and in full force, with regard to the size of locations, where they do not permit locations in excess of the limits fixed by Congress. Where such regulations permit locations in excess of the minimum fixed by Congress as aforesaid, they are restricted accordingly.

In the case presented by you, where the local law provides that placer locations shall not exceed 100 feet square to an individual, no more than that amount can be located, unless the local mining laws are amended in such a way as to allow claims of greater size to be located.

Very respectfully, etc.,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.

Application Rejected because no Surface Ground was Included.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D.C., March 24, 1873. Register and Receiver, Carson City, Nevada:

GENTLEMEN: The papers in case of the application of the Gold Hill Tunnel Gold and Silver Mining Company for patent for the Gould and Condé lode, situate in Gold Hill mining district, Nevada, have been examined.

On the second of April, 1868, said company filed in your office an application for patent for four thousand feet of the Gould and Condé lode.

In the published notice, and in the notices and diagrams posted upon the claim and in the office of the Register, said premises are described as follows, viz:

*

Commencing at a stake set at the mouth of the company's tunnel. * * Thence following the line of the tunnel, (first course,) N. 5° W. 946 feet to a point 94 feet south of the company's shaft. Thence (second course) N. 17° 30′ E. 3,054 feet, following the supposed line of the lode at the tunnel level. * **No surface ground is claimed along the line of the lode," etc.

The second section of the act of July 26, 1866, provides for the issuing of patents for mining claims upon veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place, bearing gold, silver, cinnabar or copper, upon compliance with certain requirements by the claimants of such mine.

One of the requirements therein specified is, that the person, or association of persons, desiring a patent for a mine shall "file in the local land office a diagram of the same, so extended laterally or otherwise as to conform to the local laws, customs and rules of miners."

In the case under consideration this requirement of the law was not complied with, as said applicant did not file a diagram "so extended laterally or otherwise as to conform to the local laws, customs and rules of miners." On the contrary, the diagram shows and the application states that "no surface ground is claimed along the line of the lode."

When parties desire to secure patents for mining claims, they must show that the premises for which they desire to secure patents have been properly located, in accordance with the local laws and customs, and in the published notice, and in the diagrams and notices, such and only such premises should be described as have been properly located.

The application for patent, the published notice, and the notices and diagrams in the case under consideration are irregular, and not in accordance with the provisions of the mining act of 1866, and said application is accordingly rejected.

You will inform said company of this decision, and allow sixty days from the date of your notification on which an appeal may be taken to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior. Be pleased to acknowledge the receipt hereof.

Very respectfully, etc.,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

How to count Sixty Days for Publication of Notice.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 26, 1873. Register and Receiver, Salt Lake City, Utah:

GENTLEMEN: On the twenty-first August, 1872, the Eureka Mining Company of Utah filed in your office applications for patents for the Eureka and Montana lodes, situate in Tintic mining district, Juab County, Utah.

In each of these cases the applicants have filed proof of compliance with the mining law, and the instructions from this office.

The following adverse claims were filed against the application for patent for the Montana lode, viz:

First. Peter Roberts et al. filed an adverse claim on the fourth October, 1872, and withdrew the same on the twentythird November, 1872.

Second. E. M. Peck et al. caused to be handed to the

Register, at his house, on the twenty-second October at 11:30 P. M., an adverse claim to said application for patent, which was by the Register placed on file in his office, on the morning of October 23, 1872.

This adverse claim is accompanied by a plat and field notes of survey of the Excelsior lode, claimed by Peck et al. The attorney for said adverse claimants, however, alleges, under oath, that said plat and field notes do not properly locate or describe the premises owned by said adverse claimants.

The sixth section of the mining act of May 10, 1872, declares that "if no adverse claim shall have been filed with the Register and the Receiver of the proper land office, at the expiration of the sixty days of publication, it shall be assumed that the applicant is entitled to a patent upon the payment to the proper officer of five dollars per acre, and that no adverse claim exists; and thereafter no objection from third parties to the issuance of a patent shall be heard," etc.

In each the cases referred to, viz: the Eureka and Montana lodes, the notice of intention to apply for a patent was first published in the Weekly Tribune, bearing date Saturday, August 24, 1872, although, in fact, the paper was issued and put in circulation on Friday, August 23, 1872, and by the affidavits of the bookkeeper and agent of the Tribune Publishing Association, it appears that the Weekly Tribune "is printed, published, and issued from the office on Friday of each week."

This office is of the opinion that in computing the time for the sixty days publication_required by law, the date of the paper, as given thereon, should govern.

Under the rule adopted by my predecessor, and which has been followed in all cases of this class decided since the act of July 26, 1866, went into effect, the day of publication of notice has been included in the computation of time.

Although I have some doubt as to the correctness of this rule, I do not feel disposed to depart from it, unless it should be reversed by the Head of the Department, and therefore decide that the adverse claim asserted by said E. M. Peck et al., was not filed within the sixty days publication required by law, and the same is accordingly rejected. In case of the application for patent for the Eureka lode, the following adverse claims were filed, viz:

First. Peter Roberts et al. filed an adverse claim to said application for patent on the twenty-second October, 1872, and withdrew the same on the twenty-third November, 1872.

Second. O. D. Strong et al. caused to be handed to the Register at his house, on the twenty-second October, 1872,