In all cases of application for patents under this act, satisfactory proof must be presented that the premises described do not contain any known veins of quartz, or other rock in place containing gold, silver, cinnabar or copper. Very respectfully, * * WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. Certificate of Incorporation should be filed with the Application of an Incorporated Company. The Several Papers to be made out in the Names of the Different Members of an Unincorporated Association. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Sept. 11, 1873. Register and Receiver, Carson City, Nevada: GENTLEMEN: In all cases where incorporated companies apply for patents for mining claims, you will require a copy of their certificate of incorporation, or charter, to be filed with the application for patent. Where an association of persons unincorporated, apply for a patent, the published notice, the Register's certificate of entry, and the Receiver's receipt, should give the names of all the applicants. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. Surveys should show the Exterior Boundaries of Claims and embrace only the Amount of Surface allowed by the Local Laws. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Sept. 11, 1873. E. S. DAVIS, Esq., Surveyor-general, Nevada: * SIR: * * In all cases, the plat and field notes of surveys should show the exterior boundaries of the claim for which an application for patent is made. The width of the claim, as represented upon the plat and described in the field notes, in no case should exceed the amount of surface ground allowed by local laws and customs. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. Record Evidence cannot be Disregarded in Proving the Date of Location of a Claim. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Sept. 17, 1873. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado: GENTLEMEN: On the twenty-seventh of November, 1872, C. H. Morris filed in your office an application for patent for fourteen hundred linear feet of the Dunkirk lode, Colorado. This application for patent is based upon a location made by A. J. August, F. L. Peck, A. F. Curtis and John A. Lafferty, dated September 3, 1867. This location was made nearly fourteen months after the passage of the Congressional mining enactment of July 26, 1866, the fourth section of which declares, "that no location hereafter made shall exceed two hundred feet in length along the vein for each locator, with an additional claim for discovery to the discoverer of the lode." There was no authority of law on the third of September, 1867, for the location of three thousand feet of a lode by four persons, one thousand feet being the greatest extent then subject to location by four persons, providing they were the discoverers, or eight hundred feet if they claimed simply as locators, and this office is unable to issue a patent upon said application as it now stands, being for fourteen hundred feet of the said Dunkirk lode. The applicant filed the affidavits of D. Lees and A. J. August, to the effect that Dunkirk lode was discovered “in the spring of A. D., one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six." The record evidence shows that the Dunkirk lode was not located until after the passage of the act of Congress of July 26, 1866, and record evidence cannot be disregarded in cases of this kind. Where parties claim under a location made under the mining rules, their title cannot have an inception prior to date of a notice of location in which their names or those of their grantors appear. You will inform the applicant for patent that he will be allowed to take one thousand feet along said Dunkirk lode, his grantors having claimed by virtue of discovery, viz: five hundred feet north-easterly from discovery shaft, and five hundred feet south-westerly from the same shaft. The monuments will have to be removed from their present position by a United States deputy surveyor, and placed at the four corners of the one thousand feet claimed, and the plat and field notes amended accordingly. The applicant has failed to file any proof of improvements. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., October 11, 1873. Messrs. BRITTON AND GRAY, Washington, D. C.: GENTLEMEN: I have carefully considered the application made by you, as attorneys for C. H. Morris, for a rehearing in the matter of the application for patent for the Dunkirk lode, Colorado. The location of the Dunkirk lode is for 3,000 feet, which shows clearly that the location was intended to be made under the act of July 26, 1866, as no regulation or law, prior to that time, authorized the location of 3,000 feet for a mining claim in Colorado. The date of the location is September 3, 1867, in the record. This cannot be taken or considered as the date of filing, for two reasons, viz: First. This date is given by the locators themselves as the date of their location. Second. The filing of this notice with the proper Recorder was on the twelfth of September, 1867, as appears by the indorsement of the Recorder thereon. Parties are bound by the record which they make, and it has been the uniform rule of this office, at least since 1871, to confine them to the dates fixed by them, in their notice and record of location. It is true, that on the twenty-fifth August, 1871, a letter was written in the Silver Ore case, authorizing proof not in the record to be submitted; but, upon a full consideration of the matter, the claimant of the Silver Ore lode was limited and restricted to the number of feet authorized at the date of his notice of location. But if I entertained any doubt as to the correctness of the rule in my letter of September, 17, 1873, in the Dunkirk case, which I do not, the applicant is not entitled to a modification of that decision, as it was originally made June 10, 1872, long before the application for patent was made. Your application for a rehearing is therefore overruled. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. Proof Required that Relocations are made in accordance with Legislative or District Laws. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Sept. 25, 1873. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado: GENTLEMEN: * * * In all cases where a party claims a lode which has been relocated, he should furnish proof that the relocation was made in accordance with the territorial law, and that he was entitled to relocate it. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. Lode Claim within a Placer Claim Entered by Another Party. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Oct. 17, 1873. Register and Receiver, Sacramento, California: GENTLEMEN: With your letter of the thirtieth September last you transmitted the papers in case of the application of William Jones, for patent for two thousand eight hundred linear feet of the Maryland quartz mine, California. It appears that the premises described in said application conflict with and embrace a portion of the premises described in the application of G. E. Williams et al., for certain placer mining ground, mineral entry No. 113. Section 11 of the mining act of May 10, 1872, provides that where the same person or persons are in "possession of a placer claim, and also of a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof, application shall be made for the placer claim with the statement that it includes such vein or lode; and in such case * * * a patent shall issue for the placer claim including such vein or lode, upon payment of five dollars per acre for such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof. The remainder of the placer claim, or any placer claim, not embracing any vein or lode claim, shall be paid for at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per acre, together with all costs of proceedings; and where a vein or lode, such as is described in the second section of this act, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer claim, an application for a patent for such placer claím, which does not include an application for the vein or lode claim, shall be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer claim has no right of possession of the vein or lode claim," etc. The said application for patent of Geo. E. Williams et al. describes the land applied for as placer mining land. No mention was made of the fact that any vein or lode claim existed within the exterior boundaries of the premises described in their application for patent, and hence, in the language of the law, it must be considered "as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer claim has no right of possession of the vein or lode claim." The width of a vein or lode claim is limited by the local law to "two hundred and fifty feet on each side" of the vein or lode. Mr. Jones, however, makes application for patent for a claim three hundred feet in width, or only one hundred and fifty feet on each side of the center of the vein or lode. It appears that Mr. Jones became the purchaser of two thousand one hundred linear feet of the Maryland quartz claim on the thirteenth April, 1870, said claim having been sold at public auction, in accordance with the decree of the seventh judicial district court of the State of California. It also appears that he purchased from Richard Hickman the undivided one half of two hundred yards of a certain quartz claim 'commencing at and adjoining the south line of the Maryland quartz claim, and running south two hundred yards.' This deed is dated twenty-fourth January, 1857. * * * 66 It further appears that G. E. Williams et al. filed an adverse claim against the application of said Jones for patent on the first March, 1873, and filed a written withdrawal of the same with you on the twenty-third September, 1873. In view of all the circumstances of the case, and the express provisions of the mining act for cases of this kind, you will permit Mr. Jones to proceed with his said application for patent, and make entry of the premises described in his said application, upon full compliance with the law and instructions. In this connection, I would state that you have failed to require applicants for patents for placer mining claims to furnish the proof required in such cases by the eleventh section of said act of May 10, 1872. Before permitting parties to make entry of mineral land at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per acre, you should require such applicants to furnish proof that the premises described in their said applications do not contain any known veins or lodes. of quartz, or other rock in place, bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, or copper. You will inform all parties in interest, and acknowledge the receipt hereof. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. Railroad Called Upon to Relinquish Mineral Land Inadvertently Patented. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D.C., Oct. 23, 1873. Register and Receiver, Sacramento, California: GENTLEMEN: On the nineteenth of December, 1866, patent inadvertently issued to the Central Pacific Railroad |