Auriferous Cement Claims are Patented as Placers.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., Feb. 12, 1872. THOMAS N. STODDARD, Esq., Sonora, California:

SIR : * * * With reference to the second interrogatory in your said letter of June 22, 1871, it is possible that this office may have labored under some misapprehension as to what was really the point involved in your inquiry.

If it was intended to ask if the auriferous cement claims, found in what are sometimes called ancient river beds, and usually worked by the hydraulic process, properly come within the signification of the term "rock in place," as used in the second section of the mining statute of twenty-sixth July, 1866, then the answer must, undoubtedly, be in the negative; several claims of that character having already been patented under the placer mining law of July 9th, 1870, they fully coming within the meaning of the term placer" as defined in said act. Very respectfully,

* * *

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Uncontested Part of a Claim may be Patented.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Feb. 27, 1872. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado Territory: GENTLEMEN: *** This office holds, therefore, that the foregoing verdict and judgment are fatal to the application of Bradley et al., to the extent of five hundred feet of the premises claimed by them as Rhode Island lode, leaving, however, two hundred and fifty feet of the claim uncontested.

If the claimants have expended an amount equal to one thousand dollars upon this uncontested part in labor and improvements, and can in other respects come within the law, there is perceived no reason why they cannot proceed and obtain title to the portion of their original claim not affected by said verdict and judgment, should they desire to do so. * *

Very respectfully, etc.

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Proceedings to Secure Patent for Claim Previously Relinquished.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., Feb. 27, 1872. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado Territory : GENTLEMEN: This office has examined the papers transmitted with your letter of twenty-third November last, in the matter of the application of Thomas Garrison for a patent for fifty feet of the Kansas lode, Survey No. 134, Mineral District No. 1, from which it appears that said Garrison, on the ninth April, 1870, filed in your office his application for a patent for one hundred and fifty (150) feet of said lode; that on the ninth day of July, 1870, and before a survey of the claim was made, Robert W. Meade, as agent for the University Gold Mining Company, of New York, filed an adverse claim to the westerly fifty (50) feet of the premises and lode applied for by said Garrison; that the applicant, on the twenty-second July, 1870, withdrew from said application all claim to the said westerly fifty (50) feet, and asked survey, plat and patent for the easterly one hundred feet embraced by his said application, not in dispute.

The papers in this claim were received with your letter of date the twenty-fourth September, 1870, and a patent thereon issued to said Thomas Garrison, dated February 15, 1871 (Survey No. 89.)

On the twenty-fourth July, 1871, the said Robert W. Meade, agent as aforesaid, filed with you his withdrawal of the adverse claim to said fifty feet of the westerly extent of the original claim of said Garrison.

Mr. Garrison thereupon renewed his application for a patent for this portion of the lode, and without further notice a survey (No. 134) was made thereof, which received the approval of the Surveyor-general on the second October last. On the twenty-third November, 1871, you permitted the land to be entered, and then reported the case for final action.

When Mr. Garrison relinquished his claim to a patent to that portion of the lode, it ended, closed and terminated the proceedings previously had by him with reference thereto, and the claim could not again be presented, except by a party properly entitled to the possession and after due proceedings, as in an original case under the law.

Whether Mr. Garrison has, or ever had, such possession under the local laws as would entitle him to a patent, is not disclosed by the papers, but whether he has or not, the claim cannot be considered upon its present basis, and it is therefore rejected. * * * *

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Only Those Showing Interest in the Premises can Assert an Adverse Claim.

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.

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 fode, 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.

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 cannot accept as evidence the conclusions of law, stated in general terms; the specific facts set out in detail, upon 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.

Very respectfully,

*

* *

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

An Adverse Claim Rejected because not Properly Made

Out.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 19, 1872.

SIR: I have examined the appeal taken to this office from your decision of November 29th, 1871, in the case of Reuben Thomas v. James R. Richards and Thomas Tippet, involving the right of Thomas to enter as a placer claim certain lands in Sec. 27, T. 16, N. R. 8, E. M. D. M., California.

The facts in the case are correctly and fairly summarized in your decision, and raise a single question of law, viz: Is the claim of Richards and Tippet an "adverse claim" within the meaning of the sixth section of the act of July 26th, 1866, as extended to placer claims by the act of July 9th, 1870? You hold that it is not.

The claim of Thomas is one which, in absence of any adverse right, is patentable. Richards and Tippet, January 10th, 1871, pending the application of Thomas for a patent, filed an affidavit, alleging that they were then, and had been owners of certain portions of the claim of Thomas for more than three years, and that they had worked the ground for several years. They have never filed any other or additional proof, nor have they, so far as appears, commenced any action in the local courts.

Such an affidavit, unsupported by other proof, is not sufficient evidence of an adverse claim. It does not, as required by the rules and regulations of your office, issued under these acts and approved by the Department, state in detail

the nature of the adverse claim, where and how it originated, whether by purchase, or location, or other material and essential particulars. It is a vague, indefinite, ex parte affidavit, and the failure to furnish other or more specific evidence for the period of over a year, is sufficient to raise a strong doubt as to the good faith of the contestant. I affirm your decision, and return herewith the papers transmitted with your letter of the twenty-ninth ultimo. Very respectfully,

C. DELANO, Secretary. Hon. WILLIS DRUMMOND, Com'r General Land Office.

A Special Clause, Protecting Water Rights, is Inserted in all Patents issued for Lands in the Mining Regions.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 21, 1872. Hon. A. A. SARGENT, M. C., Washington, D. C.:

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt to-day, by reference from you, of a letter bearing date the twelfth instant, from George E. Williams, Esq., of Placerville, California, recommending an excepting clause to be inserted in patents issued for lands in the mineral regions, for the protection of rights for the use of water ditches, etc., in which you concur.

In response, I would state that this question came before me for consideration several weeks since, and although from an examination of the ninth section of the mining act of July 26, 1866, and the seventeenth section of the amendatory act of July 9, 1870, I am satisfied that rights to the use of water for mining, manufacturing, agricultural, or other purposes, and rights for the construction of ditches and canals, used in connection with such water rights, are fully protected by law; yet, in order that all misapprehension that might exist between the holder or claimant of such right and such patentee might be set at rest, it was determined, in all patents hereafter granted in mineral regions. of the United States, to insert an additional clause or condition, expressly protecting and reserving such water rights, and making the patent subject thereto, the same as before it was granted.

The blank forms for this patent are now being printed, and will be ready for use in a day or two, pending the receipt of which, the granting of patents in the mineral region for agricultural lands will be temporarily suspended.

I am, Sir, very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.