make references in their surveys to the Bright Point mine is approved, the same being in accordance with your previous instructions in such cases. The bitter feeling which exists in regard to these surveys arises from the fact that said claimants appear to be of the impression that questions of title can be determined under the law by your office. Your office has no duty to perform in regard to settling disputed titles to mining claims. Seeing no error in your decision in regard to these surveys, the same is approved. Be pleased to inform all parties in interest and acknowledge the receipt hereof. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner. No. 13. Deputy Mineral Surveyor not authorized to make survey out of State or district for which he is appointed. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., Aug. 6, 1872. W. M. SEAWELL, Esq., Aurora, Nevada. SIR: Referring to your letter of twenty-fifth ultimo, I have to state that a deputy mineral surveyor is not authorized to make surveys of mineral claims outside of the State or district for which he is appointed. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, No. 14. Courses and distances give way when in conflict with fixed objects. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., July 15, 1873. SIR: I inclose herewith a copy of the opinion of Hon. Walter H. Smith, Assistant Attorney-general, in the matter of the application of the Brown Silver Mining Company, for patent for the Mammoth Lode, Central City district, Colorado Territory. I concur in the views set forth in the opinion, and reverse your decision adverse to the application. This decision cancels and sets aside that of the twentyfifth February last, in this case. The papers transmitted with your letter of thirteenth January last are herewith returned. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner General Land Office. [Inclosure.] DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY-GENERAL, WASHINGTON, D. C., July 15, 1873. SIR: I have examined the application of the Brown Silver Mining Company, for a patent to certain premises in the Territory of Colorado, on appeal to your department from the adverse decision of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, of the fourth of September, 1872. He rejected the claim, for the reason that the premises were described differently in the application and the final survey. The only point of difference consists in this-the application commences its description at the mouth of the Brown Silver Mining Company's tunnel, and runs thence north 7° 30′ west 100 feet, to the discovery of the Mammoth Lode. This course of north 7° 30' west 100 feet will not reach the discovery, but it requires a new and additional course of north 16° east, and a distance of eighty-one feet, to reach the discovery. With the exception of the above, there is no discrepancy between the application and final survey. I think that, in law, there is no discrepancy. It is well settled that courses and distances must give way when in conflict with fixed objects. The application calls for two well-defined fixed points: the mouth of the tunnel, and the discovery. The course and distance given will not lead to the discovery. They must, therefore, be rejected, and the call requires a straight line from the mouth of the tunnel to the discovery. I advise a reversal of the decision of the Commissioner. Very respectfully, W. H. SMITH, Assistant Attorney-general. Hon. C. DELANO, Secretary of the Interior. No. 15. The Land Department can not disregard the decisions of the courts. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENENAL LAND OFFICE, January 26, 1869. Hon. A. A. SARGENT, 307 Delaware Av., Washington, D. C. SIR: * *。 * It may be true, for aught this office knows to the contrary, that the Inimitable Company lost its case in the California court, through its attorneys; but if so, the injury is one this office has no power to correct. It can neither supervise nor disregard the decisions rendered by such courts in cases of conflicting claims to the possession of mining property under the local customs, and until the Inimitable Company can procure a reversal of the judgment against it in the case above referred to, no patent can be issued to it for the premises in controversy in the suit between it and the Union Copper Company. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Jos. S. WILSON, Commissioner. No. 16. Approval of survey under the act of 1866. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, SIR: I have received your letter of the twelfth ultimo, transmitting the applications of the claimants of the Empire, Crescent, Lady Alice, and Bunker Hill mines, located in the Bodie mining district, Mono county, California, to the Surveyor-general of said State, for an approval of the surveys of said mines, made by R. M. Wilson, Esq., U. S. Deputy Mineral Surveyor, in the year 1867. An examination of the papers transmitted, shows that on the fifth and seventh days of February last, the Surveyorgeneral of said State addressed to you two letters in relation to the applications made to him by the Empire Gold and Silver Mining Company and the Crescent Mining Company, for an approval of the surveys made of those mines, as above mentioned, in both of which letters he stated, in substance, that he had examined the statements made by each of said companies, and "finding that the claims as to time, amount expended, publication of notice, etc., as required by the mining act of 1866, have been duly and properly complied with, I have only declined to approve their survey because of the absence of any certificate from the register of the local land office, certifying that there is no adverse claim." For that reason, viz., because the certificate of the register was not presented showing no adverse claims to the tracts included within the surveys named, he requested instructions from your office, stating that he could find no precedents, nor any instructions or rulings of the department or your office governing the case. These letters were received by you and duly registered on the sixteenth of February, 1878. On the same day you state that a communication was received from Messrs. Britton & Gray, and N. L. Jeffries, Esq., objecting to the approval of the surveys of said claims, and alleging that certain papers in the case are forged." Between the sixteenth of February last and the twelfth ultimo, it appears that numerous other papers were received and filed in your office, in part from the Surveyor-general's office in California and the local land officers, but principally from the attorneys of the claimants and the contestants. In view of the claims presented, and the allegations made by the contesting parties, on the twenty-seventh of March last, you instructed the Surveyor-general to decline "to order any survey of any mine conflicting with the surveys made for the said Empire, Lady Alice, Crescent, or Bunker Hill mines, or to deliver any plat or field notes which have already been approved, until instructed so to do by this office." On the same day you instructed the register and receiver at Independence, California, to decline to receive any application for patent for mining claims in conflict with said mines, until instructed so do. These instructions, I think, were very proper, pending the investigation of the questions presented. No final action has been taken, or instructions given to the Surveyor-general upon the question propounded, and it is now before me for that purpose, as submitted with your letter above mentioned. Surveyor-general not to approve surveys until register certifies that there are no adverse claims. After a careful examination and consideration of the instructions and practice of your office, pertaining to mining claims located under the act of July 26, 1866, I am of the opinion that the Surveyor-general should be instructed not to approve such surveys in any case until he receives the proper certificate from the register of the local land office that there are no adverse claims to the tracts therein described. This seems to have been the practice heretofore adopted in the adjustment and settlement of claims under the provisions of the said act, made necessary by the peculiar provisions of the act itself, as well as the conflicting nature of the claims arising thereunder, and I can conceive of no good reason why that practice should now be changed. If the register, in any case arising under said act, improperly refuses to give the required certificate, the claimant may appeal to your office, and ultimately to this department, for such relief as he shall make it appear he is entitled to have in the premises. Register to puss upon question of regularity of claimant's application. It is the duty of the register, in the first instance, to pass upon the regularity of the claimant's application for a patent, as well as his right to make the same for the tract therein described, and from his decision, in all matters arising under a general law, like the one under consideration, an appeal lies to your office, and not to the surveyor-general of the particular State or Territory. This brings me to a consideration of the following question, viz.: Did the register improperly refuse the certificate in these cases? From an examination of the papers transmitted, I find that certain steps were taken by the applicants to obtain patents for each of the mines above mentioned during the years 18667-8, under the mining act of July 26, 1866. These proceedings, the applicants allege, were regular and complete, as far as they were carried, viz.: to the completion of the surveys of said mines by the United States Deputy Mineral Surveyor, as required by the third section of the act above cited. Said surveys were, however, not approved by the Surveyor-general, as required by the terms of said act; nor was an entry of the tracts claimed, made at that time. No further proceedings appear to have been taken in relation to said applications until the latter part of the year 1877, |