DECISIONS RELATING TO THE PUBLIC LANDS. MILITARY BOUNTY LAND WARRANTS. ANDREW ANDERSON ET AL. The Commissioner of Pensions has no authority to cancel a military bounty land warrant in the hands of an innocent assignee. The Commissioner of the General Land Office has jurisdiction as to the bona fides of holders of warrants by purchase. One purchasing a warrant issued in the name of a person deceased without heirs, or of a fictitious person, is not an innocent purchaser. Patents issued on warrant locations but withheld, should be disposed of as to their delivery, under the directions of the Department, of February 28, 1881, made in view of the decision of the supreme court in the McBride case. Secretary Kirkwood to Commissioner McFarland, July 23, 1881. I have examined the following reports from your office, viz: First. Report of August 9, 1869, in the matter of the application of Andrew Anderson to have the patent which was fully executed September 23, 1853, for the N. of SW. Sec. 19, T. 98, R. 7, Iowa, located with military bounty land warrant No. 48,552, 80 acres, delivered to him as the owner of said lands. From your report it appears that the Commissioner of Pensions on the 6th of August, 1862, indorsed upon the face of said warrant that the same had that day been canceled by him, and declared void as against the United States, for the reason that satisfactory evidence had been furnished that the papers upon which warrant was issued, and the assignment of the warrant, were false and fraudulent. Second. Report of December 8, 1880, in the matter of a tract of land located at Elba, Ala., March 19, 1856, by William H. Barton, assignee, with military bounty land warrant No. 31,511, 160 acres, act of 1847, for which patent was duly executed November 10, 1857, which patent is now in the files of your office. In this case it appears that a caveat was filed in your office by the Commissioner of Pensions against said warrant. 20309 VOL 1—1 The report shows that the Commissioner of Pensions,, by letter of November 4, 1880, declined to withdraw the caveat for the reason that the person locating the warrant had failed to show to the satisfaction of his office that he was an innocent purchaser of the same for value. Third. Report of January 29, 1881, which has relation to cases generally in which patents for land located with military land warrants. are withheld in your office, and to suspended bounty land warrant locations. These reports present for my consideration the following questions: First. As to the authority of the Commissioner of Pensions to cancel a land warrant in the hands of an innocent assignee. Second. Whether the jurisdiction to determine the question whether an assignee is an innocent purchaser of a military land warrant for value may be exercised by the Commissioner of Pensions, or by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Third. As to the delivery of patents for lands covered by warrant locations which patents are withheld for the reason that the warrants were falsely or fraudulently procured. As to the first question it is not necessary for me to make any decision whatever. It was decided by Secretary Stuart, November 10, 1851, that the Commissioner of Pensions has no such authority. He re-affirmed his decision March 20, 1852, stating his reasons therefor at some length (Lester's Land Laws, vol. 1, Nos. 621 and 622). The same doctrine was sustained by Attorney-General Cushing in an able and exhaustive opinion rendered to Secretary McClelland March 15, 1856 (7 Opinions, 657). The doctrine announced by Attorney-General Cushing was adopted by Secretary Thompson, by decisions of January 19 and 21, 1860 (Lester's Land Laws, vol. 1, Nos. 636 and 637). And lastly the same doctrine was re-affirmed by Secretary Schurz in the cases of Samuel Love and Lyman Worden, July 23, 1878, in a decision addressed to the Commissioner of Pensions. The question seems to be firmly settled; the doctrine announced by Secretary Stuart in 1851 and 1852 ought not only to be treated as having all the force of stare decisis, but of law. Congress has on several occasions legislated regarding the issuance, assignment, and location of bounty land warrants since the decisions of 1851, 1852, and 1860, above referred to, were rendered, without in any manner attempting to change the law as therein construed. A notable instance is the revision of the laws in relation to bounty lands. (See chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes.) Congress therefore has impliedly and in legal contemplation sanctioned the rule established by this Department as to this question, and all officers of this Department are bound to observe it. The definition of "innocent purchaser" given in the opinion of Mr. Cushing and in the decision of Secretary Thompson of January 21, 1860, should be kept in view. A party purchasing a warrant issued in |