The subdivision here in question never was offered at public sale under the act of 1876, supra, and your office held that by express terms of that act it did not again become subject to entry and was not subject to location under the warrant. The appeal alleges error in holding that a military bounty land warrant will not take an unoffered tract of public land which is generally subject to disposal under the general laws. The restriction of the right of location to land subject to private entry was, as the law then stood, for protection of the United States against appropriation of public lands before it had opportunity to realize a better price by offering its lands at public sale. What was intended was to grant as a bounty so much land as was expressed in the warrant of lands subject to private appropriation generally at the minimum or lower graduated price. The provisions of the act of 1876, supra, had no other purpose than to protect settlers and to protect the United States in obtaining a higher price, by another offer at public sale. The latter object has been abandoned and the land can not be offered, since the act of March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 854), withdrew all lands from sale except in the State of Missouri. There is no doubt but that the location was made in good faith, that the case is meritorious, and that objection to approval of the location is purely the technical one that the land, through some inadvertence of the land department, was never formally reoffered under the act of 1876, of which fact the locator was ignorant. In view of the Department the case is therefore within the principles announced in the cases of J. M. McDonald (15 L. D., 257), and Pecard v. Camens et al. (4 L. D., 152), and the case will be referred to the Board of Equitable Adjudication for confirmation under the 11th rule, promulgated October 3, 1846. SWAMP LAND-ADJUSTMENT-CHARACTER OF LAND. CULLIGAN. STATE OF MINNESOTA. In the adjustment of all claims for public lands in the State of Minnesota initiated in accordance with law prior to survey of the lands, in instances where selection thereof is made by the State under its swamp land grant, and the field notes of survey afford a sufficient basis for such selection, the land department will, by hearing or otherwise, determine the true character of the lands, notwithstanding the return of the field notes of survey of the township. Acting Secretary Campbell to the Commissioner of the General Land of Patrick Culligan to contest the swamp land selections of the State. of Minnesota to certain lands in sections 25 and 26, township 57 north, range 8 west, Duluth land district, Minnesota, more particularly described in your said office decision. A motion for review of this decision was filed by Culligan and duly entertained, November 29, 1904. The decision complained of was ruled under direction No. 2 of the general regulations given by this Department March 16, 1903 (32 L. D., 65), for the future adjustment of the swamp land grant to the State of Minnesota, which direction was as follows: (2) All existing contests or controversies in which there is no claim of actual and bona fide homestead or pre-emption settlement, will be disposed of under the original plan of following the field notes, there being nothing in such contests or controversies which would equitably entitle the claimants adverse to the State to have the contest disposed of under the rule announced in the Lachance decision. Direction No. 1 of these same regulations provides that all existing contests and controversies between the State and an actual and bona fide homestead or pre-emption settler shall be disposed of under the rule announced in the "Lachance decision" (4 L. D., 479), which was, by ordering a hearing, to afford such homestead or pre-emption claimant an opportunity to prove the character and condition of the land involved at the date of the swamp land grant to the State of Minnesota. There is also a further direction (No. 4) which provides that all contests or controversies thereafter begun (after March 16, 1903), respecting the swampy or non-swampy character of lands in said State, whether theretofore or thereafter surveyed, shall be determined by the field-notes of survey. The motion for review admits that the decision complained of is in strict accord with these regulations, but asks that the regulations be reformed. After most careful consideration, and upon a more comprehensive view of the subject, it is believed that the regulations in question should be amended to afford relief in cases of the character here presented. The claim of Culligan arose upon certain forest lieu selections under the act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat., 11, 36), and a selection by the Northern Pacific Railway Company under the act of March 2, 1899 (30 Stat., 993, 994), and upon the subsequent assignment of the claims to him. The acts in question authorized the selection of unsurveyed lands, and the selections in question were in fact made prior to the survey of the township in which they are situated, and were in fact a mere exchange of lands. At the date of the selections it was not known, and not possible to know or surmise, that the field notes of the survey to be thereafter made would designate these lands as swamp. The selectors, therefore, were without other notice of the character of this land than such as resulted from an examination upon the ground. It is sufficiently alleged that such examination was made and showed the land in controversy to be high and dry, and not swamp, and movant asks that he be permitted to show this at a hearing. It is thought that in equity and good conscience this should be done, and it is so ordered. In the further adjustment of all claims heretofore or hereafter initiated in accordance with law for public lands in the State of Minnesota, prior to the survey thereof, in instances where a selection of such lands is made by the State under its swamp land grant, and the field-notes of survey afford a sufficient basis for such selection, your office will, by hearing, or otherwise, determine the true character of the land, notwithstanding the return in the field-notes of survey of the township. TOWNSITE ENTRY-TRUSTEE-SECTION 2387, REVISED STATUTES. BENA TOWNSITE. 66 The term judge of the county court for the county," employed in section 2387 of the Revised Statutes to designate the officer authorized to make townsite entry under said section, as trustee for the several use and benefit of the occupants of the townsite, embraces any presiding judicial officer of a court having jurisdiction within the county; and where any one of several officers coming within the purview of the statute is designated by the State legislature as the proper officer to assume the trust and make the entry, such designation is entitled to be recognized by the officers of the land department. Acting Secretary Campbell to the Commissioner of the General Land (S. V. P.) Office, July 13, 1905. (J. R. W.) The Bena Townsite settlers appealed from your decision of April 14, 1905, rejecting the application of W. S. McClenahan as "Judge of the District (County) Court in and for Cass County, Minnesota,” to make entry of the SW. 4 NW. 1, W. † SW. 1, Sec. 26, SE. SE. 1, Sec. 27, and NE. 4, Sec. 34, T. 145 N., R. 28 W., 5th P. M., Cass Lake. Minnesota, as the Bena Townsite. The only matter presented by the appeal is the question whether under the laws of the United States and of Minnesota the judge of the district court having jurisdiction within the county wherein is an urban settlement upon public lands, or the probate judge of such county, is the proper officer, as trustee to the several use of the occupants, to make the townsite entry. October 27, 1903, there was filed in the local office the declaratory statement of "W. S. McClenahan, Judge of the District (County) Court, in and for Cass County," Minnesota, that: .... about twenty persons have on the 19th day of October, 1903, settled upon and occupied as a townsite the description . . . . and I do hereby declare my intention to claim the said tracts of land as and for a townsite in trust for the several use and benefit of the occupants thereof, according to their respective interests. November 22, 1904, the local office rejected the application, because (1) the land was not subject to townsite entry, and (2) that applicant as district judge is not authorized to make such entry. December 23, 1904, he appealed to your office. June 27, 1904, J. G. McGarry, "judge of the probate (county) court of Cass county, Minnesota," filed a like statement, which the local office rejected, June 29, 1904, because it was instructed, December 2, 1903, to allow no entries, or other disposition of these lands, which were temporarily withdrawn and reserved for forestry purposes under the act of June 27, 1902 (32 Stat., 400, 402). McGarry took no appeal. April 14, 1905, your office affirmed the action of the local office, and held that the judges of the District Courts of Minnesota are not authorized under sections 2387 and 2388, U. S. Rev. Stat., to act as trustees for townsite occupants of the. public land but their action in rejecting the declaratory statement filed by Judge McGarry is hereby reversed. .... May 15, 1905, Judge McClenahan withdrew his application, and June 10, 1905, notified the local office that such action was inadvertent and should not be considered as effective. June 13, 1905, he filed his appeal and authority to counsel to represent him before the Department. Section 2387 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides: Whenever any portion of the public lands have been or may be settled upon and occupied as a town-site, not subject to entry under the agricultural preemption laws, it is lawful, in case such town be incorporated, for the corporate authorities thereof, and, if not incorporated, for the judge of the county court for the county in which such town is situated, to enter at the proper land-office, and at the minimum price, the land so settled and occupied in trust for the several use and benefit of the occupants thereof, according to their respective interests; the execution of which trust, as to the disposal of the lots in such town, and the proceeds of the sales thereof, to be conducted under such regulations as may be prescribed by the legislative authority of the State or Territory in which the same may be situated. The term "county court" is clearly not intended to be the name of a particular court, for the statute is general and is intended to be operative in all States where there are public lands, and in many such States, as Minnesota, there are no courts known by that name. The words "judge of the county court for the county" can have no other meaning than the presiding judicial officer of a court having jurisdiction within the county. In designating the judge of the county court Congress sought to assure that the trustee should be a person of sound discretion and integrity. The statute does not provide for the administration of the trust, but merely for protection of the interests of the United States in requiring payment for the lands thus appropriated by urban settlement. It leaves the administration of the trust arising from a community appropriation of public lands to the local authority, by providing that the trustee shall administer his trust "under such regulations as may be prescribed by the legislative authority of the State or Territory in which the same may be situated.” Under the judicial system of the State of Minnesota there is no court named the county court. There exist at least three courts which are county courts, and have original jurisdiction to adjudicate rights of persons or rights in property arising in the county within which and for which they sit. The district court has original jurisdiction of all civil causes involving more than one hundred dollars and of criminal causes punishable by fine of more than one hundred dollars, or imprisonment for more than three months; (2) justices of the peace whose jurisdiction is limited to causes below that of the district court and not involving title to real estate; (3) the probate court with jurisdiction of estates of decedents and persons under guardianship. While the legislature is empowered to establish other courts, and so might have established a county court by name, it has not done so, and the district court is the only court under the judicial system of that State having general civil and criminal jurisdiction throughout the county. It may more appropriately be regarded as the county court than either of the others, the jurisdiction of which is inferior and more narrowly limited. The legislature by an act now codified under chapter 42, Official Trusts, Statutes of Minnesota 1894, section 4255, has provided: When the corporate authorities of any town, or the judge of the district court for any county in which any town is situated, enter, at the proper land-office, the land or any part of the land settled and occupied as the site of such town, pursuant to and by virtue of the provisions of the act of congress, entitled “An act for the relief of the citizens of towns upon the lands of the United States under certain circumstances," passed May 23d, A. D. 1854, such corporate authorities, or judge (as the case may be), shall dispose of and convey the title to such lands, or to the several blocks, lots, parcels or shares thereof, to the persons hereinafter described, and in the manner hereinafter specified. This act recognizes the judge of the district court of the county to be the proper person and the officer under the judicial system of that |