the date of the service of such notice, the appeal will be dismissed and the case closed.

That rule was amended in the new rules of practice, approved August 13, 1885, so as to read as follows:

When the Commissioner considers an appeal defective, he will notify the party of the defect, and if not amended within fifteen days from the date of the service of such notice, the appeal may be dismissed by the Secretary of the Interior, and the case closed.

The power of the Commissioner to dismiss an appeal for "defect" was thus taken away. But even under the old rule 82 that officer had no right to review and revoke his decision on the case after appeal, but simply to dismiss the appeal, on failure of appellant to amend.

At the date of the McGovern-Bartels decision, July 19, 1876, no rule touching this question existed. At the date of the decision in the case at bar, the new rule was in force, and the power to dismiss an appeal for "defect" was lodged in the Secretary.

In this discussion, cases in which the Commissioner "shall decide that a party has no right of appeal" are not contemplated, for they are specially provided for in rules $3, 84 and 85.

It is not urged in this case that the appeal should have been rejected for "defect," or that it was not filed in time, that the parties have no standing as appellants, or that the case is not appealable. Had any of these propositions been urged as a basis for rejecting the appeal, a very different case would be presented for the Secretary.

But I find in the case of Ward v. Dixon et al., decided by you December 18, 1886, and now on appeal before this Department, that you have followed the rule laid down in McGovern v. Bartels. In the WardDixon case one Gray filed a motion for review of the said decision of your office, and you denied the same, on the ground that your jurisdiction over the case had ceased upon the filing of an appeal by Ward. In this case you characterized the application for transmission of the record to the Secretary as an appeal in the following language: "Your appeal of 21st ultimo is returned for amendment accordingly."

Finally, I can see no good reason for departing from the rule that an appeal places a case beyond your jurisdiction. It has been followed for many years in the practice of this Department, and is in my opinion in conformity with the practice of courts. I am therefore of opinion that the action of your office in revoking said decision of August 20 was without authority of law. To hold otherwise would give the Commissioner unchecked power to make adverse decisions affecting the rights of parties, and then by revocation deprive them of the right of appeal. It would also go far to obstruct the Secretary in the exercise of his supervisory authority.

You will accordingly transmit to this Department all the papers in said cases, in order that such action may be had as may seem right and proper in the premises.

ATTORNEYS BEFORE THE LOCAL OFFICES.

CIRCULAR.

Commissioner Sparks to registers and receivers, March 19, 1887.

From and after the 15th day of April, 1887, you will not recognize any attorney or agent for claimants or other parties to any proceedings before you until he has complied with the following regulations:

1. An attorney-at-law who desires to represent claimants or contestants before your office shall file a certificate, under the seal of a United States, State, or territorial court for the judicial district in which he resides or the local land office is situated, that he is an attorney in good standing.

2. Any person (not an attorney-at-law) who desires to appear as an agent for claimants or contestants before your office must file a certifi cate from a judge of a United States court or of a State or territorial court having common law jurisdiction, except probate courts, in the county wherein he resides or the local office is situated, duly authenticated under the seal of the court, that such person is of good moral character and in good repute, possessed of the necessary qualifications to enable him to render clients valuable service, and otherwise competent to advise and assist them in the presentation of their claims or contests.

3. The oath of allegiance required by Section 3478 of the United States Revised Statutes must also be filed by applicants. In case of a firm, the names of the individuals composing the firm must be given, and a certificate and oath as to each member of the firm will be required.

4. An applicant to practice under the above regulations must address a letter to the register and receiver, inclosing the certificate and oath above required, in which letter his full name and post-office address must be given. He must state whether or not he has ever been recog nized as an attorney or agent before this Department, or any bureau thereof, or any of the local land offices, and if so, whether he has ever been suspended or disbarred from practice. He must also state whether he holds any office under the government of the United States.

After an application to practice has been filed in due form, the regis ter and receiver will recognize the applicant as an attorney or agent, as the case may be, unless they have good reason to believe that the person making the application is unfit to practice before their offices, or unless otherwise instructed by the Commissioner or Secretary.

Registers and receivers must keep a record of the names and residences of all attorneys and agents recognized as entitled to represent clients in their several offices.

Every attorney must, either at the time of entering his appearance for a claimant or contestant or within thirty days thereafter, file the

written authority for such appearance, signed by said claimant or contestant, and setting forth his or her present residence, occupation, and post-office address. Upon a failure to file such written authority within the time limited, it shall be the duty of the register and receiver to no longer recognize him as attorney in the case.

An attorney in fact will be required to file a power of attorney of his principal, duly executed, specifying the power granted and stating the party's present residence, occupation, and post-office address.

When the appearance is for a person other than a claimant or contestant of record the attorney or agent will be required to state the name of the person for whom he appears, his post-office address, the character and extent of his interest in the matter involved, and when and from what source it was acquired. Authorizations and powers signed or executed in blank will not be recognized.

If any attorney or agent shall knowingly commit any of the following acts, viz: Represent fictitious or fraudulent entrymen; prosecute collusive contests; speculate in relinquishments of entries; assist in procuring illegal or fraudulent entries or filings; represent himself as the attorney or agent of entrymen when he is only attorney or agent for a transferee or mortgagee; conceal the name or interest of his client; give pernicious advice to parties seeking to obtain title to public lands; attempt to prevent a qualified person from settling upon, entering, or filing for a tract of public land properly subject to such entry or filing, or be otherwise guilty of dishonest or unprofessional conduct; or who, in connection with business pending in local land offices or in this Department, shall knowingly employ as sub-agent, clerk, or correspondent a person who has been guilty of any one of these acts, or who has been prohibited from practicing before the register and receiver or this Department, it will be sufficient reason for his disbarment from practice, and you are authorized to refuse to further recognize any person as agent or attorney who shall be known to you or be proven before you to be guilty of improper and unprofessional conduct as above stated.

An attorney or agent who has been admitted to practice in any par ticular land district may be enrolled and authorized to practice in any other district upon filing with the register and receiver of such district a certificate of the register or receiver before whom he was admitted to practice that he is an attorney or agent in good standing.

Any unprofessional conduct on the part of an attorney or agent should be reported to the Commissioner at once, together with your action in the premises.

Appeals from the action of the register and receiver in refusing to admit to practice or in refusing to further recognize an agent or attorney will lie to the Commissioner and Secretary, as in other appealable cases Approved:

L. Q. C. LAMAR,
Secretary,

MINING CLAIM-NOTICE BY PUBLICATION AND POSTING.

GREAT WESTERN LODE CLAIM.

When notice is required to be given by different forms and modes to cover the same period, notice by either of the different modes will not run against an adverse claimant until given by each mode and form required.

Though proper publication may not be secured within less than sixty-three days, the posting in the local office is sufficient if it covers sixty days of that period.

If notice is posted in the local office the first day of publication, an adverse claim should be filed within sixty days from that date, but if such notice is not posted until three days thereafter, an adverse claim may be filed on the last day of publication.

Acting Secretary Muldrow to Commissioner Sparks, March 21, 1887.

I am in receipt of your letter of February 26, 1887, transmitting the record in the case of the Bodie, California, mineral entry No. 177, made December 1, 1883, by Henry Williams, for the Great Western lode claim. This entry is submitted for my consideration and action under sections 2450 and 2457 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by act of February 27, 1877. I am of the opinion that the entryman has complied with the law as to publication and posting of notice, and that this case need not be sent to the Board of Equitable Adjudication.

The posting of notice on the claim was made August 9, the publication of notice first appeared August 14, and the posting in the local of fice was made August 16. It appears, however, that the three forms of notice continued to run from August 16 to October 16, a period of sixty-one days from the date of posting in the local office. You declined to approve this entry for patent, owing to this irregularity, holding that the posting in the local office did not cover the entire period of publication, upon the theory that if the publication is for a greater period. than sixty days, the posting in the local office must cover the entire period of publication, although an identical period of sixty days may have been covered by the publication and the posting of notice in the local office.

When notice is required to be given by different forms and modes to cover the same continuous period of time, notice by either of the dif ferent modes will not run against an adverse claimant until notice has been given by each and every mode and form required. Hence, as in this case, an adverse claimant does not take notice by publication until notice is posted in the local office as required by law, although the publication may have commenced prior to the filing of notice in the local office. The sixty days within which adverse claims may be filed will be computed from the time when notice has been given by all the modes required.

In the case of Miner v. Marriott (2 L. D., 709), the Department held that while notice by publication-when it is given in a weekly papermust from the necessity of the case cover a period of sixty-three days, yet an adverse claim must be filed within sixty days, and can not be

filed on the last day of publication, if that day exceeds the period of sixty days. But, as the law only requires that notice by publication and posting shall be for a period of sixty days-if from the necessity of the case the publication will be required to run for a period of sixtythree days-it does not follow that notice must be posted in the local office for that entire period, but only for sixty days of that period.

If the notice is posted in the local office the first day of publication, an adverse claim should be filed within sixty days from that date, but if the notice is not posted in the local office until three days thereafter, an adverse claim may be filed on the last day of publication.

This view is not in conflict with the rule laid down in Miner v. Marriott, and is a compliance with the provisions of the statute and the rules and regulations thereunder.

RAILROAD GRANT; TIMBER TRESPASS.

CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, M. & O. Ry. Co.

It appearing that the title to the lands in question will pass under the selections made thereof, action against the company for trespass thereon is not advised.

Secretary Lamar to Commissioner Sparks, March 22, 1887.

By letters of March 10, 22, 29, and September 10, 1886, you transmitted a number of documents, relating to alleged timber trespasses by the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company, and their agents, sub-contractors and vendees, upon certain lands in Wisconsin.

You state that said lands are claimed by the company "as falling within their indemnity limits, and are shown by the tract books

to be mostly covered by selections made by said railroad company and the Farm Mortgage Company, as well as by the State;' and further you say that "none of these selections have been approved." Thereupon, you recommend that the "Attorney General be requested to cause the said companies, their officers and agents, to be restrained from cutting or disposing of timber upon any lands selected or claimed as indemnity lands, or being within withdrawn indemnity limits, the legal title to which has not been conveyed to them by the United States;" that civil suits be instituted against the companies to recover the value of the timber cut, and that their officers, agents and sub-contractors, etc., be proceeded against criminally.

On April 22, 1886, you were requested to furnish a list of the selections made by the companies and "the reasons, if any exist, why said selections have not been acted upon, and rejected or approved."

On June 3, 1886, you transmitted list of selections, as requested, and stated that the

Selections by the North Wisconsin Railroad Company, and by its successor, the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company, have not been approved, because of the failure of said com