Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

the lines of their original purchase, and where no valid adverse right or title (except of the United States) exists, such purchasers may purchase the same, after having such lands surveyed under existing laws, at the minimum price established by law, upon first making proof of the facts as required in this section, under regulations to be provided by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, joint entries being admissible by coterminous proprietors to such an extent as will enable them to adjust their respective boundaries: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not be applicable to the city and county of San Francisco: Provided, That the right to purchase herein given shall not extend to lands. containing mines of gold, silver, copper, or cinnabar: Provided, That whenever it shall be made to appear by petition from the occupants of such land that injury to permanent improvements would result from running the lines of public surveys through such permanent improvements, the Commissioner of the General Land Office may recognize existing lines of subdivisions.

A. STATE SELECTIONS CONFIRMED.

B. MEXICAN TITLES CONFIRMED.

C. MEXICAN GRANTS, p. 1092.

D. MEXICAN GRANTEES OR ASSIGNS, p. 1092.

A. STATE SELECTIONS CONFIRMED.

See 10 Stat. 244, p. 1257.

Section 1 confirms certain selections made by the State, but provides that no selection made by the State contrary to existing laws shall be confirmed by the act. and excludes also mineral lands.

United States v. Mullan, 10 Fed. 785, p. 788.

This act provides a method of construing the act of March 3, 1853 (10 Stat. 244), with reference to the right of California to select lands in lieu of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections.

California, In re, Copp's Min. Lands 224.

The title to land in sections 16 and 36 did not pass to the State if such land at the date of survey was recognized and regarded as mineral.

California v. Poley, 4 C. L. O. 18.

A selection of land under this act by the State of California and sold in good faith, prior to the passage of this act, is valid and the title good, if such lands were not known to be mineral at the date when the act confirming such selection became a law. Polack, In re, 8 C. L. O. 189, p. 191.

B. MEXICAN TITLES CONFIRMED.

As Congress was not asked to make an original grant it only intended to authorize a patent carrying to the grantee such title and interest as he held from the Mexican Government at the time of the cession, and such as he could rightfully have asked the Mexican Government, under its laws, to protect, and that Government would not have protected him in the possession of valuable mines of gold and silver, and Congress did not intend to do more than the Mexican Government would have done to the grantee.

United States v. San Pedro & Canon del Agua Co., 4 N. Mex. 225, p. 300.

The intention of Congress by this confirmatory act was not to confirm the mineral grant alleged to have been made to Moradillos, but to confirm the land granted which had been sent forward for approval.

United States v. San Pedro & Canon del Agua Co., 4 N. Mex. 225, p. 298.

This is not an act to grant the person named therein a new thing or right, but to recognize and confirm an old one, for Congress was bound under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to protect the grantee in existing rights, but was under no obligation to give him an additional one.

United States v. San Pedro & Canon del Agua Co., 4 N. Mex. 225, p. 297.

C. MEXICAN GRANTS.

1. MINERAL LANDS EXCLUDED.

A person is not entitled to enter or locate a mining claim in such Mexican grants, as the mineral lands are expressly excepted from the operation of this act.

McGarrahan v. New Idria Min. Co., 3 L. D. 422, p. 423.

This act of preemption did not include the minerals in the lands therein referred to, and the confirmation by Congress was of such title to the lands therein mentioned as had been conveyed by the Government of Mexico and did not confer upon the grantee the title to mines therein contained.

United States v. San Pedro & Canon del Agua Co., 4 N. Mex. 225,

D. MEXICAN GRANTEES OR ASSIGNS.

1. IMPROVED LANDS WITHDRAWN FROM PREEMPTION.
2. PROOF TO OBTAIN TITLE-ABSENCE OF MINERALS.

p. 293.

1. IMPROVED LANDS WITHDRAWN FROM PREEMPTION.

This act withdrew from the general operation of the preemption laws lands continuously possessed and improved by a purchaser under a Mexican grant, but which was subsequently rejected, and gave to such purchaser, to the exclusion of all other claimants, the right to obtain title.

Hosmer v. Wallace, 97 U. S. 575, p. 581.

This act was passed to meet the hardships arising from the rejection of grants supposed to be valid and the instances where lands had been purchased and improved and were excluded by the surveys from the tracts confirmed.

Hosmer v. Wallace, 97 U. S. 575, p. 581.

2. PROOF TO OBTAIN TITLE-ABSENCE OF MINERALS.

A purchaser from an alleged Mexican grantee is not entitled to a deed from the Government unless he alleges and proves that the lands do not contain mines of gold, silver, copper, or cinnabar.

Secretary v. McGarrahan, 76 U. S. (9 Wall.) 298, p. 310.
McGarrahan v. New Idria Min. Co., 3 L. D. 422, p. 423.

In a contest for lands acquired under this section it is necessary for a claimant to aver and prove that the lands did not contain mines of gold, silver, copper, or cinnabar, and he must aver and prove that he was a good faith purchaser for a valuable consideration, and he is not entitled to a patent if the lands did in fact contain such mines.

Hawke v. Deffeback, 4 Dak. 20, p. 34.

The mere relinquishment of the land described by this grant can not be held to carry with it the title to the minerals found within the grant limits, but only the surface of the soil passed to and vested in the grantee, and the title to the minerals therein remained in the United States for the reason that the tract conveyed and surveyed contained well-known mineral lands.

United States v. San Pedro & Canon del Agua Co., 4 N. Mex. 225, p. 297.

The statement of the Land Commissioner that lands embraced in a claim and application for a patent by a purchaser from a Mexican grantee that the lands contain valuable quicksilver mines is sufficient evidence on which to refuse the application. Secretary v. McGarrahan, 76 U. S. (9 Wall.) 298, p. 310.

17 STAT. 465, FEBRUARY 18, 1873.

COAL AND IRON LANDS-METHOD OF PURCHASE-MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, AND WISCONSIN.

AN ACT In relation to mineral lands.

Be it enacted, etc., That within the States hereinafter named deposits or mines of iron and coal be, and they are hereby, excluded from the operations of an act entitled "An act to promote the development of the mining resources of the United States," approved May 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 91), and said act shall not apply to the mineral lands situate and being within the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and that said lands are hereby declared free and open to exploration and purchase, according to the legal subdivisions thereof, as before the passage of said act; and that any bona fide entries of such lands within said States, since the passage thereof, may be patented without reference to the provisions of said act.

A. EFFECT OF ACT.

1. MINERAL LANDS IN CERTAIN STATES EXCEPTED.

2. CODIFICATION OF ACT.

3. IRON DEPOSITS EXCEPTED.

1. MINERAL LANDS IN CERTAIN STATES EXCEPTED.

This act excepted the mineral lands in the States of Texas, Wisconsin, and Minnesota from the operation of the act of 1872 and declared them to be free and open to exploration and purchase.

Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392, p. 402.

Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co., 104 Fed. 20, p. 47.

By this act deposits or mines of iron and coal in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are expressly excluded from the operation of the mining act of 1872, and lands containing such deposits are subject to sale and purchase according to legal subdivisions the same as other lands.

Pacific Coast Marble Co. v. Northen Pac. R. Co., 25 L. D. 233, p. 240.

2. CODIFICATION OF ACT.

The provisions of this statute and of all other mining statutes, as originally enacted, are at present codified and embodied in sections 2318 to 2352 of the Revised Statutes. Pacific Coast Marble Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 25 L. D. 233, p. 235.

3. IRON DEPOSITS EXCEPTED.

This act expressly excepts deposits or mines of iron in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota from the operation of the act of May 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 91), in effect saying that prior to that time deposits of iron ore had been subject to the operations of such act in the States named and that such deposits remained subject to its operations in States not named.

Clements, In re, Copp's Min. Dec. 214,

18 STAT. 371, MARCH 3, 1875.

MINERAL STATISTICS-RANCHO PANOCHE GRANDE LANDS-INVESTIGATION.

AN ACT Making appropriations for sundry civil expenses for the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1876.

Be it enacted, etc., That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, for the objects hereinafter expressed, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1876, namely:

*

*

*

*

*

*

For collection of mining and mineral statistics, under charge of Prof. Rossiter W. Raymond, the amount to be immediately available, to be expended, and to be for the completion of the work, $15,000. * * *

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to cause a careful examination to be made for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person, firm, or corporation is now occupying any larger portion of the lands known as Rancho Panoche Grande, than is authorized and allowed by the laws relating to mining lands; and that he make full and detailed report of such examination to Congress at the beginning of the next session; and to enable the Secretary of the Interior to carry into effect this provision, the sum of $5,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated.

A. MINERAL LANDS IN CALIFORNIA-PATENT.

This statute offers no obstacle to the hearing or the determination of the application of the New Idria Mining Co. for a patent for certain mineral lands in California. New Idria Min. Co., In re, 15 Op. Atty. Genl. 388, p. 393.

19 STAT. 102, p. 121, JULY 31, 1876.

CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDS-COAL LANDS.

AN ACT Making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1877, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted, etc., * * *

For the survey of public lands and private land claims, $300,000: * * Provided, That no lands shall be surveyed under this appropriation, except, first, those adapted to agriculture without artificial irrigation; irrigable lands, or such as can be redeemed and for which there is sufficient accessible water for the reclamation and cultivation of the same not otherwise utilized or claimed; third, timber lands bearing timber of commercial value; fourth, coal lands containing coal of commercial value; fifth, exterior boundary of town sites; sixth, private land claims.

*

*

*

Similar appropriations for the survey of public lands and private land claims are found in the following statutes:

19 Stat. 344, p. 348; Mar. 3, 1877.

20 Stat. 206, p. 229; June 20, 1878.

20 STAT. 377, p. 392, MARCH 3, 1879.

INSPECTING MINERAL DEPOSITS AND COAL FIELDS.

AN ACT Making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted, etc., * * *

Occasional examinations of public surveys in the several surveying districts, in order to test the accuracy of the work in the field, inspect mineral deposits, coal fields, timber districts, etc., $8,000.

*

*

*

*

*

*

Except as to amounts similar appropriations for inspecting mineral deposits and coal fields, including the mineral resources of Alaska and reports of the same, are found in the following statutes:

21 Stat. 259, pp. 273, 274, June 16, 1880.

21 Stat. 435, p. 451, Mar. 3, 1881.
22 Stat. 302, pp. 327, 329, Aug. 7, 1882.
22 Stat. 603, pp. 623, 624, Mar. 3, 1883.
23 Stat. 194, pp. 211, 212, July 7, 1884.
23 Stat. 478, p. 499, Mar. 3, 1885.
24 Stat. 222, p. 240, Aug. 4, 1886.
24 Stat. 509, p. 527, Mar. 3, 1887.
25 Stat. 505, pp. 525, 527, Oct. 2, 1888.
25 Stat. 939, pp. 959, 960, Mar. 2, 1889.
26 Stat. 371, pp. 390, 391, Aug. 30, 1890.
26 Stat. 948, pp. 971, 972, Mar. 3, 1891.
27 Stat. 349, pp. 370, 371, Aug. 5, 1892.
27 Stat. 572, pp. 592, 594, Mar. 3, 1893.
28 Stat. 372, pp. 394, 398, Aug. 18, 1894.
28 Stat. 910, pp. 937, 939, 940, Mar. 2, 1895.
29 Stat. 413, pp. 434, 435, 436, June 11, 1896.
30 Stat. 11, pp. 33, 37, June 4, 1897.

30 Stat. 597, pp. 620, 622, July 1, 1898.
30 Stat. 1074, p. 1098, Mar. 3, 1899.
31 Stat. 588, pp. 616, 617, June 6, 1900.
31 Stat. 1133, pp. 1160, 1161, Mar. 3, 1901.
32 Stat. 419, pp. 454, 455, June 28, 1902.
32 Stat. 1083, pp. 1117, 1118, Mar. 3, 1903.
33 Stat. 452, pp. 484, 486, Apr. 28, 1904.
33 Stat. 1156, pp. 1185, 1187; Mar. 3, 1905.
34 Stat. 679, pp. 725, 727, June 30, 1906.
34 Stat. 1295, pp. 1334, 1336, Mar. 4, 1907.
35 Stat. 317, pp. 348, 349, May 27, 1908.
35 Stat. 945, pp. 987, 988, Mar. 4, 1909.
36 Stat. 703, pp. 741, 743, June 25, 1910.
36 Stat. 1363, pp. 1416, 1418, 1419, Mar. 4, 1911.
37 Stat. 417, pp. 456, 457, Aug. 24, 1912.

38 Stat. 4, pp. 46, 47, June 23, 1913.

34 STAT. 88, MARCH 27, 1906.

CLASSIFYING PUBLIC LANDS-ALABAMA.

AN ACT To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reclassify the public lands of Alabama.

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized to reclassify the public lands of Alabama, so as to determine which of said lands are in fact agricultural lands and

« ForrigeFortsett »