The new daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1872-1873, 1872-09-18
LAND OFFICE DE.
CISION.

INV pdSSeu ny SoLsoIeSS eAteUul1lf
the time to presumption settlers on thu
public lands for making proof and fna
payment, expired by limitation July 20
1872. This applies to all who made theil
filing prior to April IA, 1870, and who
have neglected to make proof and pay.
ment. The following important decis.
ion is in reply to letter of inquiry from
Z. S. Receiver, S. c. Wright, of the Car
son Land Office:
WASHINGTON, d. c., Aug 81, 1872.
Register and Receiver, Carson City,
| Nevada. Gentlemen: In reply to the
Receivers letter of the 18th instant, l
have to state that the circular of July 20,
1872, applies to the State of Nevada; the
only exceptions being Michigan, Wiscon-
sin, Minnesota, California and the Ter
ritory of Dakota. Therefore all filings
based on settlement prior to April II,
1870, expired on the 14th ult. BY sever
al Departmental decisions it has been
held that parties who apply to prove up
after the expiration of the statutory linn
tation may be permitted to do so, provided
no adverse claims has interviewed A
claimant cannot be allowed to file a sec
ond time for the same land, on expiration
of the legal period allowed for entry, al
legidg new settlement. Such declar-
alton would be manifest contradiction
III terms of the facts alleged in his fling
already of record, and would amount to
a qualification of the claimant, which
this office cannot legally permit.
oil fha
limit to elapse without making proof and
payment, they do so at their own peril,
and cannot be protected after such ttches
against an adverse interest legally ac-
quired. On the contrary the law will be
strictly applied in favor of such adverse
claimant, and his legal right will be Sc
cured to him whenever he shall present
himself in conformity with the require
ments of law and demand its recognition.
l have further to advise you on point
which ii appears,is not clearly understood:
That deciaratory filing is not and never
has been a legal bar to the filing of any
other person or to disposal of the land
by homestead or other lawful entry or
by State selection. In such case the
claim of the pre-emptor is paramount |
and will defeat the subsequent disposal |
or filing, if he complies with the law,
and duly proves up his claims within the |
period allowed by statute. After such |
period has elapsed, lis tilingc ceases by p
Grafton of law to stand as an adverse |
right: and the next legal claim in order
Of time will take precedence.
The law is for the protection of the set,
Ter during its own period of limitation.
After that he is merely permitted to con-
his claim in the absence of any
,ther right except of the United States.
To secure protection he must comply
With the statute under which he claims
within the time and in the manner pre-
cribed by its terms; and in case of fail
Ire, it is wisely provided that he who
lext in order shall SO comply, shall be
preferred in its administration.
The decision of the Supreme Court
ase of johnson, ct al, vs.. Towsley--
lpon which inquiry has been made to
his office respecting second filings upon
nofered lands, relates to o second fling
or another tract from that embraced in
he first declaratory statement, and not to
he same land. Very respectfully,
WILLIS DRUMMoND, Commissioners.