The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1895-07-31

and 6 and the SCI OF the nw4 and the
nw4 of the set of section 80, township
63 north, range II west, and notifying
us that the resident council for Hart
mann and Billson, Alden and James
and Wheeler and Meyer, had been
notified by your Office, we have the
honor to transmit herewith proof that
notice of said decision was served upon
Thomas j. McKeon, attorney for
Stokes and Lawrence; upon John
Brennan, attorney for Hyde and Nc
Donald, and upon r. N. Marble, at
torney for Sullivan and Mauseau, each
by registered letter on Feb. IA, 1895.
We have to report that no motion for
review, or further action has been
taken in said matter in this office.
"The reason this office advised you
that the attorneys for certain parties
had been notified of the decision of
the department, was that you might
know when the time for filing mo-
tion for review for said parties began
to run. All parties to the record
should be notified of all departmental
decisions promulgated by this office,
by sending copy of such decisions to
the aggrieved parties. You seem by
your own letter not to have done this,
and you are now directed to have
copies made of said decision of Dec.
Il, 1894 and register the same to all
parties of record excepting Hartmann
and Billson, and in due time report
action. Respectfully,
Edward A. Bowers,
Acting Commissioner"
After reading these instructions,
the first impression naturally is that
the showing made by council has
merit in it. But in the case of Weed
vs.. Sampsel, decided by the depart
ment Dec. 5, 1894, 10 L. D., 461), it is
held that 'the rule that requires a
copy of the decision to accompany the
notice thereof is not applicable where
notice is sent by general land office to
attorneys of record resident in Wash
ington,"
1t is evident, therefore, that the in
structiOns in your office letter of May
2, supra, given long after said decision
was rendered, were contrary to the
rule of the department in so far as
they required new notices to be sent
to the resident connect and copies of
decisions sent them. Therefore,
Hartmann and Billson would have
acquired no additional rights had
they received new notice and copy
of said decision as directed in your
office letter "H" of May 2, 1895, and
are deprived of no rights by failure to
receive such notice. There is no
merit therefore in the showing made
by counsel for Billson and Hartmann,
and as the motions for review filed
under the original notices were
properly disposed of under the rules of
practice, said motion for re-review, or
further consideration of said motion
for review, is denied, and the papers
are herewith returned to the files
without further action, as required by
amended rule of practice No. IA III l..
D., 194.)
Mcdonald and Hyde were the only
parties who availed themselves of the
privileges afforded by the new notices,
to file motions for review. The
original notices of the decision of Dec.
q, 1894, received by them through
the local office, contained only a
synopsis and not copy of the de
cision. The seperate motions for re-
view now filed by them are identical
in substance and phraseology. The
errors alleged in said decision are nine
in number. But presentation of
them seriatum is not deemed neces-
sary. / have.carefully considerd them
all. They present no question of
either law or fact that was not care
fully and exhaustiyely considered
in the original decision. ''Under
such circumstances the department
has repeatedly held that motions for
review should be denied" Shields
VS.. Mcdonald, Is L. D., $50 and au-
+Lor;t ;oc fbora r;to1 \
Said motions are therefore denied.
In promulgabing this decision, you
will direct the local officers to include
a copy thereof to both Hyde and Nc
Donald. Very Respectfully,
Hoke Smith,
Secretary.