Arizona republican., 1898-02-15
Recent Happenings iu Washing ton Affecting This Territory
PATENTS AND PENSIONS
A Decision in the Clark
 SChuerman Mining Case
An Abstract of the Condition of Ter ritorial Banks Last year. Changes Made in Arizona Post Offices. Many Other Matters

Washington, Feb. 14.-(Specia1. J. The following named postofices in Arizona have become domestic money order offices:
 Chloride, Mohave county; Concho, Apache county; Fortuna, Yuma cOun- ty; Kirkland, Yavapai county; Mari copa, Pinal county; Mohave City, Mo have county; Oracle, Pinal county; Gro Blanco, Pima county; Palomas, Yuma county; San Simon, Cochise county; Seligman, Yavapai county; Storm, Yavapai county; Big Bug, Briggs, and Chapparal, Yavapai coun- ty; Glendale, Maricopa county; Sig nal, Mohave county; Young, Gila county
 The abstract of the condition of the national banks of Arizona at the close of business on December 18th, as re- ported to the comptroller of the cur rency shows the average reserve to have been 41.9O per cent against 42.52 per cent on October 9th. Loars and discounts increased from s797,S2i to 902, ,301. Stocks and securities intr as ed from s132,232 to $133, 66S. Due from crease from s4S,S43 to s76,282. There was an increase in the amount due from state banks and bankers from $6S,416 to s69,106. Approved reserve agents increased their obligations from s292,243 to s331, ,556. Gold coin on hand increased from s126,s15 to S136,572, and the total specie from s141, ,164 to s14S,609 Other increases were: Lawful money reserve, from s179,301 to s195, 5,534; individual d:pos- its from s1,135,47S to s1,2S5,349.
 John W. Morse of Tempe has been appointed a railway mail clerk.
 Patents have been granted to Ari- zonans as follows: Lee A. Hawes and W. N Gardner, Jerome, bicycle canteen; Hugo A. Zeckendorf of Tue son, tool handle and device for secur- ing the same.
 The pay of Otto L. Sues of Arizona, a clerk in the pension office, has been
 
 decreased from s1 400 to $1,20o.
 The secretary of the interior has rendered his decision in the West Champion lode claim case as follows: The Commissioner of the General
 Land Office.
 Sir: The record in the matter of the protest of George H. Schuerman, against mineral entry No. 274, made by William A. Clark, August 12, 1895, for the West Champion No. 2 lodes claim, Prescott, Arizona, is before the department on the appeal of Schuer- man from your office decision of July 13, 1897, dismissing said protest
 The attorneys for Clark request inn mediate action by the department, for the reason alleged that the protest and appeal appear to be VexatiOus and in- tended to distress mineral claimant in the use of his property" A copy of this letter of request was accepted by attorneys for Schuerman on Novem- Der 13, 1897, with objections" but no reason has been assigned why imme- diate consideration should not be given the case.
 The appeal in this case being from an order of your office refusing a hearing, brings the case within the special order of January 29, 1896, and it is therefore current work" and entitled to the right of way.
 Schuerman first filed protest against Clark's entry, on January 3, 1896. This protest was not corroborated and was dismissed by your office decision o1 January IA, 1896. On April 2, 1896 he filed a second protest, accompanied by the af1idavits of Daniel Moore an( Thomas T. Van Wagenen in corrobor ation thereof.
 This protest was considered in you office decision of June 8, 1896, in con nection with the proof offered b! Clark, and was held to be insufficien to warrant an official investigation On September 4, 1896, a motion for re view of that decision was denied, bu in view of the decision of the depart ment of May 23, 1896, in the case O Gowdy ct al vs. Kismet Gold Minini company, it was held by your office on review, that inasmuch as the min eral applicant had failed to designat
 in his notice of publication "the nam
 or names of adjoining claimants O
 the same or other lodes," as require
 by paragraph 29 of the circular C
 December 10, 1891, and held to b
 mandatory by the departmental decis
 ion he would be required to republis
 his notice of application for paten
 From this decision Clark appeale,