Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1914-01-06
DECEMBER A BUSY
MONTH At SANTA
r LAND OFFICE
-arge Area Of Land Entered
Under Homestead and DeS-
ert Acts Copy Of Far
Reaching Ruling Received.

,srseiAl nisptrc. 10 sopsise ioussaLi
i santa Fe. Jan THE Santa Re
land Office which includes Bernahllo
county 10 its Jurisdiction. registered
.li76 entries during the month OF De-
laemher. covering 23.bSG.5l5 acres ac-
eording 10 the report made TINS fore
noon hy Recover Francisco Deigado
. and Register Benigno Hernandez TINS
Is a good months business ana the
fees received amounted TO Sl.4S9.S9.
The biggest body Of land was covered
lv the forty-six final homestead en-
ltfies made during the month, tota
iof 1.fG7.34 acres on which the ices
lamounted 70 S292.7l Then came
lforty-four original homestead entries
covering G.59S.74 acres and the fees
| sgga a0. thirty-eight Indian ailot-
. ments. l.TO44l acres; seventeen final
: homesteads under act Of June s. 1872,
E covering 2.874.6i acres. thirteen orig
mai homesteads under act of February
, Ire. 1909 covering S,357.70 acres with
/ fees Of S25i seven finals under act
81 same date, l,363.S5 acres Il fees
lsl005 three original homcsteads, act
] az June III. 1906 covering 22e.S5
: acres. fees s2s.32. two coal declara-
tory statements. 800 acres; one small
holding claim. ls acres; one desert
= entry 1860 acres, and one final home
{ stead under act Of February 10, 1909.
= covering 1928 acres
The office today received the full
: lopiniOn Of a. A. Jones reversing the
+ department Of the interior in the ia
( nous yard case. which conferred the
illegal right upon forest officials To
iattack the validity OF a claim. whether
agricultural or mineral, prior to the
+ time when an application was formal
/ 8lv presented 20 the government Of
!. tho United states and before the land
department acquired jurisdiction. The
/. syllabus Of that ease was as follows
THE land department has fun au-
thority, Of IFS own motion or at the
instance OF others, TO inquire into and
determine whether mining locations
within national forests were proceed
: ed by the requisite discovery Of min
eral and whether the lands are of the
character subject 10 occupation and
: purchase under the mining laws, not
= lwlthstanding tho locator mas not APP
piled for patent; and If the locations
be found 90 be invalid. the lands GOV
cred thereby win be administered as
ipart Of the public domain. subject 10
= the reservation for forest purposes
= without regard to the locations
Now comes Andrews A. Jones. a cit
izen az New Mexico, now first assistant
secretary Of the interior and holds If
L the case TX partu D. =. Nichols and
n Cg Smith. coming Before him from
the United states land office at Ia
iGfande. ore, wherein the said office
land the commissioner OF the genera
land office affirmed the opinion in
tine Yard case. and reversing former
Secretary OF the Interior Ethan AlleF
Hitchcock and says
This proceeding was instituted I'M
der authority Of the department hold
ing In II H. Yard ct al. (3S /. d
SD upon the report OF an eSaminel
OF mining claims Of the forest ser
~ vice. upon which the followini
charges We're formulated and serve,
= upon the claimants.
l. That there have been no dis
81 coyeries % minerals upon the land
embraced in said claims or either o
7 them.
.. That enid claims are not hel,
IN good faith for mining purposes. hu
for the purpose Of speculation and tn
= rental % the lands to parties for graz
i. ing purposes.
:. A hearing upon said charges wa
90 duly had before the local officers. VIII
rendered decision recommendin
10 that the claims De declared nun AM
40 void upon the ground that there hai
81 been no discovery of mineral upol
rs the land The finding and recon-
mendation of. the local officers wer
affirmed hy the commissioner. of tn
e. general land office, as has been stated
ps After careful consideration Of tn
~ question presented by this record. tn
81 department Is convinced that the pol
- icy followed IS the land department
since the decision In the Yard case
supra. IS entirely indefensihle, whethe
i viewed from AN administrative or le
=. gal standpoint
Z. While the title to land remains #
{ the United States and controversial
- agise between occupants thereof
p whether agricultural or mineral. nei
Their party having invoked the iuris
diction If the land department for In
= purpose Of acquiring the ultimate Il
IT. tle Che courts have the power TO de
en- termine their rights based upon tn
- law of possession and an other cues
'el lions necessarily involved Indie o
e. Mines. PARAGRAPH los citing Marque
q IS. Frshle l0l T.. s.. 47S. AS. Is
M peeiaily Is this true Of a valid loea
~ lion of mineral lands, which Is prol
&c erty and, while maintained is reuure
If y law. has The effect on 4 grant Of
nj right % the exclusive possessio
.ot thereof against the United States q
we'll as any other party. plaintiff @
he defendant lSeea Belk VS.. Moaghe
"a ioi T. $, 27s and Gwilnn vs. Dor
-. noiien, ms a. :. f5l Being thus
en- vested legal right euforcile in tt
NJ courts. they necessarily have iurlsdii
~ tion 20 determine whether the rigi
does or does not exist This mrlsdi
on ton in the absence ri AN applleatle
a. a. the department looking TO the az
81 QUESTION 81 the legal title. is clearI
a. exclusive. since the question as /
~ ET@N