previously reported (14,628.48 miles), make a total of 15,071.14 miles of such roads, distributed as follows:

During the fiscal year there were certified for railroad purposes 278,334.11 acres, showing a decrease as compared with the previous year of 328,006.54 acres. No certifications were made in favor of wagonroads or canals.

Ten patents were issued, covering 77 pages of record, and five approved transcripts, covering 16 pages of record.

The lists of selections awaiting examination at the close of the fiscal year covered 1,250,573.77 acres.

In their appropriate place in this report will be found carefully prepared tables showing the condition of the adjustment of the various land grants at the close of the fiscal year.

The number of contested cases received from the organization of the division in 1872 to June 30, 1879, was 3,793, of which 2,311 had at the latter date received final action and been closed; 947 had been acted upon but not finally disposed of, and 535 remained on which no action whatever had been taken by the office.

Of ex parte cases, 6,387 were received up to the close of the fiscal year, 2,935 of which had at that time been finally acted upon and closed; 528 had received action, but yet remained open; and 2,924 had received no official attention save their entry upon the books of the division.

The number of letters received during the fiscal year was 5,001, and of letters written 5,212. The record of the latter covered 4,807 pages.

Since my last annual report many important decisions affecting railroad interests have been made both by the department and the Supreme Court.

In the case of Yates vs. California and Oregon Railroad Company, it was held that a pre-emption claim, though valid and subsisting at the time the grant to a railroad company took effect, which was afterwards abandoned, does not except the tract covered thereby from the operation of such grant, but the tract inures to the grant as of the date when it became effective.

In Kniskern vs. Hastings and Dakota Railroad Company, it was held, under the act of March 21, 1864, which relieved certain persons, then absent on duty in the military or naval service, from personal presence at the district land office, and authorized them to make the required affidavit before their commanding officer, and to appoint a representative to file their applications, that an entry made by a single man in the

military service who had not made bona fide improvement and settlement as required was illegal, and would not defeat a railroad grant attaching during the existence of such entry.

In White vs. Hastings and Dakota Railroad Company, it was held that a legal homestead entry subsisting to a tract of land at the date of a grant in presenti to a railroad excepts the tract so entered from such grant notwithstanding the entry may have been canceled prior to the date when the grant attached. It was also held that a decision made in accordance with rulings in force at the time renders the subject of the controversy res judicata as between the parties in interest, but does not conclude a third person from asserting a claim to the same land under modifications of former rulings and different circumstances, if the title to the land has not been transferred.

In Cox vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, it was held that when at the time the grant to the railroad became effective a pre-emption settler's claim was valid and subsisting, and defeated the right of the company to the tract, his subsequent failure to perform the acts required by law is a question between such settler and the government only.

In Serrano vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, it was held that where the pre-emption settler had failed to perform the acts required by law and thereafter a railroad grant attached, the preference right to purchase is forfeited, and the tract would inure to such grant.

The Supreme Court, at its late term (October, 1878), in Ryan vs. Central Pacific Railroad Company, declared that the right to indemnity for lands lost within the limits of a grant to a railroad attaches only from date of regular selection. The department, in Blodgett vs. California and Oregon Railroad Company, followed that decision, and held, further, that a withdrawal in favor of a company would protect the grant from the intervention of adverse claims initiated subsequent to such reservation.

In Turner vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company, it was held that a pre-emption or homestead claim which was initiated to land within the limits of a railroad grant after the time when the grant took effect, even though prior to the time when the notice of the withdrawal for the company was received at the district office, is not a valid pre-emption or homestead claim within the meaning of the second section of the act of April 21, 1876; and subsequent entries based upon such pre-emption or homestead claims are not confirmed by said statute. In Weber vs. Western Pacific Railroad Company, it was held that to constitute a valid pre-emption claim within the intention of the second section of said act of April 21, 1876, the prior claimant must have possessed the requisite qualifications and have met the essential requirements of the laws under which he claimed.

In Starkweather rs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company it was held that the rulings now in force can be applied to determine whether the prior claim was "valid" within the meaning of the second section of the act of April 21, 1876, aforesaid, notwithstanding such claim may have been, under former rulings, declared void.

In Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad Company vs. Kansas Pacific Railway Company, it was held that in cases where grants of lands are made by the same act of Congress to two different companies, which act imposes the same conditions on each company, they are contemporaneous in origin, and the right of one company as respects the other does not depend upon priority of location or construction, but that lands falling within the overlapping limits of the two roads inure to them jointly.

It was also held that title does not pass from the government under a patent until it has been delivered to and accepted by the grantee.

In the matter of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, it was held that the time within which the company is required to complete its road does not expire until July 4, 1880; that the only right reserved to the United States in case of a failure by the company to comply with the requirements of its charter is to "do any and all acts and things which may be needful and necessary to insure a speedy completion of said road," the grant to said company differing from most railroad grants in respect to the provisions for forfeiture in case the road is not built, and that a line of "general route," not being a "definite location," may be changed or amended by the company.

In McGregor and Missouri River Railroad Company vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company it was held that the grant to the State of Iowa by act of May 12, 1864, vested an estate in presenti; that the disposal of lands is not restricted to the limits conterminous with construction, being restricted by quantity and lateral limits only; and that the department is not necessarily called upon to decide upon rights declared by State legislation not in conflict with the granting act, as existing in the various companies having constructed the road,

Readjustment of grants under decisions of Supreme Court.-Under the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Leavenworth, Lawrence and Galveston Railroad Company vs. The United States, which established the principle that in railroad grants indemnity was not given for lands within the limits of the grant disposed of prior thereto, a readjustment of these grants was made necessary. Under the most favorable circumstances the progress of such work would be apparently slow, though proceeding with all the dispatch compatible with correctness, yet it has been unavoidably procrastinated and retarded by the smallness of the clerical force of the division.

In my last report the grants for the Hastings and Dakota, Wisconsin Central, California and Oregon, Saint Paul and Pacific, Saint Vincent Extension (constructed road only), Southern Pacific (main line), and Saint Joseph and Denver City Railroad companies were reported as having been carefully examined and the quantity of lands each company was entitled to under the decision ascertained. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1879, no further examinations had been made, the limited clerical force of this branch of the office having been otherwise engaged. Since the last-named date, however, the grant for the Saint Paul and Pacific (Brainard Branch) Railroad Company has been carefully examined and the quantity it will receive under the decision referred to ascertained.

Lands within railroad grants reserved for adjustment of foreign grant claims.-The Supreme Court decision in the case of Newhall vs. Sanger, following the Osage ceded lands decisions, had particular reference to the attachment of railroad rights upon lands covered at the time of the railroad grant by a foreign grant claim, and settled the question adversely to the railroad company, holding that lands reserved for the adjustment of a foreign grant claim at the time of making the railroad grant did not pass under the latter, and, on their release from reservation by adjustment or rejection of the foreign grant claim, became a part of the public domain. This decision is of importance in the adjustment of railroad grants in the State of California, and will render necessary a great amount of careful work. Prior to its rendition the department had held that the railroad grant attached to such lands on their release from reservation, and under such construction thousands of acres were patented

to the companies, to which, under the beforementioned decision, they were not entitled. Consequently each grant will have to be examined in connection with the foreign grant claims, and lists of lands excepted and erroneously patented made up for appropriate action thereon. stated in my last report that at that time the lands embraced in one grant only-the Manuel Diaz-had been ascertained and the matter laid before the Secretary, and that another-the Moquelamos-was partially prepared. The latter has been completed and the matter laid before the Secretary, and suit thereon against the Western Pacific Railroad Company has, at the direction of the Attorney-General, been instituted.

The records of this office are not perfect enough to establish the reservations of lands for the many foreign grant claims which, genuine or fraudulent, were presented and fought to a termination, successful or otherwise, after legal conflicts many years in duration. These can only be established from the records of the surveyor general of California, who has been called upon to give the necessary information. Some idea of the extent to which these grant claims may or do conflict with railroad grants may be formed from the statement that the confirmed and surveyed claims alone are 576 in number.

Restoration of Missouri River, Fort Scott and Gulf Railroad lands.— By the act of March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., p. 404), part of the act making a grant of lands to the State of Kansas to aid in the construction of the Kansas and Neosho Valley Railroad was repealed, the company on surrender of the lands not disposed of by it, and payment of money's received for those disposed of, was released from the obligations imposed by the grant, and the lands surrendered were to be restored to market by proclamation of the President, and opened to settlement and purchase under the homestead laws only. By proclamation of the President the lands affected. with the exception of a few tracts of doubtful status which will require future action, have been restored to entry under the homestead laws only.

Restoration of lands in Iowa withdrawn for Mississippi and Missouri Railroad.-An act approved June 15, 1878 (20 Stat., p. 133), directs the restoration to settlement, under the pre-emption and homestead laws, of all vacant unappropriated lands heretofore withdrawn for the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad in Iowa, situated more than twenty miles from the amended line of route as located under the act approved June 2, 1864, and not including any lands embraced in the confirmatory act of January 31, 1873.

A complete list of all vacant lands affected by this act, embracing about five hundred acres, was prepared and forwarded to the district land office, and the restoration will be effected in a short time.

Right of way railroads.-The number of railroad companies claiming the benefits of the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., p. 482), granting to railroads the right of way over the public lands, is continually increasing, until, at present, the adjustment of their rights forms a large part of the work of this division. A table showing the railroads thus far entitled to the benefits of the act will be found in another part of this report.

Payment for surveys of railroad lands.—The sundry civil appropriation act of July 31, 1876 (19 Stat., p. 121), contains the requirement "that before any land granted to any railroad company by the United States shall be conveyed to such company, or any persons entitled thereto under any of the acts incorporating or relating to said company, unless such company is exempted by law from the payment of such cost, there

shall first be paid into the Treasury of the United States the cost of surveying, selecting, and conveying the same by the said company or persons in interest." This enactment, buried in an appropriation bill, escaped notice until in 1878.

The question of exemption from payment of such costs was considered by the Secretary in the matter of the grant to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the grant to the State of Kansas for the Saint Joseph and Denver City Railroad Company. It was held that, in the adjustment of all railroad grants falling within the terms of the act, the requirements thereof must be met before certifications or patents can issue for lands granted to the company. The provisions of the statute were construed, however, as not applying to grants made to States to aid in the construction of railroads not named in the granting act; but where the grant is to a State in trust for the benefit of a company named, and the State is simply an intermediary and not a beneficiary, the payment required must be made.

Pacific Railroad lands.-In Platt es. Union Pacific Railroad Company, decided at the October term, 1878, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that a mortgage constitutes a "disposal" within the meaning of the third section of the act of July 1, 1862, and that lands thus encumbered were not subject to pre-emption settlement and entry. Following said ruling the Secretary modified the decisions of the department in the case of Dudymott vs. The Kansas Pacific Railroad Company, and appropriate instructions have accordingly been issued.

Railroad grants lapsed by reason of non-completion of roads.—In my reports for the past two years I submitted a list of railroad grants which had expired by limitation, the roads for whose benefit they were made not having been constructed within the period prescribed by law, recommending that the attention of Congress be specially called to the subject, and that legislation be urged, looking either to the enforcement of the forfeiture of the grants, or extending the time for the completion of the roads. Various bills looking toward enforcement of the forfeiture have been introduced in Congress, but thus far no definite result has been reached. The recommendations on the subject are respectfully renewed, with the earnest hope that legislative action will be taken at an early day, either for the relief of the corporations or the restoration of the lands to market.

During the fiscal year just closed no grants have lapsed.

The Port Huron and Lake Michigan Railroad grant, heretofore reported as lapsed, is this year omitted from the list of such grants, Congress having by joint resolution of 3d of March, 1879, released to the State of Michigan any and all reversionary interest in the lands which the United States possessed. A list of the lapsed grants, carefully revised, will be found elsewhere in this report.

Clerical force.-This division has sorely felt the want of adequate clerical force during the past fiscal year. The many important changes in the rulings, readjustment of cases under the act of April 21, 1876, examinations necessary to give effect to the Newhall-Sanger decision, and the complications incident to the advanced adjustments of many of the railroad grants, with the rapidly increasing current work, have prevented a showing that might otherwise have been made.

While at present the clerical force is in better condition than for some years past, it is still inadequate to perform the work imposed upon the division. I submit in full the following decisions affecting railroad grants.