until the ninth day of November, 1876. It is evident that the protestant did not regard this protest as filed until the ninth of November, for after leaving the papers with the receiver on the eighth of the month, the same were withdrawn and placed on file the following day in the local office, where they remained until transmitted to this office by the local officers. It is alleged by the applicant for patent and his attorney, in their sworn statements, that one or more of the papers filed by the protestant were not signed when left with the Receiver on the eighth of November.

It is, however, unnecessary to inquire whether they were signed on the eighth of November or not, as the protest was not filed until the ninth day of the same month.

Said filing having been made after the expiration of the sixty days notice by publication can not be considered as an adverse claim.

Section 2325 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, provides that if no adverse claim has been filed against an application for patent at the expiration of the sixty days notice by publication, it shall be assumed that the applicant is entitled to a patent, and that no adverse claim exists, and "thereafter no objection from third parties to the issuance of a patent shall be heard, except it be shown that the applicant has failed to comply with the terms of this chapter.'

This filing can be considered as a protest only, and said protestants are to be considered as parties to the contest for the purpose of showing from the record that the claimant has not complied with the requirements of the act. Vide decision of the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, dated April 30, 1874, in case of John H. McMurdy et al. v. E. S.

Streeter et al.

It is urged by the attorney for the protestant that the proof of publication of notice is insufficient.

By the sworn statement of the editor and proprietor of the Elko Weekly Post, it is shown that the notice was "published in said newspaper for sixty (60) days, the first publication being on the ninth day of September, 1876, and the last publication on the eleventh day of November, 1876."

Section 2325, Revised Statutes, requires the Register to publish the notice "for the period of sixty days." Sufficient proof of publication of notice.

The editor and proprietor of said newspaper alleges under oath that the notice was published for the period. of sixty days, and that this fact may be definitely established, he gives in his sworn statement the date of the first and last insertions of such notice, the last insertion being more than sixty days after the first insertion.

The proof of publication of notice in this case is sufficient, and the objection urged is overruled.

It is also urged that the plat and field notes are copies and not the originals.

Question raised as to plats being copies and not originals.

Section 2325, Revised Statutes, provides that an applicant for patent may file in the proper land-office an application for patent, "together with a plat and field notes of the claim made by or under the direction of the United States Surveyor-general, showing accurately the boundaries of the claim."

*

In all cases of applications for patents for mining claims the Surveyor-general prepares four plats of the survey of the claim and also prepares the field notes of such survey in duplicate.

The duplicate field notes and the four plats when found correct are approved by the Surveyor-general.

In the case under consideration one of the plats and a transcript of the field notes of the survey of the claim certified to as correct and duly signed by the Surveyorgeneral of Nevada, in the usual form, and in accordance. with the instructions from this office, were filed with the local officers of the same day that said application for patent was filed.

This objection is accordingly overruled. It is urged that the claimant failed to comply with the law by neglecting to file a certificate of the Surveyor-general that five hundred dollars had been expended upon the claim with the Register, within the sixty days of publication.

The approved plat of the premises for which patent is sought, is referred to as "Survey No. 41, Plat of the John

F. Lewis claim on the Juniper lode, Sprucemont Mining District, Elko county, Nevada." The field notes are equally explicit in referring to the said premises.

As before stated, both the plat and the field notes were filed with the application for patent, and upon each is a certificate of the Surveyor-general of Nevada, "that the value of the labor and improvements upon the said mining. claim is not less than five hundred dollars."

This objection is overruled.

It is urged that no patent can issue upon said application, as "there is no proof that at the time the Juniper claim was located, any ledge had been discovered within the limits of the location claimed."

In the original location notice reference is made to the fact that the locator claimed by virtue of such location "one claim of fifteen hundred (1,500) feet on this ledge, lode, or deposit of mineral-bearing rock," etc.

This claim was recorded in the district recorder's office, and it is to be presumed, in the absence of any proof or allegation to the contrary, that the locator had complied with the law in the matter of his location before the recorder made record thereof. In the sworn statement of the applicant he alleges that he and his grantors "have observed and conformed to the rules, laws, and regulations governing this district."

This objection is overruled.

Several other objections have been urged, but after a careful consideration of the same, and examination of the papers in the case, no objection is found which can defeat the application for patent.

You will upon the receipt hereof allow J. F. Lewis to make entry of the premises applied for, with the exception of that portion abandoned on the sixth of November, 1876.

It will be necessary for the applicant to cause the Surveyor-general to forward amended plat and field notes, describing only that portion of the claim which he has not abandoned.

You will inform all parties in interest and acknowledge the receipt hereof.

Very respectfully, your obd't servant,

J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner.

No. 18. Adverse claim by incorporated company.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., October 26, 1874.

Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado.

GENTLEMEN: I have examined the papers in the case of the application of the Marshall Silver Mining Company, of Georgetown, for patent for fifteen hundred linear feet of the Reynolds lode, Colorado.

The applicant filed proof of compliance with the law.

Within the sixty days notice of publication, John Turck, as agent and attorney for the Equator Mining and Smelting Company, filed an adverse claim against said application for patent.

In his sworn statement he alleges that the premises described in the application for patent embraces and covers the identical ground and vein now owned, held, and possessed by these adverse claimants, to wit: the Equator lode. That said adverse claimant and its grantors have held and worked the Equator lode since the year 1867, and that said adverse claimant has expended on said Equator lode more than sixty thousand dollars.

Accompanying the adverse claim is a plat showing the relative situation of the two claims and the extent of the conflict.

This plat or diagram is certified to by Albert Johnson, deputy surveyor.

By the abstract of title it appears that the said Equator Mining and Smelting Company has record title to the said Equator lode.

By the certificate of the clerk of the court it appears that said adverse claimant commenced suit against said applicant, within the time prescribed by the statute, "to recover possession of fourteen hundred feet in length by fifty feet in width on the Equator lode."

*

*

*

The attorney for the applicant, on the twenty-first of April, 1874, filed with you a request to disregard the adverse claim, as the same had been sworn to by John Turck, as agent and attorney for said Equator mining and smelting company.

In support of his request he cites the decision of the Honorable Secretary of the Interior in the case of the Jenny Lind Mining Company et al. v. the Eureka Mining Coinpany. All of the adverse claimants to the application of the Eureka Mining Company for patent were unincorporated companies or associations.

The Honorable Secretary of the Interior, in his said decision of the twenty-fourth of November, 1873, concurred in the opinion of the Hon. W. H. Smith, Assistant Attorney-general, dated November 22, 1873.

The Honorable Assistant Attorney-general, in his opinion, recites the fact that said adverse claimants were unincorporated companies, and states that "the seventh section of the act of May 10, 1872, provides that where an adverse claim shall be filed during the period of publication, it shall be upon the oath of the person or persons making the same. It does not provide that it may be made upon the oath of an agent or attorney. Without statutory authority an attorney can not make the oath for his client. I find myself obliged to advise that the above-named adverse claims were not properly verified.”

In the case under consideration the adverse claimant is an incorporated company.

Incorporated company act through agent.

An incorporated company must necessarily act through its officers or agents. The company, as a company, can not make oath to the statements contained in an adverse claim presented by it.

Not covered by decision in "Jenny Lind" case.

This adverse claim having been filed in due time and in proper form, the proceedings upon said application will be staid until the controversy shall have been settled or decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, or the adverse claim waived, as provided in the seventh section of the mining act of May 10, 1872.

You will inform all parties in interest, and acknowledge the receipt hereof.

Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.