Page images
PDF
EPUB

The act of May 30, 1862 (12 Stat., 409), contains the following provision:

"That patents shall not issue for any such private claim until the cost of survey and platting shall have been paid into the Treasury of the United States by the claimants."

The act of July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 332), provided that the cost of survey of private land claims in California should be borne by the claimants.

The act of March 2, 1869 (15 Stat., 342), confirmed certain private land claims in New Mexico and provided that the Commissioner of the General Land Office should cause the survey thereof at the expense of the claimants, and that "upon the filing of said surveys and plats in his office, he shall issue patents for the said lands in said Territory which have heretofore been confirmed by act of Congress and surveyed and plats of such survey filed in his office, as aforesaid, but for which no patents have heretofore been issued." It was held by this department in construing said law that where a survey for a private land claim in New Mexico had been recognized and adopted by the Commissioner of the General Land Office the act left no discretion with the commissioner, but imposed simply the ministerial duty of issuing a patent in accordance with the survey. (Case of Preston Beck, jr., Copp's Land Laws, 1882, vol. 2, p. 1293.)

[ocr errors]

The act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 371, 384), repealed that portion of the act of May 30, 1862, which required that the cost of survey and platting should be paid by the claimant for any private land claim before a patent should be issued. In the following year, however, in the act of July 31, 1876 (19 Stat., 102, 121), the law was again enacted in the following language:

"That a patent shall not issue nor shall any copy of any such survey be furnished for any such private claim until the cost of survey and platting shall have been paid into the Treasury of the United States by the party or parties in interest in said grant or by any other party."

Section 2400, United States Revised Statutes, contains similar provision with reference to the payment of the cost of surveying private land claims by claimants. The same is found in the second edition, issued pursuant to the act of Congress of March 2, 1877 (19 Stat., 268). Legislation to the same effect is found in the act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat., 478, 499).

The act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 854), provided for the establishment of a court of private land claims for the settlement of private land claims in New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming, by virtue of any Spanish or Mexican grant. It is provided therein in section 10 that one-half of the necessary expense of making the survey and platting of private land claims shall be paid by the claimant or patentee and shall be a lien on the land which may be enforced by the sale of so much thereof as may be necessary for that purpose and that no patent shall issue until such payment.

Sections 16 and 17 of the act provide for the recognition of such claims by the deputy surveyor in surveys thereafter to be made, but no provision is made for assessing the expenses against the small holding claimant.

It would require a great deal of time and labor to ascertain the approximate amount of money that would be involved should the bill become a law.

In view of the foregoing, I would state with reference to the bill under consideration that if Congress seès fit to enact the same into law I have no objection to urge. Very respectfully,

Hon. JOHN E. RAKER,

SAMUEL ADAMS,
Acting Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, February 5, 1913.

Chairman Subcommittee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. DEAR SIR: In tesponse to your letter of January 24, 1913, concerning Senate 6781, "An act in reference to the issuance of patents and copies of surveys on private land claims," I have the honor to answer the questions propounded by you as follows:

First. There is now due the United States on private land claims in New Mexico $4,754.04, representing the total cost of surveying and platting such claims, which were confirmed by acis of Congress prior to the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stats., 854). The cost of surveying and platting is charged to the claimants under section 3 of the act of May 30, 1862 (12 Stats., 409), and the act of July 31, 1876 (19 Stats., 122). The enactment of the proposed legislation would reduce the amount due by one-half; that is, by $2,377.02.

The only other claims on which money is due the United States for surveying and platting are in Arizona and New Mexico, and are affected by the act of March 3, 1891,

supra, and in these cases there is due the United States one-half the cost of surveying and platting. Although there are a large number of surveyed and unpatented claims in other States, mostly of small area, and in Louisiana, the laws under which they were surveyed made no provision for reimbursement of the United States for any part of the cost of the survey, and no accounts were kept whereby the cost of surveying and platting such claims can now be determined; hence it would be impossible to administer a law requiring claimants in these cases to repay to the United States one-half of the cost of surveying and platting their claims, and for this reason it is thought that the legislation, if enacted, should be confined to New Mexico.

Second. There are seven claims in New Mexico which would be affected by the proposed legislation, three of which claims were patented in the early eighties, the patents on which, however, remain undelivered because of the fact that the United States has not been reimbursed for the cost of surveying and platting the claims. Third. The seven claims above mentioned involve an area of 426,670.48 acres. Fourth. The enactment of the proposed legislation would not change existing law as to issuing patents to the confirmee in each case.

Fifth. The plats of survey in the cases mentioned have already been approved on dates ranging from November 23, 1860, to June 29, 1885. The United States claims no interest in any of the grants. The issuance of patent in each case acts merely as a relinquishment of title upon the part of the United States Government, and under laws confirming such claims, does not affect any title which may exist in third parties. It is not thought that the proposed legislation would affect existing law as to the form of patent.

Sixth. There is no necessity for the proposed legislation so far as the interests of the Government are concerned.

Seventh. Section 2 of the bill would repeal the requirement in the acts of May 30, 1862, and July 31, 1876, above referred to, that the claimants reimburse the United States for the full cost of surveying and platting such grants. It is not thought to be the intention of said section to repeal any law which did not impose a charge upon the claimant for surveying and platting his claim.

Eighth. It is thought that said section 2 should be eliminated because of its seeming general and sweeping character, and because it is unnecessary in carrying out what is thought to be the intention of the proposed legislation, that is, to reduce the amount required to be paid by certain New Mexico private land claimants in order to receive patents on their claims.

It is thought that the bill should be amended so as to clearly state this intention. If the bill is not so amended, it might be held to affect surveyed and unpatented claims in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Missouri, on which no amounts are required to be paid under existing law by the claimants in order to receive patents.

In this connection, I have the honor to call attention to the report of this department on H. R. 18897, Sixty-first Congress, second session, which was identical with Senate 6781, now under consideration.

Respectfully,

SAMUEL ADAMS, First Assistant Secretary.

[ocr errors]

3d Session.

EXEMPTION FROM CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN DESERT-LAND ENTRIES IN THE CHUCKAWALLA VALLEY AND PALO VERDE MESA, CAL.

FEBRUARY 7, 1913.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. RAKER, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the

following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. 7875.]

The Committee on the Public Lands, having had under consideration the bill (S. 7875) to exempt from cancellation certain desert-land entries in the Chuckawalla Valley and Palo Verde Mesa, Riverside County, Cal., beg leave to recommend the following amendment:

First. In line 7, page 2, strike out the word "sixteen" and insert in lieu thereof the word "fifteen."

With the above amendment the committee recommend that the bill do pass. Senate bill 7875 as amended is identical with the bill H. R. 26943 as reported by the House Committee on the Public Lands. The House bill extends the time two years, namely, to May 1, 1915. The Senate bill extends the time three years, namely, to May 1, 1916.

The Secretary of the Interior in making report upon the bill to the Committee on the Public Lands of the House of Representatives, under date of January 16, 1913, recommended that an extension of time be granted for two years, and the House committee reported the bill accordingly, and the committee, having thus made the report, have recommended that the Senate bill be amended in conformity with their report on the House bill although the committee can see no possible objection to extending further time to these entrymen and that no injury or detriment would be occasioned to the Government if their time was extended to May 1, 1916. The purpose of this legislation is to give the settlers on the townships referred to in the bill until May 1, 1915, to make any annual or final proof falling due on the entries before that time. The entrymen made their entries expecting to secure water from the Chuckawalla Development Co. This company proposed to secure water from the Colorado River and convey it to these entrymen. The Chuckawalla Co. was unable H R-62-3-vol 1—52

to secure permission from the United States Government to construct a dam across the Colorado River, which was necessary to enable it to secure water for the entrymen, and therefore it will be unable to carry out its agreement with the entrymen. The entrymen are now organizing a mutual company with the intention of raising capital and starting a project of their own to furnish water for their entries. It is the object of this bill to give these entrymen time to perfect their proposed project.

There are some 800 of these entrymen, residents of the State of California, who have made bona fide filings upon this desert land, as it appears to your committee, and that an extension of time will be of no detriment to the Government and will be of much value to the entrymen.

There are no intervening rights, and if this legislation is enacted it will be of benefit to the entrymen and will allow them to eventually reclaim this desert land and thereby put in cultivation that which is now a barren desert waste.

The following letter from the Hon. Secretary of the Interior addressed to Hon. Reed Smoot, chairman Committee of Public Lands of the Senate, is hereby made a part of this report:

Hon. REED SMOOT,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, January 27, 1913.

Chairman Committee on Public Lands, United States Senate. SIR: In response to the request of your committee, I have the honor to submit the following report and recommendation with reference to Senate bill 7875, entitled "A bill to exempt from cancellation certain desert-land entries in the Chuckawalla Valley and Palo Verde Mesa, Riverside County, Cal.," with the explanation that a similar report was made by this department on December 28, 1912, to Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, chairman of the Committee on Public Lands of the House of Representatives, upon House bill 26943, bearing the same title and in words the same as the Senate bill 7875.

This bill is in words the same as the act approved on June 7, 1912 (Public, No. 186), except that three more townships have been included, that there is a slight change in the wording of the last few lines, and the time within which annual and final proofs may be made upon desert-land entries in the townships mentioned is extended to May 1, 1916, instead of May 1, 1913, and the bill, if enacted into legislation, will relate to desert-land entries for lands in the said townships made since June 7, 1912, and to the date of the approval.

The said act approved on June 7, 1912, was the result of the passage of Senate bill 6508, upon which this department made a report to your committee on May 10, 1912, as follows:

"The law under which these entries were made requires the entryman to expend at least $1 per acre for three years in necessary improvements on the land and requires reclamation and a specified amount of cultivation within four years from the date of the entries.

"The Commissioner of the General Land Office advises me that investigations of the facts and conditions surrounding the entries referred to show that the entrymen were induced to make their filings from possibly false representations as to the feasibility of irrigation projects from which they expected to obtain water and as to the suitability of the land for the growing of citrus fruits, by a locating firm to whom they, or a large number of them, were induced to pay a locating fee of $1 per acre, and the facts, so far as they are known to this department, are not sufficient to justify a conclusion as to whether these lands can be profitably irrigated, and there are no funds available from which it could make the expenditure necessary to ascertain these facts. "Representations made to this department on behalf of the persons interested in these entries indicate that they will need additional time within which to make the investigations necessary to justify them in further expenditures of money and time in an effort to obtain title.

« PreviousContinue »