By the act approved February 18, 1873, it is provided that "deposits or mines of iron in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota shall be excluded from the operations of the act of May 10, 1872." This is in effect saying that prior to that time deposits or mines of iron had been subject to the operations of said act in these States, and that they remain subject to its operations in the States not specifically named. Lands, therefore, more valuable on account of veins or deposits of iron than for agriculture can be entered only under the mining acts of Congress.
*******
PRIVATE LAND-CLAIMS.
CALIFORNIA.
Much difficulty has been experienced by this Office in determining questions of fact connected with the location of private land-claims in California, for the reason that under former practice and regulations testimony was taken and submitted in the form of ex-parte affidavits, which often served rather to confuse than explain the matters in con~ troversy. ******* Among the rulings which have been made during the past year, and which affect a number of claims not adjudicated, are the following: Rancho Guadalupe, Diego Olivera and T. Arellanee, confirmees.—In this case it was decided by this Office:
1st. That a newspaper dated and first distributed in the town of Santa Barbara, in Santa Barbara County, Cal., was published in Santa Barbara, although said paper was printed in San Francisco, Cal.
2d. Where a survey had become final by publication under the not of June 14, 1860, and a. patent in accordance with such survey had been duly signed, sealed, recorded, sent to the United States surveyor-general for delivery, subsequently recalled, a new survey made, published in accordance with the provision of the act of July 1, 1864, (13 Stat., p. 332,) approved by the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, and a patent for such resurvey signed, sealed, recorded, transmitted to the United States surveyor-general for delivery, and recalled without the consent of the parties claiming possession thereof, that in such a case the first patent having been legally executed, was the patent to be delivered to the parties in interest, and that said first patent having been legally executed, there was no authority of law for the issue of the subsequent patent, which was void ab initio and might properly be recalled by the Commissioner of the General Land-0ffice.
Affirmed on appeal March 26, 1873.
Rancho La. Brea, oonfirmed to Antonio Jose Rocha. et al.—In this case this Office held that it had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the couveyances of a rancho, so far as to be enabled to decide who, under such conveyances, was entitled to select the quantity of land confirmed within larger exterior boundaries to the claimant or claimants by the board of land commissioners for California, or United' States courts. Aiiirmed on appeal March 21, 1873.
Rancho La Carbonera, William Bocle, confirmee.—In this case a portion of the rancho as granted, conflicted with the boundaries of the Rancho Canada del Rincon, which had been confirmed and patented by the United States. Both ranchos were for quantity within larger exterior limits, and prior to confirmation the title in each case was equitable only,
