Interest accruing upon deferred charges under the moratorium act of Apr. 1, 1932 (47 Stat. 75), is neither a construction charge under section 3, nor an operation and maintenance charge under section 6 of the extension act of Aug. 13, 1914 (38 Stat. 686), and is not, therefore, subject to the delinquency penalty imposed by subsection H of section 4 of the act of Dec. 5, 1924. 54-86

The provisions of section 245.21 (h) (43 CFR, 1944 Cum. Supp.) of the regulations of Dec. 14, 1942, which permit the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe a uniform accounting system for grantees of rightsof-way, are a necessary means of insuring uniform reports which is within the discretionary authority of the Secretary, but because the purposes of the Department are fulfilled by the grantee's adoption of

a system of accounting prescribed by the Federal Power Commission it is desirable that this section of the regulations should be qualified by a proviso that adoption of such system shall be deemed compliance with the requirement of this section. 58-608

II. DISTRIBUTION OF RECEIPTS

The proceeds derived from the sale of male reindeer belonging to the United States in the Territory of Alaska are to be deposited in the Treasury of the United States. 53-71

In view of the special act of Mar. 4, 1929 (45 Stat. 1562), which specifically prescribes for the distribution of the net proceeds derived from the operation of the Shoshone power plant constructed by the United States at the Shoshone Dam, Wyoming, the general provision contained in subsection 1, section 4, of the act of Dec. 5, 1924 (43 Stat. 672) relative to the distribution of the accumulated net profits derived from the operation of project power plants has no application to that project. 53-427

III. FEES AND COMMISSIONS Instructions re fees paid pursuant to the Leasing Act of Feb. 25, 1920-Cir. Nos. 672 and 1004 amended. (Cir. No. 1115.)

52-59

Instructions of Aug. 1, 1928, fees required with permit applications. Section 31, Cir. No. 672 (47 L.D. 437) construed; Cir. No. 1115 (52 L.D. 59), amended. (Cir. No. 1158.) 52-463

Instructions of May 7, 1931, fees with applications for sodium, potash, and other mineral leases and permits. Cir. No. 1004 (May 2, 1925, 51 L.D. 138), amended. (Cir. No. 1251.) 53-379

1

Moneys paid in connection with a claim for public lands should not be deposited in the Treasury as earned until the claim has been allowed. 53-654

The Government of the United States, through the Federal Works Administrator, has acquired, under the Lanham Act (54 Stat. 1125, as amended (55 Stat. 361)), fee title to the power plant and transmission lines and a leasehold interest in the docks and appurtenant facilities at Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. These properties are operated, maintained and managed by The Virgin Islands Company as agent for the Federal Works Administrator. Under section 5 of the act of May 26, 1936 (49 Stat. 1372, 48 U.S.C. 1401 (d)), The Virgin Islands Company is required to pay into the municipal treasuries of the Virgin Islands amounts equal to the amounts of any taxes of general application which a private corporation similarly situated would be required to pay. The act further requires the payment of taxes on any property owned by the United States in the Virgin Islands which is used for ordinary business or

commercial purposes. The income derived from any property so used is to be made available for making such payments. This obligation is not inconsistent with section 306 of the Lanham Act which relates only to payments in lieu of real property taxes. 58-348

Under section 2(a) (7) of the Philippine Independence Act (48 Stat. 456; 48 U.S.C. 1232(a) (7)) and section 1(7) of the Ordinance appended to the constitution of the Philippines, the government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines is made responsible for the obligations of the Manila Railroad Company because it was an instrumentality of the Philippine government at the time of the adoption of the Philippine constitution. Payment of debts on such obligations by the Philippine government out of funds on deposit in the United States, in the absence of an apis propriation therefor, unauthorized. The Commonwealth government is justified in refusing to make such payments in view of the prohibition of section (a) (1) of General Ruling 10-A of the Treasury Department. 58-461

Where a coal entry had been erroneously allowed for lands reserved from sale and for that reason canceled, application for repayment of the purchase money falls within the provisions of the act of June 16, 1880 (21 Stat. 287), rather than the act of Dec. 11, 1919 (41 Stat. 366). 52-415

The term "legal representatives" as used in the act of Jan. 8, 1926 (44 Stat. 708), which authorizes repayment of the difference between the amounts paid by purchasers of town lots and the price fixed as result of reappraisement, includes an assignee of an original purchaser. 52-425

Where a desert-land entryman withdrew his final proof, but permitted the money paid for the land to remain in the possession of the United States to his credit pending the submission of new proof, and thereafter relinquished his entry before the expiration of the period of extension granted for that purpose, the limitation fixed by section 1 of the act of Dec. 11, 1919 (41 Stat. 366), began to run from the date of the relinquishment, not from the date when the proof was withdrawn. 52-465

The final location fee referred to in paragraph 7 of section 2238, Revised Statutes, does not come within the purview of the act of Mar. 26, 1908 (35 Stat. 48), as limited by the act of Dec. 11, 1919 (41 Stat. 366). 53-46 The term "erroneously allowed" as used in the act of June 16, 1880 (21 Stat. 287) has reference solely to erroneous action on the part of the Government, and furnishes no authority for repayment where a railroad selection list was canceled on relinquishment filed by the company after it was ascertained that the lands were not of the character represented at the date the lists were tendered to the district land office. 53-46

A homestead entry allowed for land within a pending swampland selection is an entry erroneously allowed within the contemplation of the repayment act of June 16, 1880 (21 Stat. 287), and a relinquishment of the entry filed because of the conflict constitutes merely a waiver of the claim for the purpose of securing a return of the fees improperly applied. 53-254

Repayment of the purchase money paid in connection with a desert-land entry regularly allowed for land subject thereto and canceled for default is not authorized by the act of June 16, 1880 (21 Stat. 287), where the entry could have been completed by complying with the reclamation law and no legal obstacle prevented its confirmation, nor can it be allowed under the act of Mar. 26, 1908 (35 Stat. 48), where the claim is barred by the limitation contained in the amendatory act of Dec. 11, 1919 (41 Stat. 366). Heirs of James Byrne (50

L.D. 161), J. M. Hudson (50 L.D. 297), and Olive M. Harrison (50 L.D. 418). 53-576

An application for repayment of fees tendered with an application for a water exploration permit filed after the permit application was rejected, but before adverse decision had been declared final, does not amount to a voluntary withdrawal or relinquishment of the application for permit so as to bar repayment of the fees. John J. Kotkin (49 L.D. 344), and J. G. Hofmann (53 I.D. 254). 53-654

Section 2 of the act of June 16, 1880 (21 Stat. 287), provides that "where, from any cause, the entry has been erroneously allowed and cannot be confirmed, the Secretary of the Interior shall cause to be repaid ** * purchase money * * * paid upon the same ** *whenever such entry shall have been duly canceled by the Commissioner of the General Land Office

Coal land entries were canceled because (1) the entrymen had been guilty of fraudulent and illegal conduct, and (2) the entries should not have been allowed because of defects apparent on the face of the papers filed. The entrymen then applied for repayment of the purchase price of the lands, pursuant to the statute. Held: (1) The applications for repayment must be denied because one of the grounds for cancellation of the entries was the fraudulent conduct of the entrymen. (2) The statute (21 Stat. 287) is construed to mean that where one of the grounds for cancellation of an entry is fraud, repayment must be refused, even though in addition the entry has been erroneously allowed because of mistake or error on the part of the land officers. (3) The statute is based upon equitable principles, and should be administered accordingly, hence, applicants for repayment, whose entries have been canceled partly because of their fraudulent conduct, should be denied relief; the "clean-hands" doctrine should be applied. 56-73

ACCRETION

The law of title by accretion has no application to lands uncovered by an avulsion

resulting in a change in the course of a river, and the Land Department retains sole jurisdiction to survey unsurveyed public lands thus formed and to dispose of 53-113 them under appropriate laws.

Following Federal survey, certain undisposed of subdivisions of United States public lands in Nebraska bordering upon the Missouri River were washed away by that river, either as the result of erosion or avulsion, and later restored, augmented by other land, the result of accretion. Held, That title to the surveyed lands so restored or uncovered and to the lands added thereto by accretion is in the United States and not in the owners of the back lands which were for a time the shore lands. 54-455

Public land reserved by the United States, until disposed of by it, and in the absence of express legislation by Congress, is governed by the common law with respect to riparian rights and the effect of erosion and submergence, and not by the law of the State (Widdecombe v. Rose54-455 miller, 118 Fed. 295).

Where surveyed public lands of the United States bordering upon a navigable stream, and to which the United States has not parted with title, are eroded in their entirety by the action of the stream, and later restored by accretion, title to the lands so restored is in the United States, and not in the owners of the remote nonriparian lands, which lands for a time were the shore lands. 54 455

Evidence held sufficient to show that land along the Missouri River was formed Lands by accretion and not avulsion. along the north bank of the Missouri River in North Dakota, held under patent to a railroad company, are riparian in character and the south boundary thereof is the river and not the meander line. The owner of such land under the laws of North Dakota is the owner of the accretions in front of his lots to the present north bank of the river.

56-300

The War Department acquires jurisdiction to all lands formed by accretion in front of a lot theretofore set aside as a

military reservation, whether riparian rights are governed by the common law or the laws of the State in which the land is situated, and such lands are not public land subject to homestead entry. 56-300

According to the plat of survey of 1845 two tracts of public land in Arkansas had for their east boundary the west bank of the Mississippi River. Between 1843 and 1880 the waters of the river gradually eroded and submerged all of the land within the tracts and land to the west thereof and the main channel of the river ran west of the tracts, but following this submergence, land in the form of a sand bar reappeared within the boundaries and to the full extent of the tracts, the reappearance being caused by the westerly recession of the waters and by accretion to private land in Tennessee which in 1880 had attained an elevation of from 5 to 10 feet above the river. By an avulsive change in the course of the river in 1912, the main channel of the river ran southeast of the land. The boundary of the Mississippi River between Arkansas and Tennessee was fixed by the Supreme Court on June 3, 1940. A supplemental survey by the General Land Office disclosed that but 2.02 acres of one of the tracts were in Arkansas, the remainder of the two tracts being in Tennessee. In April 1934 homestead entry was allowed for the two tracts according to the original plat of survey, which subsequently to the filing of supplemental plat of survey was reduced to the 2.02 acres remaining in Arkansas. Held: (1) That the reappearance of the land was the result of gradual accretion to the land in Tennessee before the avulsive change in the river channel and the avulsion was not the cause of its reappearance. (2) That when the land became a part of the bed of the Mississippi River, the title thereto became vested in the State or States within whose boundaries it was situated, and upon its reappearance, the title to the land was governed by the State law. That neither the laws of Arkansas nor Tennessee, as interpreted by its highest court, afford sufficient basis for holding that the reappeared land became the property of the United States, and if the Department should so hold, its holding would

(3)