additional entry inured to Mrs. Tuttle under the facts of this case (see case of Ernest B. Gates, 41 L.D., 383), and that it would be an unwarranted perversion of the letter and spirit of the statute to hold that a right of additional entry inured to the minor heirs of a soldier who never made a homestead entry and whose widow had remarried prior to, and was the wife of another, at the date of the adoption of the Revised Statutes, notwithstanding the fact that such widow, during her widowhood and prior to the adoption of the Revised Statutes, may have made a homestead entry for less than 160 acres of land.

In the brief in support of the motion counsel submits that the holding in the Dangberg case is wrong and should be overruled, and the arguments presented in support of this view have been carefully considered. Counsel maintains that the widow's entry was a proper basis for an additional entry exactly the same as if the entry were made by the soldier; that section 2307, R.S., gave to these orphan children by reason of the mother's remarriage the right to make the additional entry she would have had if she had not remarried; and that they were donees of the right as minor children on June 22, 1874.

The reasons for the decision in the Dangberg case are clearly stated therein. The Department there held that no right of additional entry inured to the widow and that it would be an unwarranted perversion of the letter and spirit of the statute to hold that a right of additional entry inured to the minor heirs of the soldier under the facts of the case. The same reasoning appears to be applicable to the case under consideration and the arguments presented afford no sufficient grounds for a different conclusion.

Upon further consideration the Department, therefore, finds no reason for disturbing its former decision in this case and the motion for rehearing is accordingly

Denied.

UNITED VERDE COPPER COMPANY, HENRY J. ALLEN, ASSIGNEE (ON PETITION)

Decided July 13, 1932

WYANDOTTE SCRIP-LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES-PATENT.

Under the stipulation in the supplemental agreement contained in article 9 of the treaty of January 31, 1855, the rights of the parties named in the original agreement contained in the Wyandotte treaty of March 17, 1842, inure to and may be exercised by their heirs or legal representatives without restriction, and such heirs or legal representatives may exercise those rights by the making of scrip locations and receiving patents therefor in their own names.

PRIOR DEPARTMENTAL DECISION MODIFIED.

Decision in case of Henry J. Allen (37 L.D. 596), modified.

DIXON, First Assistant Secretary:

The United Verde Copper Company has filed petition for exercise of supervisory authority in the matter of the ruling of the Commissioner of the General Land Office in his letter of October 22, 1925, to the register of the Phoenix, Arizona, land office (Phoenix 04802), with respect to Wyandotte certificate No. 9, Indian B-250, which was returned to the local office for delivery to the claimant company, the application to locate filed by Henry J. Allen, assignee, having been rejected.

The Commissioner instructed the register as follows:

You will advise the said company that in a decision dated April 26, 1909 (see 37 L.D. 596), the Secretary held that patent, if issued, would be in the name of the reservee (Henry Jaques) and that Henry J. Allen was only recognized in this case as attorney in fact for the heirs and legal representatives of Henry Jaques.

The claimant company states that it purchased the certificate for a valuable consideration and now invokes the supervisory power of the Secretary to the end that authority be given said company to make a new location upon which patent may issue in the name of the company. The right asserted is based upon certain agreements between the United States and the Wyandotte Nation, entered into March 17, 1842 (11 Stat. 581), and January 31, 1855 (10 Stat. 1159), respectively.

Under Article 14 of the original treaty, the United States agreed "to grant by patent in fee simple to each of the following-named persons, and their heirs, all of whom are Wyandottes by blood or adoption, one section of land of six hundred and forty acres each, out of any lands west of the Missouri River set apart for Indian use, not already claimed or occupied by any person or tribe." The beneficiaries are named in the article. The following restriction against alienation was imposed: "The lands hereby granted to be selected by the grantees, surveyed and patented at the expense of the United States, but never to be conveyed by them or their heirs. without the permission of the President of the United States."

The agreement was supplemented by Article 9 of the treaty of January 31, 1855, as follows:

It is stipulated and agreed, that each of the individuals, to whom reservations were granted by the fourteenth article of the treaty of March seventeenth, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, or their heirs or legal representatives, shall be permitted to select and locate said reservations, on any government lands west of the States of Missouri and Iowa, subject to preemption and settlement, said reservations to be patented by the United States, in the names of the reservees, as soon as practicable after the selections are made; and the reservees, their heirs or proper representatives, shall have the unrestricted right to sell and convey the same, whenever they may

think proper; but, in cases where any of said reservees may not be sufficiently prudent and competent to manage their affairs in a proper manner, which shall be determined by the Wyandotte council, or where any of them have died, leaving minor heirs, the said council shall appoint proper and discreet persons to act for such incompetent persons, and minor heirs, in the sale of the reservations, and the custody and management of the proceeds thereof, the persons so appointed, to have full authority to sell and dispose of the reservations in such cases, and to make and execute a good and valid title thereto.

It will be noted that in accordance with the supplemental agreement, the class of beneficiaries was enlarged and restrictions against alienation were removed, the parties entitled being each of the individuals to whom reservations were granted by the 14th article of the original treaty, or their heirs or legal representatives. Any of these were to be permitted to select and locate said reservations. The reservations were to be patented in the names of the reservees as soon as practicable. The reservees, their heirs or proper representatives, were accorded the unrestricted right to sell and convey the

same.

It seems to have been the intention of the parties to the supplemental agreement that the rights of the parties named in the original agreement would inure to and could be exercised by their heirs or legal representatives without restriction. In other words, such heirs and legal representatives as are shown to possess the right may exercise it by the making of locations in their own name, and receiving patent therefor in their own name.

The term "legal representatives" is not necessarily restricted to the personal representatives of one deceased, but is sufficiently broad to cover all persons who, with respect to his property, stand in his place and represent his interests, whether transferred to them by his act, or by operation of law. New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong (117 U.S. 591, 597). In land cases the term has also been used in its broader sense to include representatives of a grantee by contract, as well as by operation of law. Hogan v. Page (2 Wall. 605). Numerous other cases may be cited in support of the definition of the term to warrant the conclusion that the designation is broad enough to include all persons, with respect to another's property, who stand in his place and represent his interests, whether transferred by his act, or by operation of law. Viewed in its broader sense, it seems from the wording of the stipulation and agreement in the treaty of 1855 that it was the intention to include heirs and legal representatives as beneficiaries on equal footing with the original grantees, and in consequence that they should be recognized as beneficiaries in their own right, not only entitled to locate the land, but to receive patent therefor in their own name. The construction in the Department's decision of

April 26, 1909 (37 L.D. 596), to the contrary is modified accordingly, The petition accordingly is granted and the petitioner will be recognized as a qualified applicant, and patent may issue in the name of said applicant, provided due compliance with the law in all respects is shown.

EXTENSION OF TIME ON OIL AND GAS PROSPECTING PERMITS UNDER ACT OF JUNE 30, 1932

REGULATIONS

[Circular No. 1277]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D.C., July 15, 1932.

REGISTERS, UNITED STATES LAND OFFICES:

The act of Congress approved June 30, 1932 (Public, No. 217, 72d Congress), reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That any oil or gas prospecting permit issued under the Act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 437), or extended under the Act of January 11, 1922 (42 Stat. 356), or as further extended under the Acts of April 5, 1926 (44 Stat. 236), March 9, 1928 (45 Stat. 252), and the Act of January 23, 1930 (46 Stat. 58), may be extended by the Secretary of the Interior for an additional period of three years in his discretion, on such conditions as he may prescribe.

Sec. 2. Upon application to the Secretary of the Interior, and subject to valid intervening rights and to the provisions of section 1 of this Act, any permit which has already expired because of lack of authority under existing law to make further extensions may be extended for a period of three years from the date of the passage of this Act.

Applications for extensions of time coming within the provisions of this Act may be filed with the Register of the district land office or with the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Washington, D.C. The application should give full and definite information regarding expenditure of money for development work under the permit and for reliable geological surveys of the lands involved. The showing must be by affidavit and state in detail the amounts and dates of such expenditures, purposes for which made, and to whom the payments were made. If the permittee has secured geological surveys of the lands, copies of the reports and maps thereof should be filed. Any other facts which the permittee believes will show equities in support of his application should be included in the showing.

In any case where the permittee has filed bond to protect a surface claimant of lands included in the permit, or because the lands are in a reclamation project, consent of the surety to remain bound during

the extension period must be furnished, except where the bond by its terms covers extensions of time that may be granted. Also such bond as may be considered necessary and sufficient may be required conditioned on the abandonment, under the supervision of the supervisor of oil and gas operations, of any wells drilled on the permit lands. C. C. MOORE,

Approved:

Jos. M. DIXON,

First Assistant Secretary.

Commissioner.

NEW MEXICO v. ALTMAN ET AL. (ON PETITION)

Decided July 18, 1932

SCHOOL LAND-MINERAL LANDS-NEW MEXICO.

Section 15 of the act of September 9, 1850, which act provided among other things for the establishment of a territorial government for New Mexico, did not contain a grant in praesenti of sections 16 and 36 in each township in that Territory, but merely a reservation of those sections in contemplation of a future grant by Congress.

DIXON, First Assistant Secretary:

On May 24, 1932, the Department affirmed a decision of the Commissioner of the General Land Office which dismissed a protest made by the State of New Mexico through its Commissioner of Public Lands against the issuance of a patent under mineral entry for any portion of lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Sec. 36, T. 17 S., R. 13 W., N.M.P.M., New Mexico.

The record shows that said township was surveyed in 1867 and the survey approved in 1868. The surveyor returned the land as mineral in character. Fort Bayard Military Reservation, covering most of Sec. 36, was created in 1869, but its boundaries were not defined until 1908, said lots being outside of the reservation as then identified. Mineral patent was issued in 1903 for a portion of said section. Adverse proceedings against the State were brought in 1921, charging the land was mineral in character and the State filed answer, but later withdrew it, waived a hearing and conceded that the section did not pass to the State under its grant of school lands of June 21, 1898 (30 Stat. 484).

It was contended by the State in its appeal from the action denying its protest that title to all of section 36 vested in the State upon its identification by survey in 1868, by virtue of the provisions of section 15, act of September 9, 1850 (9 Stat. 452), which contained no exception of mineral lands; that the Department had no juris