it should have clearly stated. As was stated in A. M. Shaffer et al., Betty B. Shaffer, supra, at 301, “* * * If it is felt that the practice followed by the appellants is objectionable, the regulations should be amended to make the offerors' obligations clear." Therefore, because of the ambiguity of the regulations, an interpretation favorable to the applicant is required.
In view of the disposition of this case, the appellant's request for a hearing would serve no useful purpose and is therefore denied.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior (211 DM 13.5; 35 F.R. 12081), the decision of the Bureau of Land Management is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
EDWARD W. STUEBING, Member.
NEWTON FRISHBERG, Chairman.
FREDERICK FISHMAN, Member.
3 To make the requirement even more explicit, the regulation, in addition to spelling out that the signature be handwritten, could have provided that signatures which were printed, stamped, typewritten, engraved, photographed, or cut from one instrument and attached to another, would not be acceptable. See 80 C.J.S. Signatures § 7.
(Note-See front of this volume for tables)
1. The prohibition against contracts involving the employment of con-
vict labor as contained in Executive Order No. 325a does not
apply to those cooperative agreements entered into by the Bureau
of Land Management and the several States which provide for
emergency manpower assistance for the suppression of fires, even
though, the States may rely in part upon trained convict crews for
such emergency manpower reserves--
1. Where an irrigation district acting pursuant to the Smith Act of
August 11, 1916, has enforced its lien against public land in an
unpatented desert land entry and has sold the land at a tax sale,
the rights of the entryman and his successors are terminated and
the rights of the purchaser are determined by the Smith Act--
2. For the purpose of determining whether entered but unpatented land
can be disposed of pursuant to section 6 of the Smith Act of
August 11, 1916, the "irrigation works" referred to in that section
are not those necessary on an individual entry to carry out irriga-
tion but refer to facilities that serve the irrigation district in gen-
eral, and "water of the district available for such land" means
only that the entryman has a legally enforceable claim to available
water even though access to it is barred by a Departmental
regulation
1. States which have assumed the requisite jurisdiction over Indian
country under Public Law 280 (Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat.
588, as amended, 18 U.S.C. section 1162 and 28 U.S.C. section
1360) or under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Act of April 11,
1968, 82 Stat. 77-81, 25 U.S.C. sections 1321-1322 (Supp. V, 1965–
1969)) are required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 to enforce
their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations if the enforce-
ment does not involve the regulation of property held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of the Indians. States which have
not assumed the aforementioned jurisdiction over Indian country
are not authorized or required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967
to enforce their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations unless
the Secretary of the Interior were to enact regulations authorizing
such enforcement under the authority granted him by the Act
of February 15, 1929, 45 Stat. 1185, as amended, 25 U.S.C. section
231
1. One who acquires an interest in a desert land entry by purchase
long after he entered military service cannot derive benefits from
the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 which are re-
stricted to those who acquire their interest before entering mili-
tary service and who file a notice of such entrance with the land
office within six months of such entrance___
1. States which have assumed the requisite jurisdiction over Indian
country under Public Law 280 (Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat.
588, as amended, 18 U.S.C. section 1162 and 28 U.S.C. section
1360) or under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Act of April 11,
1968, 82 Stat. 77-81, 25 U.S.C. sections 1321-1322 (Supp. V, 1965-
1969)) are required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 to enforce
their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations if the enforce-
ment does not involve the regulation of property held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of the Indians. States which have
not assumed the aforementioned jurisdiction over Indian country
are not authorized or required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967
to enforce their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations unless
the Secretary of the Interior were to enact regulations authorizing
such enforcement under the authority granted him by the Act
of February 15, 1929, 45 Stat. 1185, as amended, 25 U.S.C. section
231
1. An application for a quitclaim deed under sec. 6 of the Act of April 28,
1930, 43 U.S.C. sec. 872, based upon a conveyance to the United
States of land as a basis for lieu selection, which conveyance was
made pursuant to the Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 11, 36, is
properly rejected because the Act of July 6, 1960, 74 Stat. 334,
precludes the Department from utilizing the 1930 act for that
purpose
1. The Secretary of Agriculture is not authorized or required to conduct
meat inspection programs on Indian reservations under the pro-
visions of the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 584, 21 U.S.C.
sections 601-691 (Supp. V, 1965-1969).
2. States which have assumed the requisite jurisdiction over Indian
country under Public Law 280 (Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat.
588, as amended, 18 U.S.C. section 1162 and 28 U.S.C. section
1360) or under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Act of April 11, 1968,
82 Stat. 77-81, 25 U.S.C. sections 1321-1322 (Supp. V, 1965-1969))
are required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 to enforce their
meat inspection laws on Indian reservations if the enforcement
does not involve the regulation of property held in trust by the
United States for the benefit of the Indians. States which have not
assumed the aforementioned jurisdiction over Indian country are
not authorized or required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967
to enforce their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations un-
less the Secretary of the Interior were to enact regulations author-
izing such enforcement under the authority granted him by the
Act of February 15, 1929, 45 Stat. 1185, as amended, 25 U.S.C.
section 231__
1. An applicant for a prospecting permit to explore for copper and other
hardrock minerals is properly required to agree to certain stipula-
tions as a condition precedent to the issuance of the permit when
there is no showing that the requirements are unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unduly onerous, and where those stipulations con-
form to the Department's obligations under the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969_-.
1. The Director of the Bureau of Land Management upon review of the
evidence relied on by a grazing district manager as justification
for a proposed reallocation of grazing privileges among licensed
users within the district, may properly determine that the reallo-
cation should be held in abeyance pending further study even
though a licensee or permittee who appeals from the district
manager's decision setting forth the terms of the proposed reallo-
cation is unable to show that the reallocation is inconsistent
with principles of sound range management or that it would create
hardships constituting such a serious impairment to the licensee's
livestock operation as to give him valid grounds for objecting
to the proposal-----
2. Mining claims located on lands purchased by the United States under
the Act of April 8, 1935, 49 Stat. 115, and added to the Kaniksu
National Forest by the Act of August 10, 1939, 53 Stat. 1347, may
not be declared null and void ab initio, but the mining claimants
must be afforded notice and an opportunity for hearing before the
claims are subject to cancellation__.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
1. The Board of Land Appeals has authority to reverse the fact findings
of a hearing examiner even when not clearly erroneous. How-
ever, where the resolution of a case depends primarily upon his
findings of credibility, which in turn are based upon his reaction
to the demeanor of the witnesses, and such findings are supported
by substantial evidence, they will not be disturbed by the Board--
BURDEN OF PROOF
1. Government mineral examiners determining the validity of a mining
claim need only examine the claim to verify whether the claimant
has made a discovery; they are not required to perform discovery
work, to explore or sample beyond the claimant's workings, or to
rehabilitate alleged discovery cuts to establish the government's
prima facie case_.
2. In a government mining contest, where the contestant has made a
prima facie showing of lack of discovery, the burden of producing
preponderating evidence of the existence of a valuable mineral de-
posit sufficient to support a discovery is upon the claimant, and he
cannot secure a determination that the claim is valid merely by
attempting to discredit and impeach the government's
witnesses
|