It appears from the foregoing that S. K. Goldtrap, being then the sole owner of the Garden Gulch Bar location, made by four persons for a certain 80-acre area, sought by way of amendment to so change the boundaries of said location as to exclude therefrom 20.275 acres, and include therein 69.94 acres of, so far as that claim was concerned, new ground (the latter consisting of 8.16 acres covered by the Reservoir Gulch claim, then owned by him; 35.46 acres covered by the Eureka location, then, and so far as the record shows, still owned by Art Cunningham and F. M. Goldtrap, the locators thereof; and 26.32 acres of then vacant and unappropriated land), and thus increase the area of the Garden Gulch Bar claim from 80 to 129.665 acres.

It is provided by section 2331, Revised Statutes, that no placer location shall include more than 20 acres for each individual claim, the word "claimant " as used in the section meaning locator.

In view of the provisions of said section it is clear that the Garden Gulch Bar location, having been made by four persons for the maximum quantity of ground that that number of persons could lawfully embrace in a single location, could not be amended by them so as to include a larger area. A fortiori, it could not be so amended by one person. Nor is there any authority for an owner of two or more contiguous placer mining locations to substitute therefor a single location, under the guise of amending one of them, as was attempted to be done with respect to a portion of the land involved in this case. Indeed, it would seem that such a substitution could lead to no result of any substantial benefit to an owner of several locations so attempted to be consolidated, other than to enable him to maintain a possessory right to, and obtain patent for, the area embraced therein, upon making annual and patent expenditures sufficient in value to satisfy legal requirements as to but one location, a result that would be in direct contravention of the plain terms of the placer mining laws, which require that expenditures of the amounts named therein shall be made upon or for the benefit of each separate location upon which, in possessory or patent proceedings, rights of claimants or applicants are sought to be predicated. For these reasons the socalled Garden Gulch Bar location must be held to be of no effect for any purpose whatsoever.

Referring to the separate locations upon which the so-called amended location was based, the Department finds that the record. wholly fails to show that the claimant has, or ever had, title to the Eureka location, or any portion thereof. Therefore no further consideration will be given that location in connection with this case. It does appear, however, that at the time of submitting final proof on the application, the claimant owned the portions of the original

Garden Gulch Bar and Reservoir Gulch locations that are covered by the entry. Had he based his application for the latter area on these two locations, as a group, he undoubtedly would have been entitled, upon making a satisfactory showing as to improvements therefor, to a patent to that area. His application, therefore, was, as to that area, defective in form rather than in substance, and the Department sees no reason why the entry may not be permitted to remain intact as to the area common to that embraced in said two locations and the plat and advertised notice, provided the entryman, within a time to be fixed by your office, cause an amended survey to be made thereof, and file in your office a plat of such survey, together with a showing as to improvements sufficient to satisfy the requirements to be hereinafter named.

The Department concurs in the action of your office respecting the buildings, whose value is sought to be accredited to the claim. It is constrained, however, to express its dissent from the holding of your office to the effect that money expended in the purchase of a dredge placed upon a placer claim by the owner thereof can under no circumstances be accredited to that claim in satisfaction of the statutory requirements as to improvements therefor. On the contrary, it is of opinion that in cases where it has been, or shall be, satisfactorily shown that an area embraced in a placer location, or a group of locations held in common, contains deposits of such character and extent as to permit them to be more economically worked by means of a mining dredge than by any other means; that the owner of the claim or group has in good faith purchased, and actually placed in good working order thereon, a dredge, for the exclusive purpose of working such deposit, and that the dredge has not been used as the basis for patent for any other area, it is entitled to be regarded as a mining improvement so far as that particular claim or group is concerned, and to have its cost accredited thereto.

The showing as to the dredge, whose cost is sought to be accredited to the ground in question, does not meet these requirements, but if the deficiencies therein be supplied by a supplemental showing, the cost of that improvement will be, in the absence of other objections, accredited to the claim or claims for whose benefit it was made, if embraced in the amended survey and plat hereinabove required to be made and filed.

As thus amended the decision of your office is affirmed.

HOMESTEAD ENTRY-CULTIVATION-RAISING OF HOGS.

GEORGE HATHAWAY.

The use of land for the raising of hogs is an agricultural use, and where the land is better adapted to that use than tillage of the soil, meets the requirements of the homestead law with respect to cultivation.

First Assistant Secretary Pierce to the Commissioner of the General (F. W. C.) Land Office, June 8, 1909. (E. F. B.) George Hathaway has appealed from the decision of your office of March 1, 1909, affirming the decision of the local officers, rejecting his commutation proof on his homestead entry, for the NW.

NW.

4, Sec. 27, N. NE. † and NE. 1 NW. 1, Sec. 28, T. 2 S., R. 27 W., Camden, Arkansas, on the ground of insufficient cultivation. Hathaway made entry November 15, 1906, and submitted commutation proof July 6, 1908. His proof shows that he began building his house October 12, 1906, and established actual residence therein November 20 following. His improvements consist of a one-room frame house with additional room used as a post-office; a blacksmith shop, stable, chicken house, 50 fruit trees, one small garden, one acre of land partly fenced, and two pens for fattening hogs, valued at $250. It shows that claimant actually resided on the land continuously from November 20, 1907, up to submission of final proof, a period of about nineteen months and sixteen days, except from February 1, 1907, to May 1, a period of about three months, when he was away at work. He stated that at the time of his absence he was unmarried and had no family to leave on the place, but that he has since married. As to cultivation of the land he stated that he raised a small vegetable garden in 1907 and 1908, and was using the land for stock raising, mostly hogs; that he had one horse, 50 hogs, and about 50 rods of post and rail fence under construction; that the land is ordinary homestead land, mostly valuable for stock raising.

His proof was rejected by your office and by the local office, solely upon the ground of insufficient cultivation.

It does not appear to be questioned that claimant established and maintained a bona fide residence on the land for the period required under the commutation provisions of the homestead law. It is clearly shown by the proof that from the time he established residence on the claim up to the submission of final proof he maintained an actual residence upon the land for nearly twenty months, except for three months while absent at work, and there is nothing in the record to show that such actual residence has at any time since been abandoned.

In his appeal to your office claimant stated that he is the postmaster in charge of the post-office at his house and that a great deal of his time is employed in carrying the mail. He gave that as a

3098-VOL 38-09- -3

reason why he had not made more actual cultivation of the land. Whether that was a sufficient excuse for his limited cultivation, it showed very conclusively that his actual home was upon the land. The only purpose that could be served by showing a larger area of cultivation would be to satisfy the Department that the land is being used for agricultural pursuits and to clearly establish the bona fides of his residence. But those facts are fully established by the proofs. The purpose of the homestead law is to secure the establishment of actual agricultural homes upon the public lands. The improvement and cultivation of the land are necessary acts to that end. But the use of the land for any agricultural purpose will answer the requirement of the law as to cultivation, whether it be in the planting and harvesting of crops, the use of it for hay, or for the raising of stock. Its office is to serve as proof of the establishment of an actual agricultural home.

If the land is better adapted to the raising of stock, whether it be cattle, horses, or hogs, and such occupation would be more profitable than the tillage of the soil, the entryman would be justified in making such use of it to the absolute exclusion of tillage and it would fully answer the requirements of the law as to cultivation.

Claimant made the entry with a view to the raising and selling of hogs, an occupation with which he was familiar. At the time of his appeal from your decision his stock had increased to 60. His improvements were ample for comfortable living. He had a horse, chickens, 50 fruit trees, and was annually reaping the profits from his agricultural pursuits. Can it be questioned that this is an actual agricultural home?

Your decision is reversed, and the entry will be approved for patent.

CONFIRMATION-PROCEEDINGS BY GOVERNMENT-AUTHORITY TO
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
F. M. PLITER.

While the Government may prosecute investigations under proceedings begun against an entry within two years after final receipt at any time until the suspension on account thereof has been formally removed, it may not, after two years, require the entryman to furnish additional evidence of his compliance with law, unless such requirement be in furtherance of like action taken prior to the expiration of that period.

In the absence of a statute of specific limitation, the doctrine of laches does not apply as against the government.

First Assistant Secretary Pierce to the Commissioner of the General (F. W. C.) Land Office, June 9, 1909.

(J. H. T.)

January 28, 1909, you transmitted motion for review upon behalf of F. M. Pliter, transferee, of departmental decision of January 2,

1909, in the matter of commuted homestead entry of Thomas N. Loudermilk for the N. NE. 1, SE. † NE. 4, and the NE. † SE. †, Sec. 7, T. 2 S., R. 20 W., The Dalles, Oregon, land district.

The said entry was made May 5, 1900, and commutation proof was submitted November 30, 1901, upon which final receipt issued December 5, 1901.

On November 14, 1901, a letter was written to your office by a resident of Oregon, attaching notices of publication of two entries, one of which was that of Loudermilk, and stated that both entries were fraudulent.

Your office, on December 7, 1901, directed Special Agent C. E. Loomis as follows:

You are directed to make a careful and thorough examination of these entries at the earliest date possible, together with the other entries in the vicinity complained of by heretofore referred to.

Under date of April 7, 1903, Special Agent Dixon transmitted to your office a list of entries, among them that of Loudermilk, stating that the said entries would be duly investigated at as early a date as practicable.

October 31, 1903, you directed Special Agent Neuhausen to make investigation of a number of alleged fraudulent homestead entries, a list of which was to be turned over to him by Special Agent Dixon, the same being the list above referred to.

It does not appear that any report was received on the case under consideration until March 28, 1908, which was made by Special Agent Pollard. You state that said report shows that claimant had only a very small portion of the land plowed, that the land had been transferred to S. B. Barker and F. M. Pliter, of Condon, Oregon, and that the Special Agent also stated that he could not obtain definite evidence as to residence.

Instead of ordering a hearing upon said report, your office, by letter of August 18, 1908, called upon the entryman to submit a supplementary affidavit setting forth in detail the number of periods of absence from the date he established residence until the date he made proof, and the length of such periods, and also held that unless such affidavit be furnished, the entry would be canceled.

November 9, 1908, counsel for transferee filed in your office a motion to reconsider the case and for issuance of patent under the provision of section 7, act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1095). You denied said motion November 27, 1908, whereupon appeal was taken to the Department and your decision was affirmed January 2, 1909, of which latter decision this motion for review is filed.

There can be no doubt that the proceedings had in connection with the entry herein are sufficient to prevent the running of the statute.