DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, January 13, 1909.

SIR: In response to your request of January 5, 1909, for a report on H. R. 24836, entitled "A bill to permit change of entry in case of mistake of the description of the tract intended to be entered," I have the honor to submit the following:

It was held in volume 36, Land Decisions, page 180, that

"The provisions of section 2372 of the Revised Statutes authorizing a cash entryman who, by mistake in description, made entry of a tract not intended to be entered to change the entry and transfer the payment from the tract erroneously entered to that intended to be entered, if unsold, or, if sold, to any other tract liable to entry,' have no application to homestead entries.

"While the Land Department has applied the principle of section 2372 to homestead and other noncash entries and permitted amendment to carry out the original intention of the entryman, it has never been extended to permit an entryman to change his entry from the tract actually entered to one not originally intended to be entered." It has also been held by this department that no amendment can be allowed under said section where the land has been transferred by the original entryman. (See 21 L. D., pp. 37, 38.) In the said last-cited decision it was stated:

"There can be no question of the legality or justice of allowing amendments where through no fault of entryman a mistake has been made in the description of the lands intended to be entered. The same reasoning might well apply in cases where the lands covered by the entry have been conveyed to a bona fide purchaser. In the absence, however, of statutory authority, the department is powerless to give relief in such cases."

It was also stated in the case of Oliver Geddis, in unpublished decision of July 8, 1905, that

"The only authority for allowing a correction of an entry where there has been 'a mistake of the true numbers of the tract intended to be entered' is found in section 2372 of the Revised Statutes, which provides for such correction 'where the certiticate of the original purchaser has not been assigned or his right in any way transferred;' and in case the original entryman is dead, such mistake may be corrected upon application of his 'legal representatives, not being assignees or transferees.'' It would appear that the bill as now drawn would permit amendment in behalf of a transferee, thus enlarging the scope of the section under consideration. The department has long recognized that section 2372, Revised Statutes, is inadequate to meet the requirements in correcting mistakes in many just and equitable cases.

In your letter asking for a report and expression of opinion on the proposed bill, you call attention to line 9, page 1, of the bill, and state that it may be held that the word "purchaser" is not sufficiently broad to include all those who entered or obtained title to public lands through entry, purchase, or location. Your observation is concurred in. The bill as it now stands would, under the ruling above cited, be held by this department not to apply to original homestead entries, nor in fact to any noncash entries. If it is intended to provide for the amendment or change of locations and entries of all kinds, I suggest that the bill be amended so as to read as follows: "In all cases where an entry, selection, or location has been, or shall hereafter be made of a tract of land not intended to be entered, the entryman, selector, or locator, or in case of his death, his legal representatives, or when the claim is by law transferable, his or their transferees, may, in any case coming within the provisions of this section, file his or their affidavit with such additional evidence as can be procured, showing the mistake as to the numbers of the tract intended to be entered and that every reasonable precaution and exertion was used to avoid the error, with the register and receiver of the land district in which such tract of land is situate, who should transmit the evidence submitted to them in each case, together with their written opinion both as to the existence of the mistake and the credibility of every person testifying thereto, to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, who, if he be entirely satisfied that the mistake has heen made, and that every reasonable precaution and exertion has been made to avoid it, is authorized to change the entry and transfer the payment from the tract erroneously entered to that intended to be entered, if the same has not been disposed of and is subject to entry, or, if not subject to entry, then to any other tract liable to such entry, selection, or location; but the oath of the person interested shall in no case be deemed sufficient in the absence of other corroborating testimony to authorize such change of entry, nor shall anything herein contained affect the right of third persons."

Very respectfully,

Hon. F. W. MONDELL,

JAMES RUDOLPH GARFIELD, Secretary.

Chairman Committee on Public Lands, House of Representatives.

60TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. (REPORT 2d Session. No. 1903.

VETERAN VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S ASSOCIATION.

JANUARY 22, 1909.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT:

[To accompany S. 2024.]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2024) to amend an act authorizing the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to grant to the Veteran Volunteer Firemen's Association use of certain property in the city of Washington, approved March 2, 1891, report the same back to the House with the recommendation that it do pass, when amended as follows:

Strike out of line 9, page 1, the word "northeast" and insert in lieu thereof the word "northwest."

This amendment merely corrects an error in the description of the lot mentioned in the bill.

The act which this proposed legislation seeks to amend is as follows:

AN ACT Authorizing the commissioners to grant to the Veteran Volunteer Firemen's Association use of certain property in the city of Washington.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Commissioners of the District of Columbia be, and are hereby, authorized and directed to grant to the Veteran Volunteer Firemen's Association of the District of Columbia the use of all that part of lot eleven, in square one hundred and forty-one, in the city of Washington, and building thereon now occupied by a house used formerly as an engine house, and described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said lot and running east thirty feet on H street; thence fifty feet south on a line parallel to Nineteenth street; thence west thirty feet to Nineteenth street, and thence north fifty feet to the beginning; the same to be used by said association as a place of meeting and for the storage of their apparatus, the same to continue during the pleasure of the commissioners.

Approved, March 2, 1891.

The committee is indebted for some historical information, as to the property involved, to Joseph I. Keefer, an attorney of this city, who is well informed therein and writes as follows:

The ground and house was bought and built, and the apparatus furnished by the plain citizens of the Union Fire Company (hand); and they had it all paid for but

$300, when they asked Congress to pay that for them, in favor of their being near at hand to the old buildings, now at corner of Nineteenth and Pennsylvania avenue, which were then the original War and State departments long before the building now used as a State Department was thought of or built.

The old engine house belongs to the people, and they want it for their use now as an old society. They have a deed or record from the commissioner, Ross, about 1870, which was given them after the bill passed by Congress became a law.

The object of this legislation is to include in the permit to use the building, the Association of Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia, an arrangement which your committee understands to be mutually satisfactory to all the parties concerned. The assent of the Firemen's Association to the joint occupancy was conveyed to your committee by the following communication:

VETERAN VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D. C., January 19, 1909.

DEAR SIR: Knowing that our association must soon cease to exist through the death of its members, and believing that the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants (a perpetual organization) will preserve our apparatus, etc., as a museum for future generations, we earnestly request the passage of this bill.

Very respectfully, yours,

Hon. SAMUEL W. SMITH,

F. W. KAHLERT,

President Veteran Volunteer Firemen's Association.

Chairman, etc., House of Representatives.

The bill as amended has the approval of the Commissioners of the District, and therefore your committee recommends its passage.

PROVIDING FOR CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES AT GADSDEN, ALA.

JANUARY 22, 1909.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Mr. CLAYTON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 21560.]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 21560) providing for and creating a new division of court of the northern judicial district of Alabama, at Gadsden, Ala., beg leave to report:

The city of Gadsden is the county seat of Etowah County, Ala., has about 9,000 inhabitants, and within 5 miles of it are the towns of Alabama City and Attalla, the former having about 3,000 and the latter about 2,500 people. It is in the midst of what is one of the most prosperous mining, manufacturing, and agricultural portions of the South, and is increasing in population perhaps more rapidly than any other section of the State.

The counties embraced in the bill grew phenomenally in population and development between the years 1890 and 1900, as shown by the census of those years, and will in the next census show perhaps double the population that they had at the time the last census was taken.

It is proposed by this bill to create a new division of the northern judicial district of Alabama, composed of the counties of Cherokee, Dekalb, Marshall, Etowah, St. Clair, and Blount, and provides that a term of the United States courts shall be held at Gadsden on the first Tuesday in February and the first Tuesday in August in each year. This section of Alabama is mostly mountainous, and much of it is inaccessible, and travel over it has to be by private conveyance. Gadsden is the principal market town of a great part of this territory, and is nearer and more accessible to the greater part of it than the cities where courts are now held. Judge Jones, one of the judges of the district, has stated that much of the business of the courts comes from these counties, and the creation of this division would greatly facilitate public business.

1

It will save the United States Government several thousand dollars annually in the matter of mileage of jurors, witnesses, etc. The bill, is not opposed by the judges or district attorney. A copy of the letter from Judge Jones is hereto attached.

A bill has passed providing for the erection of a government building at Gadsden, and this bill provides that until the government building is erected suitable court-room accommodations, etc., shall be furnished free of expense to the Government. This will be done by the authorities of Etowah County, in which Gadsden is situated. The bill creates no new office.

Your committee therefore beg leave to report back the bill with amendments, as follows:

After the word "the" in line 10 add "first Tuesday in February" and after the word "the" in line 11 add "first Tuesday in August of each year, respectively", and as so amended we recommend that the bill do pass.

MONTGOMERY, ALA., January 1, 1909.

MY DEAR SIR: A copy of a bill for the holding of the federal court at Gadsden, Ala., has been called to my attention, and I have been asked to give my views as to the advisability and policy. I don't know that Congress attaches any consequence to the views of judges in such matters, but, nevertheless, as mine have been asked, do not feel at liberty to withhold them.

A very considerable amount of civll and criminal business in the federal court in the northern district comes from the counties embraced in the bill, and a court at Gadsden will facilitate the convenience of witnesses and litigants. Gadsden's size and growing importance entitle it to a court. I believe it will be to the public interest to give it the court, and as we have two judges in the district, that adding another place will not make it burdensome. You are at liberty, of course, to use this letter as you see fit.

Yours, very truly,

Hon. HENRY D. CLAYTON,

Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.

THOS. G. JONES