An appeal by a coal declarant will not be sustained where it has the effect to extend the time within which such declarant would be required to prove his rights and pay for the lands beyond the time prescribed by the statute. Smith. In re, 16 C. L. O. 112. Where a declaratory statement is not filed within the prescribed time the land is subject to entry by any other qualified applicant. Townsite of Coalville, In re, 4 C. L. O. 46, p. 47. 15. FAILURE TO COMPLETE ENTRY-EFFECT OF ADVERSE CLAIM. The failure to prove a coal-land entry within this statutory period will defeat the right of purchase where there is an existing adverse claim. O'Gorman v. Mayfield, 19 L. D. 522, p. 523. A claimant for coal lands must assert his possessory claim in good faith and for his own use and benefit to entitle him to a hearing as against an adverse claimant. Broad v. Ray, 20 L. D. 422, p. 425. 16. TIME FOR MAKING PROOF IN ALASKA. Under this section coal claimants are required to make their applications for patent, submit proofs, and pay for the land within one year from the date of the filing of their declaratory statements, but such claimants in Alaska are allowed three years in which to complete the purchase. Alaskan Coal Lands, In re, 27 Op. Atty. Gen. 412, p. 413. B. DECLARATORY STATEMENT PURPOSE. The filing of the declaratory statement, as provided for in section 2348, R. S., protects the preference right of entry and preserves it for the period specified in this section. Carthage Fuel Co., In re, 41 L. D. 21. p. 25. SECTION 2351, REVISED STATUTES. In case of conflicting claims upon coal lands where the improvements shall be commenced, after the 3d day of March, 1873, priority of possession and improvement, followed by proper filing and continued good faith, shall determine the preference right to purchase. And also where improvements have already been made prior to the 3d day of March, 1873, division of the land claimed may be made by legal subdivisions, to include, as near as may be, the valuable improvements of the respective parties. The Commissioner of the General Land Office is authorized to issue all needful rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of this and the four preceding sections. A. CONFLICTING CLAIMS. B. COAL-LAND ENTRY. C. RULES AND REGULATIONS, p. 781. A. CONFLICTING CLAIMS. 1. PRIORITY OF POSSESSION---RIGHTS. 2. POSSESSION AND IMPROVEMENTS. 1. PRIORITY OF POSSESSION-RIGHTS. In case of conflicting claims to public coal lands priority of possession and improvement, followed by proper filing and continuous good faith, determines the right to purchase. Ghost v. United States, 168 Fed. 841, p. 845. Walker v. Taylor, 23 L. D. 110, p. 111. 2. POSSESSION AND IMPROVEMENTS. A mere possession without satisfactory improvements will not secure the tract to the first occupant when a subsequent claimant shows his full compliance with the law. Circular, In re, 1 L. D. 687, p. 690. In case of conflicting claims priority of possession and improvement, followed by proper filing and continued good faith, determines the rights of the respective claim ants. Filer, In re, 36 L. D. 360, p. 361. Where there are no adverse claims the land should be sold to the parties who, by substantial improvements, actual possession, and a reasonable industry, show an intention to continue the development of the mine in preference to persons who seek to purchase for speculative purposes only, and such proof of compliance with the laws may be required as the circumstances in each case may justify. Circular, 1 L. D. 687, p. 690. B. COAL-LAND ENTRY. 1. SINGLE ENTRY PERMITTED QUANTITY OF LAND. 2. APPLICANT'S SHOWING UNDER OATH. 3. ASSIGNMENT BY ENTRYMAN-RIGHT OF PURCHASER. 4. VERIFICATION MUST BE BY CLAIMANT SUFFICIENCY. 1. SINGLE ENTRY PERMITTED QUANTITY OF LAND. The Land Department can dispose of the Government coal lands only in accordance with the law, and the statute provides that only one entry can be made by one person or association of persons and limits the amount which a single individual or association of persons may enter. Northern Pac. Coal Co., In re, 7 L. D. 422. See Peterson, In re, 6 L. D. 371. Under the regulations authorized by this section one person can have the benefit of one entry or filing only, and he is disqualified by having made such entry or filing alone, or as a member of an association. Eisemann, In re, 10 L. D. 539. Ackert, In re, 17 L. D. 268, p. 269. 2. APPLICANT'S SHOWING UNDER OATH. Under the regulations authorized by this section an applicant must declare under oath that he has never held or purchased any coal lands under any statute relating to the sale of such lands, and that he has never had the right of purchase, and has never held any other lands thereunder. Eisemann, In re, 10 L. D. 539. 3. ASSIGNMENT BY ENTRYMAN-RIGHT OF PURCHASER. Under this section regulations providing that assignments of the right to purchase coal lands will be recognized when properly executed are valid, but they refer to the inchoate right acquired by virtue of the fact of settlement and improvement and of filing the declaratory statement. Durango Land, etc., Co., In re, 18 L. D. 382, p. 384. A person who purchases from another the possessory right to a developed coal mine in a condition to be worked and operated, and continues in actual possession, is entitled to file his declaratory statement and prove the title, though the title is still in the United States. Swain v. Kearney, 22 L. D. 306, p. 308. 4. VERIFICATION MUST BE BY CLAIMANT SUFFICIENCY. A claimant, in asserting his preemption right to, and completing his purchase of, coal lands must verify his declarations and applications by his own oath, and can not delegate that duty. White Oak Imp. Co., In re, 13 C. L. O. 159. The affidavit required by the regulations authorized by this section must be made by the claimant himself and an oath made by a claimant to his declaratory statement does not contain all the essential averments of the affidavit prescribed by the coalland regulations, and in no case can the declaratory statement relate to and cover the ensuing interval to the date of entry. Keen, In re, 34 L. D. 49, p. 51. See Stafford, In re, 21 L. D. 300. 5. APPLICANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH LAW-PROOF. The burden of proof is upon a protestant to show that an applicant has failed to comply with the law. Watkins v. Garner, 13 L. D. 414, p. 415. C. RULES AND REGULATIONS. 1. COMMISSIONER AUTHORIZED TO MAKE. 5. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PERMITTED. 1. COMMISSIONER AUTHORIZED TO MAKE. This section authorizes the Commissioner of the Land Office to issue all needful rules and regulations for carrying into effectt he provisions of the law relating to coalland filings and entry. Eisemann, In re, 10 L. D. 539. Dally, In re, 41 L. D. 295, p. 301. This section specifically authorizes the Commissioner of the General Land Office to issue all needful rules and regulations for carrying the law into effect, and rules and regulations so issued have a legal foundation and their effectiveness is not open to question, and applicants are charged with knowledge of their existence. McCornick, In re, 41 L. D. 661, p. 663. An application for a coal-land entry must be in conformity to the regulations made under the authority of this section. Johnson v. South Dakota, 17 L. D. 411, p. 412. 2. FORCE AND EFFECT OF REGULATIONS. The regulations authorized under this section have all the force and effect as law of the statute itself. Rogers v. Lukens, 6 L. D. 111. McConnell, In re, 18 L. D. 414, p. 415. The rules and regulations of the Commissioner of the General Land Office under this section can not have the force of a United States statute relating to perjury. United States v. Manion, 44 Fed. 800, p. 801. 3. SALE OF COAL LAND BY PRIVATE ENTRY. This section authorizes the adoption of rules and regulations for the sale of coal land by private entry, or by granting a preference right of purchase based on priority of possession and improvement. Masterson, In re, 7 L. D. 172, p. 174. 4. PRICE OF LAND. By regulations authorized by this section the Land Department is authorized to name a higher price for coal lands than that named in section 2347, if the conditions warrant the same. Plested, In re, 40 L. D. 610, p. 612. 5. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PERMITTED. Under the regulations additional evidence in ex parte cases may be permitted to avoid further delay and the matter referred to the board of equitable adjudication for action. Anthracite Mesa Coal Co., In re, 19 L. D. 18, p. 19. SECTION 2352, REVISED STATUTES. Nothing in the five preceding sections shall be construed to destroy or impair any rights which may have attached prior to the 3d day of March, 1873, or to authorize the sale of lands valuable for mines of gold, silver, or copper. A. LANDS VALUABLE FOR PRECIOUS METALS EXCLUDED FROM COAL ENTRY. Lands that are sufficiently valuable for gold, silver, or copper can not be entered as coal lands to prevent their entry as agricultural lands. Circular, In re, 1 L. D. 687, p. 689. This section expressly excludes from sale under the preceding section any lands valuable for mining of gold, silver, or copper. McKibben v. Gable, 34 L. D. 178, p. 180. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the act of March 3, 1873 (17 Stat. 607), are the same as sections 2347 to 2352 R. S., inclusive. See these sections for additional annotations. AMENDMENTS TO COAL SECTIONS. 31 STAT. 658, JUNE 6, 1900. COAL-LAND LAWS EXTENDED AMENDMENT 1. AN ACT To extend the coal-land laws to the District of Alaska. Be it enacted, etc., That so much of the public-land laws of the United States are hereby extended to the District of Alaska as relate to coal lands, namely, sections 2347 to 2352, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes. A. COAL-LAND LAWS. 1. EXTENDED TO ALASKA. 2. CONSTRUED AS SYSTEM. 1. EXTENDED TO ALASKA. This act extends the provisions of sections 2347 to 2352 of the Revised Statutes to Alaska. United States v. Doughten, 186 Fed. 226, p. 228. 2. CONSTRUED AS SYSTEM. This act, together with the act of April 28, 1904 (33 Stat. 525), and sections 2347 to 2352 of the Revised Statutes, comprise a system of laws relating to the entry and location of coal lands and must be read and construed together, and are all intended to be operative. United States v. Munday, 222 U. S. 175. |