DECLARATORY STATEMENT. 3. J. W. HALLOWELL. The declaratory statement under sections 2348 and 2349, Rev. Stat., must be made by the applicant himself. No conflict or adverse filing appearing of record the claimant is allowed to make his declaratory statement and affidavit nunc pro tunc. Commissioner McFarland to the register and receiver at Leadville, Colo., May 29, 1884. GENTLEMEN: In the matter of coal entry No. 31, Ute series, made February 28, 1883, in the name of J. W. Hallowell, the declaratory statement and affidavit required at the time of actual purchase were made by H. F. Smith, attorney in fact for Hallowell. The regulations under the coal-land law, approved July 31, 1882, require these, the declaratory statement and affidavit, to be made by the applicant himself. A claimant may, however, after making his application, or declaratory statement and affidavit required at time of actual purchase, as the case may be, empower an agent to do certain acts, and certain proofs may be made by an agent or facts established in accordance with ordinary rules of evidence, but these are specifically provided for in paragraphs 34, 35, and 36 of said regulations. In this case, though, as no conflict or adverse filing appears of record, the claimant will be allowed to make his declaratory statement and affidavit as above indicated, nunc pro tunc. In the proof submitted possession by agent is claimed; proof on this point is therefore required under paragraph 17 said regulations. VII.-LOCATION. PATENTED LODE CLAIM-INTERSECTING VEIN. 1. KENEAGE M. GRIFFIN. A locator cannot enter within the survey lines of a patented lode claim and make a location coincident therewith, although his discovery shaft be upon ground owned by himself and excluded from such patent, unless he shows that such location is upon a vein or lode which is clearly a cross or intersecting one. Commissioner McFarland to the register and receiver at Central City, Colo., March 6, 1883. GENTLEMEN: It is found upon examination of the survey of the claim of Keneage M. Griffin upon the Colonel Hall lode, lot No. 1216, mineral entry No. 2059, that it embraces the entire claim of Jairus W. Hall upon the Stevens lode lot No. 665, a prior location, patented January 18, 1881, and that the surveys of both claims are identical to the extent of 800 feet. From the identity of the surveys as aforesaid it is directly inferred that the lodes embraced within them are also identical to the same extent, and this supposition is strengthened by the fact that all developments or improvements shown upon either location are upon the lode line of the Stevens claim. (See annexed diagram.) The discovery shaft of the Colonel Hall location is situated upon a portion of the surface ground formerly embraced by the Coral lode survey, but now owned by Mr. Griffin and included in his application for patent. The Coral location having an earlier survey number, and hav ing been excluded from the application for patent for the Stevens lode, in all probability antedates the Stevens location. Although the Coral is a prior location, and in possession of the Colonel Hall applicant, that fact did not entitle Mr. Griffin to enter from its surface upon the Stevens lode, and make a location coincident therewith, without first showing that such location or discovery in no way conflicted with the said Stevens claim. The only legal location which could be made without such showing would be of a vein which is clearly an intersecting one. You will so instruct the applicant, and inform him that unless positive and convincing proof is offered to show that the Colonel Hall location is upon a vein separate and distinct from the Stevens lode his ap lication will be denied and the entry held for cancellation. INTERVENING PATENTED GROUND-PARALLEL VEIN-INTERSECTING VEIN. 2. KENEAGE M. GRIFFIN. (ON APPEAL.) A location which is separated along the line of the lode by a patented lode claim is invalid as to that portion beyond the patented claim. A parallel vein within the side lines of a patented claim passes with the patent. Secretary Teller to Commissioner McFarland, December 7, 1883. SIR: I have considered the appeal of Keneage M. Griffin from your decision of March 6, 1883, declining to patent his claim upon the Colonel Hall lode, lot No. 1216, mineral entry No. 2059, Central City, Colo. In this case the applicant for patent claims his discovery shaft to be on a piece of public land, excepted from survey No. 665, or Stevens's lode, for which a patent issued in 1881. The exception was of the Coral lode, which appears to have been surveyed as survey No. 380, to cross the Stevens or No. 665 survey very nearly from the southeast to the northwest corners, and was 50 feet wide, and about 600 feet in length. The applicant now seeks to make the discovery shaft on said excepted land the discovery shaft of his Colonel Hall lode. It does not appear whether the shaft described as a discovery shaft was the old Coral dis From the identity of the surveys as aforesaid it is directly inferred that the lodes embraced within them are also identical to the same extent, and this supposition is strengthened by the fact that all developments or improvements shown upon either location are upon the lode line of the Stevens claim. (See annexed diagram.) The discovery shaft of the Colonel Hall location is situated upon a portion of the surface ground formerly embraced by the Coral lode survey, but now owned by Mr. Griffin and included in his application for patent. The Coral location having an earlier survey number, and having been excluded from the application for patent for the Stevens lode, in all probability antedates the Stevens location. Although the Coral is a prior location, and in possession of the Colonel Hall applicant, that fact did not entitle Mr. Griffin to enter from its surface upon the Stevens lode, and make a location coincident therewith, without first showing that such location or discovery in no way conflicted with the said Stevens claim. The only legal location which could be made without such showing would be of a vein which is clearly an intersecting one. You will so instruct the applicant, and inform him that unless posi tive and convincing proof is offered to show that the Colonel Hall location is upon a vein separate and distinct from the Stevens lode his aplication will be denied and the entry held for cancellation. INTERVENING PATENTED GROUND-PARALLEL VEIN-INTERSECTING VEIN. 2. KENEAGE M. GRIFFIN. (ON APPEAL.) A location which is separated along the line of the lode by a patented lode claim is invalid as to that portion beyond the patented claim. A parallel vein within the side lines of a patented claim passes with the patent. Secretary Teller to Commissioner McFarland, December 7, 1883. SIR: I have considered the appeal of Keneage M. Griffin from your decision of March 6, 1883, declining to patent his claim upon the Colonel Hall lode, lot No. 1216, mineral entry No. 2059, Central City, Colo. In this case the applicant for patent claims his discovery shaft to be on a piece of public land, excepted from survey No. 665, or Stevens's lode, for which a patent issued in 1881. The exception was of the Coral lode, which appears to have been surveyed as survey No. 380, to cross the Stevens or No. 665 survey very nearly from the southeast to the northwest corners, and was 50 feet wide, and about 600 feet in length. The applicant now seeks to make the discovery shaft on said excepted land the discovery shaft of his Colonel Hall lode. It does not appear whether the shaft described as a discovery shaft was the old Coral dis |