will be attended to to the exclusion of business more important to the general welfare.

However able, competent, and valuable a surveyor general may be as an executive officer, or to conduct the usual business arising in a surveyor general's office, he may, and probably will, lack the technical legal knowledge which will enable him to cope successfully with voluminous title papers, complicated by the sophistry of skillful attorneys. Yet, under the present system, the surveyor general must surmount these difficulties, or they cannot be surmounted; for, however carefully Congress may re-examine his work, it must not be forgotten that Congress acts on a copy of the papers filed with the surveyor general, and hence cannot possibly know whether the grant be antedated or forged, or contains any of those defects which can be detected only by an inspection of the original record.

The practical result of this system appears in the confirmation of immense tracts of land, the location of which is now boldly asked by the claimants and their agents, not in accordance with the limits of their grant from Mexico, but within the limits of their grant as defined in the recommendation and report of the surveyor general, and as confirmed by Congress.

The remedy which I suggest for the correction of these evils is the repeal of the jurisdiction now vested in the surveyors general, and the appointment of three or more commissioners, with full power to hear and decide upon the validity of all grant claims within the limits of the territory acquired from Mexico, except in the State of California, and with appeal from their decision to the United States courts. By the selection of men specially qualified for, and who can devote their time exclusively to, these duties, a more speedy and otherwise more satisfactory settlement will be obtained. It is believed that, if the papers in each case be put in order and the record made up by these commissioners, more speed will be obtained than if the courts, with their other important duties, are given original jurisdiction over these claims.

The present method of surveying these claims is also defective. At present, the whole weight of correctly locating a grant by survey rests with the United States deputy surveyor, who executes the survey in the field.

The greater part of these grants are bounded by adjoining grants or natural objects; such, for example, as on the north by the grant to A, on the south by the stream called B, on the east by the table lands of C, and on the west by the spring of D. Now, it is often a matter of the greatest difficulty, in a country such as the Southwest, abounding in springs and streams, and covered with table lands, to determine which of two springs, several miles apart, is the spring A, or which of two streams or table lands, likewise miles apart, is the stream B or the table land C. To aid him in reaching a correct conclusion, the deputy surveyor has no guide other than such information as he can glean from statements of persons in the vicinity, not under oath, and perhaps interested in extending or curtailing the limits of the grant about to be surveyed. When the deputy surveyor has performed his duty to the best of his ability, under these adverse circumstances, he returns the survey to the surveyor general, who, not being required to examine these natural objects in the field, transmits the survey to this office, and the claimants appear and ask for a patent in accordance therewith. Manifestly, if this office acts upon such a survey, by approving it, it acts blindly.

It is difficult to suggest a remedy that will be entirely satisfactory,

but, as the result of a careful examination of the settlement of these claims elsewhere, I recommend that a law be passed authorizing the surveyor general to publish each survey for a period not exceeding six weeks in two newspapers, one publication being in the newspaper nearest the land and one at the principal business or political center of the Territory or State in which the claim is located; the said publication to call upon all parties interested to appear and show cause, if any there be, why the said survey should not be approved, and such objection as may then be made, or such evidence as may then be produced, to be transmitted, with the opinion of the surveyor general, to this office. Provision should also be made for a return of the papers, a further notice, and the taking of further testimony, where deemed necessary by the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

The success which has attended this method in a similar class of claims in California warrants me in predicting a favorable result, should it be adopted in the adjustment of the claims now under consideration. In addition to the foregoing, I might add that, while these private land claims remain in their present unsettled condition, it will continue to retard emigration to and settlement in said Territories; for, until the titles thereto are ascertained, and the land segregated from the public domain, it will be impossible to determine which is public land subject to appropriation and settlement under the public land laws and which is not; therefore, settlement made with a purpose of acquiring title under the public land system is necessarily at the risk of finding in the future the land settled upon included within the limits of a private land claim, and the improvements lost to the party who made them. There have already occurred many cases of severe hardship in this respect.

The experience of the past fully demonstrates that after these claims have been reported to Congress, as required by the aforesaid act of 1854, Congress is loath to take them up and confirm them without more definite knowledge regarding their genuineness, extent, and location, which it is impossible to have under the present defective system.

DISTRICT LAND OFFICES.

At the beginning of the fiscal year there were under my supervision ninety-eight district land offices, distributed as follows, viz:

During the fiscal year and subsequently thereto changes and consolidations have been made as follows, viz:

By act of Congress approved July 31, 1876, the offices at Chillicothe, Ohio; Springfield, Ill.; and Indianapolis, Ind., were abolished after September 30, 1876.

By act of Congress approved August 15, 1876, an additional land dis

trict was established in Washington Territory, designated as the Whitman land district, and the office located at Colfax.

By executive order dated April 11, 1877, a new district was created in Dakota, designated as the Black Hills district, with the office at Sheridan, but was, prior to the opening of the office, removed to Deadwood by executive order of May 24, 1877.

By executive order dated April 17, 1877, a new district was created in the State of Colorado, designated as the San Juan district, with the office at Lake City.

By act of Congress approved August 9, 1876, a new district was created in Wyoming, designated as the Evanston land district, with office at Evanston.

By executive order of June 19, 1877, the office at Beaver City, Utah, was discontinued and consolidated with Salt Lake City.

By executive order the offices located at Elko and Pioche, in Nevada, were discontinued and consolidated with Eureka.

I have no doubt further changes and consolidations may be advantageously made, and shall from time to time, as occasion offers, report to you such recommendations in this regard as I may deem conducive to the needs of the public service.

The total number of offices July 1, 1876, was
Created since ..

Discontinued since

Leaving now in operation.....

98

The registers and receivers at these offices are charged by law, under the supervision of this office, with the primary disposal of the public lands in their respective districts. Applications for entry, for the filing of settlement claims, and for the selection by States and corporations under the various congressional grants, are received by the register, and all moneys in payment for lands or as fees for filings and selections are taken by the receiver, and due account of the entire proceedings is made in the form of monthly reports, to be filed and properly passed upon by this office. The receiver also renders quarterly accounts of receipts and disbursements.

Much complaint has been made of the irregular mode of conducting the public business at the district offices, and charges of malfeasance are constantly brought to the attention of this bureau and of the Depart ment. I have found the consideration of these charges and complaints a matter of great difficulty and expense, and the results very meager and unsatisfactory in comparison to the labor of the investigation.

Under the present system, without appropriations for the employment

of special agents to inquire into the conduct of officials under my authority who may be charged with malfeasance, and with no means, except through voluntary statements of private parties, to procure evidence upon allegations of misconduct, it is not easy to reach correct conclusions. When reached, it is usually after so long delay that the moral effect of action in the case is lost or seriously impaired.

I am of the opinion that the fee system as it now stands, applicable to the question of compensation of these officers, is mainly the cause of the mischief charged, and that some change in the legislation on the subject is imperatively demanded. A fixed salary attached to each office, graduated if necessary in classes to cover differences in the amount of business and in public importance, with a contingent appropriation for office expenses, rent, stationery, furniture, and clerk hire, and the entire abolition of any allowance to registers or receivers as fees, would, in my judgment, put an end to illegal charges on their part, and to a prolific cause of complaint and real grievance to the poorer classes of settlers on the public lands, who are unjustifiably taxed by these officers in the payment of fees and commissions in excess of the amounts authorized by law.

While this would augment the appropriations on account of salaries, so as to create a seeming increase of expenditure on account of the civil list, it is believed that the saving in contingent expense of this bureau, the office of the Secretary, and the Department of Justice, combined, would more than offset the difference, especially when it is considered that all the labor of adjustment of accounts under the appropriation of fees would be avoided, and the time of the valuable clerks and officials now devoted to such adjustment, and to the investigations, would be given to the dispatch of the necessary current business of the Departments. The great incentive, however, to this change is the securing of a pure, orderly, and honest administration of the public service, of harmony between the people and their Government, and the removal of a powerful source of temptation from official positions, making them more honorable for honest men, and less desirable for mercenary adventurers, who seek these positions on account of the facilities they offer for illegal gains, and the cover afforded by the fee system for extortion and exaction under the forms of law.

I shall be glad, at the proper time, to aid, if necessary, in framing proper amendments to existing laws to secure this desirable change, or to offer such further suggestions from time to time as may be called for upon the subject.

Should Congress, however, deem a change in this regard inexpedient, I would urge the propriety and necessity of such legislation as will more specifically direct the expenditure of the appropriations for incidental expenses of district offices, provide for the allowance of rent and necessary clerk hire, prohibit the payment of clerks out of fees received except upon accurate vouchers showing the source of expenditure, and require all excess of such fees, from whatever source derived, to be turned into the Treasury of the United States in the same manner as other public moneys are deposited.

I would respectfully recommend that the provisions of the act of Congress entitled "An act to amend section twenty-two hundred and ninety-one of the Revised Statutes of the United States in relation to proof required in homestead entries," approved March 3, 1877, be extended to all classes of entries requiring proof to be made before completion of entry.

If this were done there would no longer exist a reason why there

should be more than one land office in each State and Territory containing public lands, and eighty land offices could be abolished without the least inconvenience to settlers or others desiring to purchase land, and at the same time effect an annual saving of at least three hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the Government.

No distribution of land offices could afford facilities to persons having to make proof in regard to their entries equal to those that would be afforded by the legislation recommended.

As proof of this statement take California, which has ten land offices, being the largest number in any State, and consequently ten places at which proof can be made. If proof could in all cases be made in the county where the land is situated, there would be in California fifty-two places, as the State has that number of organized counties.

In cases of contest the law should provide for taking the testimony before the judge or clerk, who should give due notice to both parties, and have power to compel the attendance of witnesses. No power now exists in the register or receiver to compel the attendance of witnesses.

A BRIEF REVIEW OF SOME OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THE SALE OR DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC LANDS; ALSO, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATION.

When the full scope and meaning of some laws are ascertained by the executive branch of the Government, in their execution they become unpopular, though in the mean time rights may have vested under them. In such cases, the law-making power hesitates to enact supplemental laws or make appropriations necessary to the execution of the same. It also frequently occurs that great wrongs are done in executing a law which if properly administered would be beneficial and salutary in its effect. Under one or the other of these classes of laws may be grouped many in relation to the sale or other disposal of the public lands. Falling under one or the other of these two classes may be mentioned some of the acts granting land subsidies to railroads, wagon roads, and for slack water navigation; also the act of the 28th of September, 1850, granting the swamp and overflowed lands to the several States, and many of the acts providing for the issue of certain kinds of land scrip, among which may be mentioned Sioux half breed, Red Lake and Pembina half breed, Valentine, and other scrips; the acts granting additional homesteads to soldiers, and the act providing for the entry of lands by certain traders and employés; also the act for the sale of desert lands, and the homestead and pre-emption laws, as they now stand.

Uuder most of these acts vested rights have accrued to the extent contemplated by the law, but these rights have not been ascertained and the law fully executed for want of necessary clerical force to enable this office to perform the duty. Under the provisions of some of these laws all the damage and wrong has been done that can be. Under others of them, still additional wrongs and frauds can be perpetrated, and will be, unless they are repealed or modified.

However obnoxious any or all of the railroad grants may now be held to be, the rights under them have become vested, where the roads have been built, and it only remains for the executive branch of the Government to ascertain them and execute the law. Under the act of the 28th of September, 1850, granting the swamp and overflowed lands to the several States in which they are situated, many wrongs against the Government have been consummated by the State agents in selecting lands not swamp or overflowed, but it does not follow that, because in