REPORT OF THE SOLICITOR. 391 



Hearings were attended in 61 cases. Oral arguments were made 

 before the Secretary of the Interior in 4 cases. Depositions were 

 taken in 97 cases. Briefs were filed in 08 cases. One motion for 

 rehearing and 1 petition for the exercise of supervisory authority 

 were filed with supporting briefs. Appeals to the Secretary of the 

 Interior, supported by briefs in 4 cases, were prosecuted from the 

 adverse decisions of the commissioner. Six reply briefs were filed 

 with the Secretary of the Interior. 



The assistants to the solicitor in the field examined and passed 

 upon the evidence in many cases in which either they prepared pro- 

 tests to be filed in the local land offices by the district foresters or 

 recommended that no objection be made to the issuance of patent. 



IMPORTANT DECISIONS OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT. 



In United States v. J. P. Nichols and Cy Smith (46 L. D. — ), the 

 Secretary of the Interior, in response to a motion for rehearing filed 

 by this office, reversed his decision of October 24, 1913, and held that 

 the Land Department has full power to inquire into the validity of a 

 mining claim, notwithstanding that the claimant has not invoked 

 its jurisdiction by any application for patent. To the same effect 

 are decisions of the United States District Court for Arizona and the 

 Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in suits filed by E. H. 

 Cameron, one against the register and receiver of the local land 

 office {Cameron v. Weedin and Birdno^ 226 Fed. 44) and the other 

 against the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the 

 General Land Office {Caineron v. Lane et al.^ 46 App. D. C. — ) to 

 restrain them from conducting proceedings instituted to determine 

 the validity of certain mining locations made by him on lands within 

 the Tusayan National Forest and Grand Canyon National Monu- 

 ment. 



As a result of the decision in the Nichols- Smith case, adverse pro- 

 ceedings have been instituted against a number of similar mining 

 claims within the National Forests. 



In Ex parte Samuel D. Pulford et al. (45 L. D. 494) the Sec- 

 retary of the Interior dismissed the appeal of the claimants from the 

 decision of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, holding 

 invalid certain claims filed by them under the coal-land laws for 

 lands within the Siskiyou National Forest. The lands are very 

 heavily timbered, but had been classified by the Geological Survey 

 as coal land and valued at $10 per acre. The Forest Service esti- 

 mated the timber to be worth about $60 to $70 per acre. The Sec- 

 retary of the Interior held that since workable deposits of coal had 

 not been disclosed the claimants were not entitled to a patent. 



In State of Utah (45 L. D. 620) it was held that the fact that the 

 State may select saline lands as well as agricultural lands in satis- 

 faction of the orrant of lands made to it bv Consress for the Uni- 

 versity of Utah" (sec. 8, act July 16, 1894, 28 Stat.,^107-109) does not 

 entitle it to select lands of that character within a National Forest. 

 It was also held, in accordance with a similar decision with refer- 

 ence to the State of Idaho (Eririn v. Idaho, 38 L._ D. 219), that the 

 preference right of selection given to a State upon its application for 



