59 



transmitting the tracings and field notes describing the right of way 

 instead of inclosing them with the listing letter. Reference, however, 

 should be made in each letter to the other. 



The General Land Office has informally requested that this be done 

 since the opening to entry of the lists is handled by one division and the 

 notation of the rights of way by another division. Separate letters will, 

 therefore, be a great convenience to them in the handling of these cases. 

 Settlement: Blue Prints to Accompany Listing Letters 

 [Circular letter of Sept. 17, 1912.] 



Whenever a tract of land is listed by metes and bounds and a strip 

 is excepted from the listing, the courses and distances of said strip 

 should be shown on the same blue print as the area to be listed. Sev- 

 eral of the districts have been making separate blue prints showing the 

 excepted strip and sending for transmission to the Interior Department 

 four blue prints. This seems to be unnecessary, since one map will 

 serve the purpose of showing the boundary of the listed tract as well 

 as the roadway exception, and two blue prints thereof will be sufficient 

 for the Interior Department. 

 Settlement: Manual Amendment, Free-Use Permits to Applicants 



An amendment to page 41 of the Manual has been prepared and is 

 pending the approval of the Solicitor, providing for the issuance of 

 special-use permits to applicants under the act of June 11, 1906, 

 effective until the lands are opened to entry. Heretofore such permits 

 terminated upon the listing of the lands with the Secretary of the 

 Interior. This amendment is made in view of the provision in the 

 current appropriation act that " no lands listed under the act of June 

 11, 1906, shall pass from the lorest until patent issues." 

 Settlement: Mineral Examinations of Tracts Applied for 



In the case L, Wenatchee, Settlement, Monahan H. 98 : the Acting 

 Forester on September 17, 1912, referred to the paragraph on page 38 

 of the Claims Manual under the caption "Applications in conflict with 

 mineral locations," and also to the paragraph on page 46 of that Manual 

 under the caption "Applications in conflict with mineral locations," and 

 held that the paragraph on page 38 is intended for the guidance of the 

 examiner in the field, and that the paragraph on page 46 is intended 

 for the guidance of the district forester when the report of the exam- 

 iner reaches him, and that, if from that report he has any doubt as to 

 the advisability of recommending the listing of a tract because he has 

 reason to believe that the land may be more valuable for mining than 

 i'or agriculture, it is believed that the instructions on page 46 of the 

 Manual are broad enough to justify him in causing the tract to be 

 examined by a mineral examiner or some other qualified forest officer, 

 and that the amendment of the Manual to that effect is unnecessary. 

 He also held that if after receipt of the report of the mineral examiner 

 or otherwise the tract is recommended for listing, there would be no objec- 

 tion to the district forester notifying the mineral locator of that action. 



