121 



determined. The poster may also be nailed on witness trees, but unless 

 the tree itself is the point for corner the poster should have the word 

 " Witness " scratched upon it in addition to the proper marking to 

 show the location of the corner in the survey system. 



Stone Monuments May be Used on Forest Boundaries Only. It is not 

 intended to prevent entirely the use of stone, which is the most durable 

 and convenient material for marking forest boundaries. 



At any mile or half mile on a boundary a single large stone monu- 

 ment may be erected, care being taken not to damage or cover up 

 existing Land Office corners. At mile points the section numbers should 

 be cut, in Arabic figures only, on the four sides of the main stone, fac- 

 ing the corresponding sections. At half-mile points the Arabic numbers 

 of the two opposite sections should be cut on the sides of the stone 

 facing them, and in addition the words " Half Mile." On both kinds of 

 monuments the letters F S should always be cut on top. The marked 

 stone should be in the mound, and not set with a separate mound of 

 stone or earth, as is the Land Office practice. 



No witness trees should be scribed, the cruising poster being nailed 

 on the blazes instead, when it is desired to construct and record wit 

 nesses for the boundary monuments in unsurveyed lands or draw atten- 

 tion to bearing trees of the Land Office on which the scribing is 

 illegible or grown over or erased. Care must be taken in blazing not 

 to destroy Land Office scribing which may have become grown over with 

 bark. 



Previous Instructions for Surveys not Modified. Nothing in this 

 statement should be understood as modifying any previous instructions 

 for Settlement or Entry Surveys. 



LANDS. 



Settlement 



March 14, 1914, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in the case 

 of Robert G. McDougall, on appeal, final proof submitted on a June 11 

 entry in the Jemez National Forest, held that credit may be accorded 

 for residence for the full period after the date of the special-use per- 

 mit and revoked former decisions and instructions to the contrary. The 

 decision says : 



Technically this land was not public land, and was not subject 

 to general settlement claim at the time this entryman made set- 

 tlement thereon, but he was not a trespasser, as he had filed his 

 application for listing with the Forest Service for opening under 

 the said act of June 11. 1906, and had been given a special-use per- 

 mit by that service. He was, therefore, in legal occupation of the 

 land after the date of the permit, with the understanding that if 

 the tract be found appropriate for opening under said act, he 

 would have a preference right of entry, as provided by that act. He 

 thus had a restricted or qualified settlement claim. If it had re- 

 sulted that his application for listing could not be allowed, then, 

 of course, his settlement could not have ripened into a claim for 

 title. But the land was opened upon his application, he was ac- 

 corded preference right of entry, and he made entry, all in pur- 



