List of railroad land grants which have lapsed by reason of non-com

* It is understood by this office that the Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad wes co npleted within the While the time for the completion of the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad does not expire until July 4, of the act of July 27, 1866.

...do Oregon Various.

July

3, 1871 16 579 Company
4, 1866 14 83 State
Feb. 9, 1853 10 155 States
July 28, 1866 14 33.
June 3, 1856 11 21 State
(June 3, 1856 11 21...do

Mar. 3, 1865 13 521 ...do
(June 3, 1856 11 20...do
May 5, 1864 13 66

5, 1864 13 66...do

Mar. 3, 1857 11 195 Territory
Mar. 3, 1865 13 526 State
(July 12, 1862 12 625 ...do

20 miles..

10 miles..

6 miles..

do

10 miles..

6 miles..

6 miles..

10 miles..

6 miles..

do

10 miles..

10 miles..

6 miles..

10 miles..

6 miles..

10 miles..

10 miles..

pletion of roads within periods prescribed by acts making the grants.

15 miles June 3, 1866 Apr. 10, 1869 16 45 Apr. 10, 1872

1, 475, 000, 00 73 miles

550, 000, 00 70 miles 1, 200, 000. 00 47 miles 42, 000, 000. 00 125 miles

period prescribed, but no evidence thereof has been filed as required by the granting act.

1578, the grant is liable to forfeiture for breach of the conditions imposed by the 8th and 9th sections

TIMBER DEPREDATIONS.-TIMBER LANDS.

In my annual report to you of last year, attention was called to the subject of depredations upon the timber on the public lands of the United States. The vast extent of these depredations and the great loss to the Government were represented, and recommendation was made for legislation by Congress to enable the survey, appraisement, and sale of the timber lands of the United States, but no legislation was enacted by Congress upon this subject.

A brief history of past action is as follows:

The first action by this Department in regard to depredations on the public lands was by the appointment of what were termed "timber agents." No law of Congress is referred to in these appointments, and it is presumed that the Secretary of the Interior made them as incident in the performance of his duty in protecting that portion of the public property coming under his jurisdiction. No appropriation was made for their payment, but they were instructed that their compensation and expenses would be paid from the proceeds of their agencies, if sufficient for that purpose, and if not, the residue out of the judiciary fund. They were instructed that the proceeding would be by indictment, or by seizure under proper process of the timber or lumber cut, and their sole duty under their instructions was to obtain and furnish information to the United States district attorney or marshal, as the case might require. The Solicitor of the Treasury is authorized by law "to instruct the district attorneys, marshals, and clerks of the circuit and district in all matters and proceedings appertaining to suits in which the United States is a party or interested, (Stat. vol. 4, p. 415, sec. 379; Revised Statutes, U. S., p. 62,) and he was advised of the appointment of timber agents and of their acts, he gave them instructions, and he also instructed the United States district attorneys and marshals to render to these agents any aid and co-operation in their power.

*

*

With letter dated January 19, 1854, from George C. Whiting, chief clerk of the Department, all of the letters and other papers that had theretofore been filed in the Department in relation to depredations committed upon the public lands of the United States were transmitted to this office, with the remark that—

The fact that many questions, intimately connected with the disposition of the public lands, are necessarily involved in the adoption of proper measures for the protec tion of the public property thereon, has induced the Secretary to commit the whole subject to your sound judgment and discretion as the public officer who from position and experience in such matters is most properly chargeable there with.

Under date of January 28, 1854, a circular was issued by the Commis sioner of the General Land Office to timber agents; also another, dated March 4, 1854. At the last date there appears to have been four of these agents, viz, two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, and one in Iowa. These circulars, in addition to the duties prescribed in the appointments by the Secretary, contained instructions that the timber agents could seize and sell timber cut from the public lands independently of the marshal or of legal process. Under date of December 24, 1855, a circular was issued by this office to registers and receivers, in which it is stated that

The Secretary of the Interior has concluded to change the present system of timber agencies, and to devolve the duties connected therewith upon the officers of the local land districts. By his direction, therefore, you will, upon the receipt of these instructions, take charge of the timber business within the limits of your land district, as a part of the general duties of your office; and it is accordingly hereby assigned to you as such, with the understanding that hereafter it is to be considered and held as a proper incident to, and, in fact, a part of, your general duties, covered and satisfied by the salary which the law provides for your respective offices.

Following this there are quotations from opinions of Attorneys General, showing the right of the United States to protect the property belonging to them. A law and decision of the Supreme Court of the United States are also cited. The law cited is the act of March 2, 1831, entitled "An act to provide for the punishment of offenses committed in cutting, destroying, or removing live oak or other timber or trees reserved for naval purposes." (4 Stat. L., 472.) This act, as amended by act of July 10, 1832, (4 Stats., 572,) is embraced in and continued in force by sections 2461 and 2462, p. 453, and section 4751, p. 932, of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

The act of March 2, 1831, consisted of three sections, which, as amended, correspond with the three sections of the Revised Statutes mentioned. The first section provides a fine for cutting or removing timber from the lands of the United States of "not less than triple the value of the tree or trees or timber so cut, destroyed, or removed,” and imprisonment for not exceeding twelve months. The second section provides for the forfeiture of the ship or vessel and tackle, apparel, and furniture for taking on board timber unlawfully cut, and for fine of captain for exporting same. The third section provides that the penalties and forfeitures incurred under the first and second sections—

Shall be sued for, recovered and distributed, and accounted for, under the directions of the Secretary of the Navy, and shall be paid over, one-half to the informer, if any, or captors, where seized, and the other half to the Secretary of the Navy, for the use of the navy pension fund; and the Secretary is authorized to mitigate, in whole or in part, on such terms and conditions as he deems proper, by an order in writing, any fine, penalty, or forfeiture so incurred.

The decision of the Supreme Court cited is that of The United States es. Ephraim Briggs, (9 Howard, p. 351,) in which it is held that the true. construction of the act 2d March, 1831, is that it extends not only to the cutting of timber reserved for naval purposes, but to "other timber," and that the cutting and using of any other description of timber trees from the public lands would be equally indictable under this act.

This case was first before the Supreme Court in 1847, (5 Howard, p. 208,) and was, therefore, instituted before the creation of this Department (Act March 3, 1849, 9 Statutes, 395, provides for Interior Department,) but under what supervision I am not advised.

The circular of December 24, 1855, looks to an enforcement of the act of 1831. The 6th section contains the following: "In the enforcement of the said act of 1831 you should be careful," &c., but I am not able to state in how many instances the enforcement of this act through the courts has been induced by the action of registers and receivers. I find that with letter dated August 19, 1870, the receiver of the land office at La Crosse, Wis., forwarded the claim of C. C. Miller for $96, being for compensation, at $3 per day, for thirty-two days spent in attendance at court on occasion of the trial of a trespass on public timber. In this case the trespasser, Andrew Scott, was sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment, and to pay a fine of $1,500 and costs of suit. Mr. Miller, in submitting his account, says:

I have been advised to make application for half the fine under the law, which gives one-half the fine to the informer, but do not see my way clear to do that, as I was acting as Government agent, and only did my duty in following up the case.

And the receiver says:

Mr. Miller, on the trial, was something more than a witness; he was, as we believe, the active agent during the trial, who marshaled the evidence for the prosecution and greatly aided in bringing the criminal to justice. Although he received pay as a witness, (which pay would not nearly pay his board,) both the register and myself think this additional amount of $3 a day should be allowed him.

In letter dated May 11, 1871, to the register and receiver at La Crosse, Wis., this office made expression as follows in regard to Mr. Miller's claim:

By the 10th section of the circular of 24th December, 1855, the register and receiver, as timber agents, are authorized in certain cases to appoint a deputy to investigate and report the facts involved in any supposed case of trespass, and allow as compensation a per diem of $3 for time actually employed and mileage at the rate of ten cents per mile for distance actually traveled, but this does not authorize payment for time spent in attendance at court as a witness or in marshaling evidence for the prosecution, which properly forms no part of the duty of a deputy timber agent authorized to be appointed and compensation as aforesaid, and the present claim of Mr. Miller cannot, therefore, be allowed.

From the date of the circular, December 24, 1855, to May 2, 1877, it has been sent to registers and receivers to govern their action, and has purported to be the governing rule, with exceptions as follows, viz:

1. In Minnesota, the duties prescribed by the circular were transferred from the register and receiver for one land district, February 6, 1862, and afterward for all the State, to the surveyor general, and so continued until July 21, 1876, when they were again imposed upon the registers and receivers.

2. The fourth section of this circular is as follows:

Under no circumstances will you compound or compromise with any such trespassers, or receive any pay or compensation from them as acquittal or discharge therefrom, or in any other manner; neither will you give any permission to cut timber or otherwise trespass on the public lands, as there is no authority for any such proceedings; but all such offenses against the law must be prosecuted and tried by the authorities duly constituted for that purpose.

Notwithstanding this direction in the circular, it appears that from time to time, commencing in 1860, compromises, with the assent of the Secretary of the Interior, were made with parties who had cut timber upou the public lands. In letter to this office dated March 7, 1860, the Secretary of the Interior authorized compromise on the following terms, viz: Entry of the land upon which the timber was cut; payment of fifty cents per thousand feet, together with all the expenses incurred in making the seizure; and in letter of 16th of January, 1862, to this office, the Secretary remarks in regard to the opinion of the United States district attorney for Minnesota, which was to the effect that all settlements by way of compromise should be rejected, and offenders should be prose cuted and full penalty exacted, that—

The subject is one of interest, and not free from embarrassment. I do not concur with the district attorney in the opinion that no settlement is to be made with trespassers. It appears to me that the main object proper to be kept in view, should be to make the timber produce to the Government the price of the land.

Subsequently the Secretary concluded that settlement with trespassers on the basis of entry of the land, payment of fifty cents per thousand feet and costs attending the seizure would be satisfactory. In course of

time, owing to the fact that the lands from which the timber was taken were not subject to cash entry, or suitable for cultivation, and from other causes, the instructions for compromise came to be "a reasonable stumpage according to the market value of the timber cut, at a minimum in no case of less than two dollars and fifty cents per thousand feet and costs."

As showing the position which had been assumed by this bureau on the subject of timber on the public lands, I quote the following from the annual report of Commissioner Edmunds for 1864:

Under authority of law and judicial decisions, this office has put in operation repressive measures against the spoliation of the timber on the public lands. These