I,

(A.)

formerly of the

tribe of Indians, do solemnly swear that I have voluntarily dissolved all connection with that tribe, and that it is bona fide my intention to forego all claim to or share in any of its annuities or benefits, and in good faith to perform the duties of a citizen of the United States.

do solemnly swear that, to the (Name of Indian.)

knowledge and belief,
(Name of tribe.)

best of formerly of the tribe of Indians, has dissolved all connection with said tribe, and does not claim or share any of the annuities or benefits inuring to said tribe of Indians by treaty or otherwise, but is performing all such duties as pertain to a citizen of the United States.

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, March 25, 1875.

GENTLEMEN:-Under the Act of Congress approved March 3, 1875, "making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for fiscal years ending June 30, 1875, and prior years, and for other purposes," it is provided, in the 15th section. [Part II. No. 136.]

In allowing proof of abandonment and entry to be made by Indians under the act first above mentioned, you will be governed by the following, viz: The Indian must make affidavit setting forth the fact of his Indian character; that he was born in the United States; that he is the head of a family, or has arrived at the age of twenty-one years; that he has abandoned his tribal relations and adopted the habits and pursuits of civilized life, and this must be corroborated by the affidavits of two or more disinterested witnesses. This done, you will permit him to enter the tract desired according to existing regulations, so far as applicable, under the Homestead Law, note the entry on your records, and make return thereof to this Office, with which you will send the affidavits submitted. You will observe in the law, as above quoted,

that the provisions of the 8th section of the act of May 20th, 1862, which admits of the commutation of homestead entries to cash, shall not be held to apply to entries under this act, and hence that such commutation is not admissible thereunder.

The 16th section of the act of March 3d, 1875, above referred to, confirms on certain conditions Indian homestead entries heretofore allowed. It calls for no action on your part, but is here quoted for your information, viz:

"SEC. 16. That in all cases in which Indians have heretofore entered public lands under the Homestead Law, and have proceeded in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, or in which they may hereafter be allowed to so enter under said regulations prior to the promulgation of regulations to be established by the Secretary of the Interior under the fifteenth section of this act, and in which the conditions prescribed by law have been or may be complied with, the entries so allowed are hereby confirmed, and patents shall be issued thereon; subject, however, to the restrictions and limitations contained in the fifteenth section of this act in regard to alienation and incumbrance."

Acknowledge the receipt of this circular.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

REGISTER AND RECEIVER.

S. S. BURDETT, Commissioner.

Approved: C. DELANO, Secretary.

TITLE III-PRE-EMPTIONS.

I. IN GENERAL.*

No. 345.

(A) QUALIFICATIONS.

SARAH E. R. HAZELRIGG.

Held-That a married woman who has minor children, and has been abandoned without cause by her husband, and left to support and maintain herself and children, is the head of a family within the meaning of the pre-emption law, and as such is entitled to pre-empt in her own name. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

OFFICE OF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Washington, D. C., October 13, 1871. SIR: I have considered the case of Sarah E. R. Hazelrigg, application to pre-empt the N. E. Section 8, T. 19, R. 16, Topeka, Kansas. The local officers recommended that she be allowed to enter the land. The Commissioner held that she was a feme covert, not the head of a family and not entitled to enter.

She has appealed to the Secretary. Her husband is a confirmed drunkard, who has abandoned her and her two children, and has contributed nothing to their support for more than two years. His whereabouts are unknown. Mrs. Hazelrigg went upon the land April 15, 1869. She has resided with her children on the land, cultivated and improved it continuously since that time. She has a comfortable house, five acres fenced, and two acres cultivated, and has fruit and shade trees set out and growing.

She has complied in good faith with the requirements of the law, and by her own exertion supports herself and children without any assistance from her husband.

I am of opinion that a wife who has minor children, and has been abandoned without cause, by her husband, such husband being a confirmed drunkard and having gone to parts unknown, and who is and has been for more than two years compelled to support and maintain herself and infant children without any aid from her husband is the "head of a family," within the meaning of.the pre-emption law, and as such is entitled to the benefits of that law.

I recommend that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed, and that of the local officers affirmed.

Very respectfully,

W. H. SMITH, Asst. Atty. General.

HON. C. DELANO, Secretary of Interior.

Concurred in by the Secretary, Oct. 13, 1871.

For general instructions under the pre-emption laws, see No. 265.

No. 346.

ELLEN ALLANSON.

If a single woman marry after filing her declaratory statement, she abandons her right as a pre-emptor under the act of 1841. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., June 6, 1872.

REGISTER AND RECEIVER, Alexandria, Minn.:

GENTLEMEN: I am in receipt of your letter of the 24th ultimo, enclosing the application of Mrs. Ellen Allanson to amend her D. S. 3515 to embrace lots 2, 3, and 4, sec. 29; lot 1, sec. 32, and lot 1, sec. 33, T. 125, R. 49, and stating that since the filing of said D. S. in June, 1868; said applicant has been married, her name at that time being Miss Ellen Brown.

In reply, I have to state that if a single woman marries after filing her D. S. she abandons her right as a pre-emptor under the act of 1841. The filing of this claimant after her marriage with Mr. Allanson became null and void, and therefore her application to amend the same to cover the tracts described is hereby rejected.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. Affirmed by Secretary of the Interior, September 18, 1872. See No. 279, 280.

No. 347.

WALKER'S HEIRS v. CALIFORNIA.

Held-That the evidence must show that the pre-emption claimant was a citizen of the United States, or had declared his intention to become such. That his declarations of being such a person were not competent evidence, although his admissions that he was not a citizen were competent.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

OFFICE OF ASSISTANT ATTRONEY GENERAL,

Washington, D. C., April 24, 1872.

SIR: I have carefully considered the case of the heirs of William Walker, by his administrator, v. the State of California, involving title to the N., S. W., and W., S. E., Section 18, T. 4, S. R. 5 W. M. D. M., California, on appeal from the decision of the General Land Commissioner of September 14th, 1871, adverse to the State.

The land in controversy was withdrawn for railroad purposes January 30th, 1865, and restored as minimum land, October 19th, 1868. Township plat was filed February 7th, 1865. The State, through its authorized agent, selected the tract the same day, and renewed its application, October 19, 1868. Walker, February 10th, 1865, filed declaratory statement, alleging settlement December 26, 1861.

Without considering at length the various questions raised as to the validity of Walker's claim, it is only necessary to refer to the fact that the record does not show him to have been a native or a naturalized citizen of the United States, or that he had declared his intention of becoming one. A person claiming the privileges conferred by the preemption law must show affirmatively that he is within its provisions. In the absence of proof, he cannot be presumed to possess the qualifications prescribed by the act, any more than he can be presumed to have complied with the requirements relative to settlement and cultivation.

Each and every fact required to be shown in order to create a perfect right under the act must be affirmatively established.

So far as I have been able to discover by a careful examination of the voluminous testimony taken at the hearing there is but little competent evidence of Walker's citizenship. A certified copy of the record of his registration as a voter in Sanmateo county, Cal., proof of his having twice voted on such registration and the testimony of one witness who swore that he knew the claimant when both were children at Charleston, S. C., is in substance all the competent testimony bearing on this point. A number of witnesses testify to declarations of the claimant made during his life-time to the effect that he was born at Charleston, S. C., and was a citizen of the United States, but such declarations are not, according to the well-established rules of evidence, competent testimony in favor of the claimant and they can not be considered.

On the other hand it is an admitted fact that he was of Irish descent and several witnesses swore to declarations of the claimant during his life-time to the effect that he was born in Ireland; two swear that he declared he was born at Belfast in the north of that country, and one reports a connected history, according to his declarations, of the principal events of his early life. These declarations against his interest are all competent evidence (Greenleaf on Evd., s. s. 113, 171,) and must be considered in rebuttal of the evidence referred to above.

I am of opinion that his citizenship is not affirmatively established, that he is not, in this particular, shown to be within the provisions of the pre-emption law, and that his claim should therefore be rejected.

The only adverse claim thus being disposed of, I see no reason why the State should not be awarded the tract in controversy, any defect in the initiation of her title by location in the first instance, still uncured by the act of 1866, being remedied by the second location, October 19, 1868, after the withdrawal had become inoperative by the restoration of the land to market.

I therefore recommend that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and that the land be awarded to the State.

Very respectfully,

W. H. SMITH, Asst. Atty. General. HON. C. DELANO, Secretary of Interior. Concurred in by Acting Secretary Cowen, April 25, 1871.

No. 348.

MANNING v. NUSEBAUM.

Held-That a person who owned 320 acres of land in the Territory of Colorado at time of filing D. S., but did not own the same at the time he offered his final proof, is not such a person as can acquire a pre-emption right.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D. C., 24th April, 1873. SIR-I have considered the case of Sidney Manning v. Philip Nuse baum involving the right to the S. W. of N. E.

S. R. 64, W., Pueblo District, Colorado Territory.

Section 4, T., 20,

Nusebaum, January 16, 1871, made cash entry of the tract.