Mr. Justice Brewer,
after stating .the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
In 1860, in settlement of a claim under a Mexican grant to land in the vicinity of Las Yegas, Congress passed an act giving to the claimants an equal amount of land, to be by them selected elsewhere in the Territory of New Mexico, stipulating that the land should be vacant and non-mineral and should be located within three years in square bodies not exceeding five
in number. Within the three years they selected and located the tract in question as one fifth of the land to which they were thus entitled. They applied to the proper officers of the United States to take such steps as would perfect their title. More than thirty-four years ago the Land' Department took its final action. Since then it has continuously treated the tract as private land, and refused to recognize it in any way as part of the public domain; within the same year, 1864, in which it took its final action, it reported the fact thereof to Congress, and that body has never in any way questioned the .'rightfulness of th^ action taken.. And now at the end of this lapse of time the title is challenged, and challenged upon propositions which, if sustained, establish that the owners have never had, and do not now have, any certain title to a single foot of the-land, and this although they have been in undisturbed possession1 all these years, and have paid taxes to the state authorities amounting to $66,000 at least and probably more.
The party who challenges the title of the plaintiff to the particular portion of the tract in controversy in this suit entered at first into possession of it as a .tenant, and when at the termination of his lease he was refused a continuance thereof, took steps to maintain ~a possession and assert a right adverse to his former landlord. It is undoubtedly true that settled rules of -law cannot be ignored because in any particular case their application works apparent harshness. At the same time the result to which the contentions of the defendant'.lead may well compel a careful examination of them.
These contentions are that Congress granted only non-mineral lands; that this particular tract is mineral land, and therefore by the terms of-the act is not within the grant; that no patent has ever been issued, .and therefore the legal .title has never passed from the Government; that the Land Department never adjudicated that this was non-mineral land, but on the contrary simply approved the location, subject to the conditions and provisions of the act of Congress, thereby leaving the question of title to rest in perpetual abeyance upon possible future discoveries of minerals within the tract.
In examining these contentions it is well to consider first
the act of Congress of June 21, 1860, and the circumstances under which it was passed. For, as said in
Winona & St. Peter Railroad
v.
Barney,
113 U. S. 618, 625, in reference to legislative grants, “ they are to receive such a construction as will carry out the intent of Congress, however difficult it might be to give full effect to the language used if the grants were by instruments of private conveyance. To ascertain that intent we must look to the condition of the country when the acts were passed, as well as to the purpose declared on their face, and read all parts of them together.” This act was a final disposition by Congress of certain claims under Mexican grants for lands situate in the Territory of New Mexico. The circumstances and character of these claims had been reported to Congress by the surveyor general of the Territory. Some of them were confirmed as reported and
in
toto, and, as stated in
Tameling
v.
U. S. Freehold & Emigration Co.,
93 U. S. 644,
Maxwell Land Grant case,
121 U. S. 325, and other cases, such confirmation operated as a grant
de novo,
and took effect at once as a relinquishment by Congress of all rights of the United States to the premises. Others were confirmed in part and for only fractions of the areas claimed, and as to them, by section 2, it was made “ the duty of the surveyor general of New Mexico immediately to proceed to make the surveys and locations authorized and required by the terms of this section.” Another claim was not confirmed, but leave was given to the claimant to bring suit,, with a proviso that if the suit should not be instituted within two years the claim should be presumed to have been abandoned; and in respect to the claim before us the right of location was to' continue in force for three years and no longer. Obviously, the thought was that these claims should not only be finally but speedily disposed of. It was not contemplated that the title should remain unsettled, a mere float for an indefinite time in the future.
As the amount of the Las Vegas claim .was large, and as the claimants were required to make.their locations “in square bodies, not exceeding five in number,” each. location would necessarily be of a. tract of 'considerable size; in fact, each one
was nearly 100,000 acres. The tract thus located was as a whole to be non-mineral. No provision was made for indemnity lands in case mineral should be found in any section or quarter section. So that when the location was perfected the title passed to all the lands or to none.
•It will also be perceived that Congress did not permit this location to be made anywhere in the public domain, but only within the limits of the Territory of New Mexico. It was not like a military land warrant, subject-to. location upon any public lands, but only a grant which could be made, operative within certain prescribed and comparatively narrow limits — limits not even so broad as those of the territory ceded by Mexico. There were then but few persons living In New Mexico; it contained large areas of arid lands; its surface was broken by a few mountain chains, and crossed by a few streams. It was within the limits' of this territory, whose condition and natural resources were but slightly known,.that Congress authorized this location. The grant was made in lieu of certain specific lands claimed by the Baca heirs in the vicinity of Las Yegas, and it was the purpose to permit the taking of a similar body of land anywhere within the limits of New Mexico. The grantees, the Baca heirs, were áuthorized to select this body of land. They were not at liberty to select lands already occupied by others. The lands, must be vacant. Nor were they at liberty to select lands, which were then known to contain mineral. • Congress .did not intend to grant any mines or mineral lands,, but with these exceptions their right of selection was coextensive with the limits’of New Mexico. We say “ lands then known to contain mineral,” for it cannot be that Congress intended that the grant should be rendered nugatory by any future discoveries of mineral. The selection was to be made within three years. The title was then to pass, and it would be an insult to the good faith of Congress to suppose that it did not intend that- the title when it passed should pass absolutely, and not contingently: upon subsequen t discoveries. This is in accord with the general rule as to the transfer of title to the public lands of the United States. In cases of homestead, preemption or townsjfe entries,
the law excludes mineral lands, but it was never doubted that the title once passed was free from ¿11 conditions of subsequent discoveries of mineral. As was said in
Deffeback
v.
Hawke,
115 U. S. 392, 404, where this matter was considered:
“We also say lands
known
at the time of their sale to be' thus valuable, in order to avoid any possible conclusion against the validity of titles which may be issued for other’ kinds of land, in which, years afterwards, rich deposits of'mineral may be discovered. It is quite possible that lands- settled upon as suitable only'for agricultural purposes, entered 'by.vthe settler and patented by the Government under the preemption'laws, may be found, years after the patent: has been issued, to contain valuable minerals.. Indeed, this .has often happened. We, therefore, use the term
known
to be valuable at the time of sale, to prevent any doubt being cast upon titles to lands afterwards found to be different in their - mineral character from what was supposed • whén the entry of them was-made and the patent issued.” 'See also
Colorado Coal Co.
v.
United
States, 123 U. S. 307.
How was the character of the- land to ,be determined, and by whom? The surveyor■ general of New Mexico was directed to make survey and- location of the lands selected. Upon'that particular officer was' cast the specific, duty of seeing that-the lands selected were such as the Baca heirs were entitled to select. It is not strange that he was :the one named; for,, in the original act of 1854, which made pro-, vision for the examination'of these various claims, the-duty of such examination \vas cast upon the same officer, and.he was. there required “ to ascertain the origin, naturé, character and' extent of all claim's to lands under the' laws, usages and customs of. Spain and Mexico; and; for this purpose, may issue notices, summon witnesses, administer oaths and do and perform all other necessary acts in the premises,” and it was upon his report that Congress' acted. Further, he was the officer who, by Virtue of his duties, was most compétént to ■ examine and pass upon the question of the character of the, .lands selected. We do not mean that Congress thereby created an independent'tribunal outside of and apart from the
general Land Department of the Government. On the contrary, the act of 1854 provided that hq should act under im structions from the Secretary of the Interior, and so undoubtedly in proceeding to make survey and location as required by section 6 of the act of .1860, he was still subject to the control and direction of the Land Department; but while he was not authorized by this section to act in defiance’ or-independently of the Land Department he was the particular’ officer charged with the duty of making survey and location1, and it ,was for him to say, in the first-instance at-least’ whether the lands so selected, and by him Surveyed and located, were lands vacant, and non-mineral. This is in accord -with the-views of the Land Department, as. appears from the official-letter of June. 28, 18S4, written in response to an application for the right to make mineral locations within the tract, in which the Com-, missioner, after stating what had taken place, added.: “You will see' by the foregoing that the land in question was determined, in 1864, by the »^yeyor general; whose province ■ and duty it was, to be non mineral; the location was then .perfected- and the title passed.”'
It is also worthy of note that Congress aid not consider that there was any great probability of the discovery of mineral wealth in New Mexico. By the act of I860 it confirmed various claims, amounting to millions-of acres; confirmed, them absolutely and without any reservation of mines- then known or to be thereafter discovered within their limits.- And this, although under Spanish if not under Mexican law, all minerals were perpetually -reserved from such grants. 1 Bock-well’s Spanish and Mexican Law, p. 49, secs. 1, 2 and 3, pp. 112, 113 and 114. It made no appropriation for the exploration of the claims to be thereafter located, and although it required the completion of this location- within three years, it made but meagre appropriation for surveys, the appropriation' in 1860 for surveying- both the public lands and private • land claims in New Mexico being only $10,000. Act of June 25, I860,
o'.
211, 12 Stat. 10.4, ,108.
. It will- also be perceived that the surveyor general, as well as the register and receiver of the land "óffice, each certified
that the land was non-minerai. These certificates were their decision to.that effect. Th-'v were.made in accordance with the original instructions scut out by. the Land Department in July, 1860, and in this respect they were all that was required by those instructions, -which were “ in either case [that is, whether the selection is either within or outside the -existffi surveys] the final condition of the certificate to this office must be accompanied by a statement from yourself and the register and receiver that the land is vacant; and not mineral.” Thus the proper officer decided that the land was" non-mineral, and accompanied the report of the survey and location with all the certificates and statements required by the original instructions from the Land Department.
But it is said that, the attention of the Land Department having been called to the fact that this location was made upon lands supposed to contain minerals, it was not satisfied with the requirements it.had originally made; was not content with the certificates' demanded of the surveyor general and the register and receiver, and expressly disapproved the evidence in fact furnished thereby, and, also, that while it finally authorized an approval of the survey and location, it directed that the certificate of approval should contain the special reservations named in the statute; that is, that’ the location should not embrace mineral lands. It is undoubtedly true that the suspicions of the Land Department were aroused by the report that was made as to the supposed character of the land embraced within this location, and that by its letter of January T6, 1864, it held that the evidence furnished as to the 'character of the land was not sufficient. This letter criticises the certificate of the surveyor general on the ground that, as-appeared from- an accompanying letter, it was based not solely upon his personal knowledge, but upon “information and conclusions deduced from reasoning.” It also notes the fact that the certificate of the register and receiver required by the instructions was wanting. There .’is’ a seeming conflict between the statements in this letter and the records of the surveyor general’s office. ’ The latter indicate that *the certificate of the register and receiver was forwarded with the
certificate of the surveyor general, while the letter of the Commissioner says that the former was lacking. This apparent contradiction may arise from the fact that the certificate of the register and receiver was sent in a different enclosure, or perhaps it was overlooked by the Commissioner of the Land-Office. At any rate, it was about that time, at least, sent to the Land Department, for, as appears from the letter of February 26, it was returned by that department to the surveyor •general. Obviously the Land Department, after sending the letter of January 16, reconsidered its action. It had .received the certificate of the register and receiver, and had before it all the certificates required by the original letter of instructions, and instead of continuing the suspension of an approval for further proof, as indicated by the letter of January 16, it wrote, on February 12, to close the matter up, pointing out how all the difficulties which stood in the way could be removed. This letter notes the fact that by the statute it is made the duty of the surveyor general to make the survey and location. It contains no disapproval of the certificates or evidence furnished; authorizes him to approve the survey, although it directs that to his certificate of approval he “ add the special reservation stipulated by the statute, but not to embrace mineral lands.” It further notifies him that the statute does not provide for a patent, and that the law with the plat approved by him in the manner indicated will constitute the evidence of title. Thereupon the surveybr general proceeded to approve the survey, his certificate of approval being absolute and únconditional. He also approved the plat, though his certificate of approval to that was made as required by the letter of February 12, “subject to the conditions and provisions of section 6 of the act of Congress approved June 21, 1860.” He also forwarded to the Land Department the field notes, the survey and the plat with his certificates of approval attached, and they were received and filed by the department without'objection. But one conclusion can be deduced from these proceedings, and that is that the Land Department, perceiving that its original instructions had been 'strictly complied with ; that no money had been appropriated
by Congress for actual exploration of the lands; that, no way was open for securing further evidence as to their character; that the time within which any other location could be made had passed; that it was the right of the locators to have the question settled and the title confirmed or rejected, ordered the closing of the matter, the passage of the title, and sought to protect the interests of the Government and guard against ■ any criticism of its action by directing an entry in the certificate of approval that it was made subject to the conditions and provisions of the act of Congress.
In this three things are to be noticed: First, that the surveyor general, the officer specially designated to make the survey and location, the one primarily charged with the duty of determining its character, decided that the land was non-mineral. His certificate to that effeet is unqualified. His certificate of approval to the field notes and the survey is the same. So far, therefore, as his action is concerned, there was an adjudication that the land was non-mineral. Second, the Land Department directed that the matter be closed, specified how it should be closed, and received and filed without question the report of the surveyor general’s action. Third, the only qualification or limitation is found in the direction.of the Land Department, followed by the action of the surveyor general^ in adding to his certificate of approval of the plat the proviso that it is “subject to the conditions and provisions of section 6 of the act of Congress of June 21, 1860.” There was no reservation of the matter for further consideration in the Land Department or by the surveyor general. There was a finality so far as they were concerned.
What is the significance of, and what effect can be given to the clause inserted in the certificate of approval of the plat that it was subject to the conditions and provisions of the act of Congress? We are of opinion that the insertion of any such stipulation and limitation was beyond the power of the Land Department. Its duty was to decide and not to decline to decide; to execute and not to refuse to execute the will of Congress. It could not deal with the land as an owner and prescribe the conditions upon which title might be .transferred.
It was agent and not’ principal. Congress had made, a grant, authorized a seleetion within three years, and directed the surveyor general to make survey and location, and within the general powers of the Land Department it was its duty to see that such grant was carried into effect and that a full title to the proper land was made. Undoubtedly it could refuse to . ápprove a location on the ground that the land was mineral. It was its duty to decide the question — a duty which it could not avoid or evade. It could not say to the locator that it approved the location provided no mineral' should ever thereafter be discovered, and disapproved it if mineral were discovered; in other words, that the locator must take the cnances of future discovery of minerals. It was a question for its action and its action at the time. The general statutes of Congress- in respect to homestead, preemption and townsite - locations provide that they shall be made upon lands that are' non-min eral, and. in approving ■ any such entry and issuing a patent therefor could it be tolerated for a moment that the Land Department might limit the grant- and qualify the title by a stipulation'that, if thereafter mineral should be discovered the title should fail ? It cannot in that way avoid the respon-' sibility of .deciding and giving to the party seeking to make the entry, a full title to the land or else denying it altogether. As said in
Deffeback
v.
Hawke,
supra, 406:
“The position that the patent to the-plaintiff should have contained a reservation excluding from its operation all buildings and improvements not belonging to him, and all rights necessary or proper to the possession- and enjoyment of the same, has no support in any legislation of Congress. The land officers, who are merely agents of the law, had no authority to insert in the patent any other’ terms than those of conveyance, with recitals-showing a compliance with the .law and the conditions which it prescribed.”
Further, it must be noticed that the Land' Department has since 1864 again and again decided that the action then taken was final, that the land had been segregated from the public domain and become private property. Thus'; so far as the iudgment of the -executive branch of the government is con
cerned, the finality-of the action, taken in passing the title, has been settled. But we may go further. As appears by the report of the surveyor general and of the Land Department, transmitted to Congress in 1864, the fact that this land -had been finally appropriated to the claim of the Báca heirs was disclosed. Mention of that fact was also made in subsequent reports to that body, and yet from that time to the present Congress has taken no action in the matter, and has thus by its silence confirmed the proceedings of the Land Department.
Defendant relies largely on the decision of this .court in
Barden
v.
Northern Pacific
Railroad, 154 U. S. 288, in which it was held that lands identified by the filing of the map of definite location as within the scope of the grant made by Congress to that company, although at the time of the filing of such map not known to contain any mineral,’ did not pass under the grant' if before the issue of the patent mineral was discovered. But that case, properly considered, sustains rather the contentions of the plaintiff. It is true there was a division of opinion, but that division was only as to the time at which and the means by which the non-mineral character of the land was settled. The minority were of the opinion that the question was settled at the time of the filing of the map of definite location. ■ The majority, relying on the language in the' original act of 1861 making the grant, and also on the joint resolution of January 30', 1865, which expressly declared' that such grant should not be “ construed as to embrace mineral lands, which in all cases shall be and are reserved exclusively to the United States,” held that the question of mineral or non-mineral was open to consideration up to the time of issuing a patent. But there was no division of opinion as to the question that when the legal title did pass — and it passed unquestionably by the patent — it passed free from the contingency of future discovery of minerals.
Deferring to the contention that if the question of mineral was open for consideration until the issue of a patent there would be great uncertainty in titles, the court said (pp. 326-7):
“We do not think that any apprehension of disturbance in titles from the views we assert néed arise. The law placés
under the supervision of the Interior Department and its subordinate officers, acting under its directionj the control of all matters affecting the disposition of public lands of the United States, and the adjustment of private claims to them under the legislation of Congress. It can hear contestants and decide upon the respective merits of their claims. It can investigate and settle the contentions of all persons with respect to. such claims. It can hear evidence upon and determine the ' character, of lands to which ■ different parties assert a right; and when the controversy before it is fully considered and ended, it can issue to the rightful claimant the patent provided by law, specifying that- the lands are of the character for ■which a patent is. authorized.”
It quoted these words from the opinion in
Smelting Company
v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, 640:
“The execution and record of the patent áre the final acts of the officers of the Government for the transfer of its title, ■and, as they can be lawfully performed, only after certain steps have been taken,' that instrument, duly signed, countersigned and sealed, not merely operates to pass the title, but is in.the nature of an official declaration by that branch of the Government to which the alienation of the public lands, under the law, is. entrusted, that all the requirements preliminary to its issue 'have been complied with.. The presumptions thus "attending it are not open to rebuttal in an action at law.”
And added (329-330):
“ There are undoubtedly many cases arising before the hand Department in the disposition, of the public lands where it will be a matter of much difficulty on the part of its officers to ascertain with accuracy whether the lands to be disposed of are to be deemed mineral lands or agricultural lands, and in such cases the rule adopted that they will be considered . mineral or agricultural, as they are more valuable in the one class' or the other, may be sound. The officers will be governed by the knowledge of the lands-obtained, at the time as to their real character. The determination of .the. fact by those officers that they are one or the other will be considered • as conclusive. " ’ . •
* * * • * *
It is true that the patent has been issued in many instances without the investigation and- consideration which the public interest requires; but if that has been done without fraud, though unadvisedly, by officers of the Government charged with the duty of supervising and attending to the preparation and issue of such patents, the consequence must be borne by the Government until by further legislation a stricter regard to their duties-in that respect can be enforced upon them. .The fact remains that under,the law the duty of determining the character of the lands granted by Congress, and stating it in instruments transferring the title of the Government to the grantees, reposes in officers of the Land Department.”,
But, it is said, no patent was issued in this case, and therefore the holding in the
Barden
case, that the issue of a patent puts an end to all question, does not apply here. But the significance of a patent is that it is evidence of the transfer of the legal title. There is no magic in the word “ .patent,” or in the instrument which the word defines. By it the legal title passes, and when b}r whatsoever instrument and in whatsoever manner that is accomplished, the same result follows as though a formal patent were issued.
Rutherford
v. Greene, 2 Wheat. 196, 206 ;
Bryan
v. Forsyth, 19 How. 334;
Langdeau
v.
Hanes,
21 Wall. 521, 531, in which this court said: “ If the claim be to quantity, and not to a specific tract capable of identification, a segregation by survey will be required, and the confirmation will then immediately attach the title to the lands segregated.” The land passes out of the jurisdiction of the Land Department. The grant has then become complete,-and the only remedy for any wrong in the transfer of such title is through the courts, and not in the Land Department.
Michigan Land & Lumber Company
v.
Rust,
168 U. S. 589, 592, and cases cited in the opinion. In this case the Land Department refused to issue a patent; decided that it had no power to do so, and that the title wras complete without one. It would seem strange' to hold that the lack of a patent left the question of mineral an open one when there wTas no authority for the issue of a patent, when-it was -in fact refused and when the
title passed the same as though a patent had issued. There was not at the time of these transactions, and has not since been, any statute specifically authorizing a patent for this land. Sec. 2447, Rev. Stat. taken from the act of December 22, 1854, c. 10, 10 Stat. 599, applies only to the case of a claim to land “ which has heretofore been confirmed by law.” And the same may be said as to the' special act of March 3, 1869, c. 152, 15 Stat. 342. Here there had been no claim confirmed to any tract of land, but only the grant of a right to locate.- In that respect it was like a land warrant, subject to location anywhere within the specified territory. As to land warrants,- however, there is a specific provision for the issue of patents. Rev. Stat. § 2423. The Land Department was, therefore, technically right when it said that the statute did not' order the issue of a patent, and that the case was one in which the granting act with the approved survey and location made a full transfer of title. Very likely if a patent had been issued the courts would not have declared it void, but have sustained -it as the customary instrument used by government to make a' transfer of the legal title.
Carter
v. Ruddy, 166 U. S. 493. But ás there was no statute in.terms .authorizing a patent, it' was not within the power of the locators to compel the issue of one. No court would by mandamus order such issue in. the absence of a specific and direct statute requiring it. So-when the department refused to issue one the locators had no-alternative but to accept that which the statute had provided as the means of acquiring and the evidence of title, and that-must be treated as' having all the efficacy of a patent.
Summing up the whole matter it results in this : Congress in 1860 made a grant of a certain number of acres, authorized the grantees to select the land within three years anywhere in the Territory of New Mexico, and directed-the surveyor general of that territory to make survey and location of the land selected, thus casting upon that officer the primary duty of', deciding whether the land selected was such as the grantees plight select. They selected this-tract. Obeying the statute and the instructions issued by the -Land Department, that . officer approved the selection and made the- survey and loca
tion. The Land Department, at first suspending action; finally-directed him to close up the matter, to approve the field notes, survey and plat, and notified the parties through him that such field notes, survey and plat, together with the act of Congress, should constitute the evidence of title. All was done as directed. Congress made no provision for a patent and the Land Department refused to issue one. All having been done that was prescribed by the statute, the title passed, The Land Department has repeatedly rilled that the action then taken was a finality. It has noted on all maps and in its .reports that this tract had been segregated from the public domain and become private property. It made report of this to Congress, and that body has never questioned- the validity of its action. The grantees entered into actual possession and fenced the entire tract. ' They have paid the taxes levied by the State upon it as private property, amounting to at least $66,000. While the approval entered upon the plat by the surveyor general under the direction of the Land Department was in terms “subject.to the conditions and provisions of. section 6 of the.act of Congress, approved June 21, 1860,” such limitation was.' beyond the. power of executive officers to impose.
We are of. opinion that at this late day the title of the locators and their grantees is not subject to challenge, and that it is a full, absolute and unconditional title.
The judgment of the Circuit Court will,
therefore,
Toe reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.