preemptors, but both sets having in reality the same ulterior purposes in regard to the use of the land.  The Government has no possible concern in the controversy, except to deal impartially between the parties according to law.  The agricultural preemptors contend that different rules of right as to the power of individual or private occupation, and as to the criteria of valid occupation, apply to them, as against their adversaries.  The municipal preemptors contend that the same rules of equal right, inceptive and progressive, in these respects, apply to both classes of preemptors.  I think that the latter view of the law is correct, according to its letter, its spirit; and the settled practice of the Government.

The investigation of the facts of the case, and the application of the law to the facts, are, of course, duties of your Department.

I leave here the first and second questions; and, proposing to reply at an early day on the third question,

I have the honor to be, very respectfully,

C. Cushing.

Hon. Robert McCLELLAND,

Secretary of the Interior.

The end.
_______

ADVERTISEMENT.

The official opinions of the.  Attorneys general of the united states.  Edited by C. C. Andrews, Esq.  Volume VII. (8 vo.) now ready.  Washington:  Published by R. Farnham.

“In this series the proudest names of American law have found some appropriate record of their labor and their wisdom. * * No student of the law can find more valuable reading than in these opinions.  We would urge upon him to turn now and then from the common place reading of the profession to the great studies which impart, to the law the dignity of a science.  If less immediate in the rewards they bring, they are the only studies which can win for the legal aspirant the true glory of a great lawyer.”—­ Monthly Law Reporter.

“Mr. Andrews is entitled to the thanks of his professional brethren for the very satisfactory manner in which he has presented these opinions.”—­ American Law Register.

“On such examination as I have been able to give it (Volume VI.), the volume seems to me to be full of instruction; the argument most clearly and fairly conducted; the researches thorough, and the conclusions, in so far as I can form a judgment, just.”—­ Rufus Choate.

“But we should fail entirely in our object, of calling attention to this work if we did not particularly commend it to the notice of the statesman and the general reader. * * These volumes constitute a great treatise on constitutional law; the work, not of one man, but of a succession of able men from the age of Washington, who have examined and revised each other.  We regard it, therefore, as one of the most valuable publications which has embellished our political and legal literature.”—­ National Intelligencer.