. {d10 rrsnsnar. nsronrmn, vol. 38. ·
U 'copy was not Bled in the oilice of the register ofthe land-office of the
district embracingfthe ilands until June 4, 1869. "This plat (so Bled in
1869) is regarded by the interiordepartment as onicial, and the survey
as made of the dateof Bling. A plat approvedby-the surveyor general
December 18, 1865,-however, was Bled in the district land-otlice on De-
cember 28,* 1865, this being. the Brst plat Bled inrthat office; but this l
map is not regarded by the interior department as official, as it had not
at that time been approved and adopted by the department. Were it
otherwise, this Bling was too late. ~Unless the actual survey in the field,
and making and approving a plat by the surveyor general without Bling it,
or acertitied copy of it, in the local land~ofi:ice, places the lands in the
- category of surveyed lands in contemplation of law, then these lands
were also selected before they were surveyed by the United States, and
the selections were void. The interior department did not regard the
survey as official until the certified copy ofthe official plat was filed by
direction of the department in the local land—ofBce, June 4, 1869.
Whether this is to be regarded as the date of the survey or not,. we are
satisfied that the lands could not be regarded as legally surveyed in such
sense as to open them to selection, location, sale,.or·ot·her disposition till
ithe approved copy of the plat was filed on December.28, 1865. This is
the earliest date at which they could be considered open to selection, if
V open to selection then. ‘ The land—ofIice was the place for the disposition
and recordof the public lands; and until they had anauthentic official
plat of the surveys of the public land, it would be Fimpracticable to keep
a record of them ‘-orYof their disposition. If we are correct in this view,
when-no valid selection could Vbe made, at the earliest, `till December 28,
*1865,¥and this was several months after the grant to the railroad com-
ipany had indefeasibly attached. ~ l ` U V
  ’¥ On another ground the state selections in question are clearly void, and
f no interest attached to the lands selected in favor of the state. By the
express terms of the actof V1853, under whichthe selections were made,
s “ lands reserved by competent authority," "lauds claimed under any for-
reign grant, ortitle, and the mineral lands ,=" are excepted from theioperation
_ , 'lof the act. Consequently, neither such "reserved lands," lands claimed
·urider Mexican grants, nor mineral lands could be legally selected in
"lieu of school sections lost, or otherwise disposed of. And this was mani-
6 =festly the view of congress, for when it passed the act of 1866, to quiet
vtitles in California by confirming void selections, it also expressly ex—
”`cepted from confirmation ,"any land held or claimed under any valid
J Mexican or Spanish grant." V 14 ‘StQ p`. 218, § 1. That selections of
‘*1ands so claimed .under Spanish grants were void, and created no right
·whatever in the state, is directly decided andsettled by the supreme
` court of the United States in cases arising under this very grant, Las
` ¤P0citas, uponlocations made in 1863, at the sametime and in the same
Y manner as the lands now in question were selected and located. Aarre-
* coebheaiv. Bangs; 114 U. S. 382, 5 Sup.~Ct. Rep. 892, and Haj v. Doyle,
T 4 93fUi S. 558. ·· These cases are controlling. The lands were claimed
Wunder the Las Pocitas grant, at the time of their _selection,.~location and