mony given at Glenwood Springs, and which is considered to be fully of commercial value. Leaner shales than this are at present being worked profitably. Its value is indicated in the calculation sheet appended thereto, and that he with other geologists deemed these facts important as they do warrant a prudent person in spending money for the development of the claims. J. B. JENSON. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 21st day of February, A. D. 1925, and I hereby certify that the foregoing affidavit was read to the said J. B. Jenson previous to his name being subscribed thereto; and that deponent is a respectable person to whose affidavit full faith and credit should be given. IRMA M. JENSON, Notary Public, Salt Lake City, Utah. My commission expires October 29, 1927. R. H. OFFICER & Co., INDUSTRIAL AND METALLURGICAL ASSAYERS AND CHEMISTS, Subject: Oil-shale analysis. CERTIFICATE STANDARD SHALE PRODUCTS Co., San Francisco, Calif. GENTLEMEN: Herewith find analysis of oil shale submitted to us by Mr. Specific gravity of crude oil at 60° F., 0.901; 25.4°, B. Per cent 12.50 11.88 12 75.50 100.00 W. L. HANSON. Workable shale of the character shown by the officer certificates, requires 20 cubic feet in place to the ton and a ledge, therefore, which is 20 feet thick contains 1 ton for each square foot of surface, or 43,560 tons. A 5-foot measure contains one-fourth of that amount or, as in this case 10,890 tons. Sample of this shale assay yielded as follows: 33.3 gallons per ton, petroil specific gravity, 0.901, 25.4° B., which produced on cracking: 40 per cent shalene (13.3 gallons). 16 per cent lubricant (5.3 gallons). Dry coke and paint residium_-_ Total value.. In accordnace with sheet given formerly, cost of production in a 100-ton capacity plant is $4.67 per ton----. $2.66 2.76 .40 5.82 4. 67 Net ton value__ 1. 15 On account of pioneering conditions of the industry, deduct for unforseen and emergency, 30 per cent_---- .34 Net ton value_____ Net value of 10,890 tons per acre. 89 8, 692. 10 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, February 4, 1931. I hereby certify that the annexed copy of page one of a pamphlet "Commercial and Engineering Aspects of the New Oil-Shale Industry of the Western Slope" by J. B. Jenson, filed under Denver 032575, formerly Glenwood Springs 018827, is a true and literal exemplification of so much of said pamphlet on file in this office as it purports to represent. In testimony whereofo I have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the seal of this office to be affixed, at the city of Washington, on the day and year above written. [SEAL.] THOS. C. HAVELL, Assistant Commissioner of the General Land Office. PRACTICAL ASPECT OF OIL-YIELDING SHALE DEPOSITS OF WESTERN SLOPE (By J. B. Jenson, mining engineer and oil-shale specialist, Salt Lake City, Utah) I have been asked by the Salt Lake Mining Review to briefly describe in a series of articles the marvelous deposits of oil-yielding shales of the western slope of this continent, and particularly as to those deposits now included in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, comprising the original deposits of the Great Uinta Basin before its segregation into the Green River Basin, the Uinta Basin, the De Beque, and Soldier Summit fields. I am also invited to discuss the comemrcial aspects of profitably mining and treating these deposits of oilyielding shales because of the world-wide attention which now is being attracted to them and because of the work which I have done in the field during the past few years, and the attention I have given to the practical side of this new commercial industry, the potentialities, of which can be hardly comprehended at the moment. These fields constitute to-day what is known to be the greatest deposits of oil-yielding shales in the world and when their possibilities are compared with those of the deposits of Scotland, France, Australia, and Norfolk, England, these latter fields melt into insignificance. Senator WALSH of Montana. The fact is, only one side of the question was discussed at that meeting of December 1, 1926. Mr. FINNEY. It was a general hearing. Senator WALSH of Montana. That is correct. There was a published notice asking anybody who wanted to be heard to come. As a matter of fact, no one did come except those who were arguing in favor of a more liberal construction of the law. Mr. FINNEY. That is correct. Senator WALSH of Montana. And likewise, geologists came who presented to your committee the facts in relation to the geology of the section. Mr. FINNEY. They did. Senator WALSH of Montana. And that was all in support of the contention for a more liberal application of the rule? Mr. FINNEY. I hardly think that is correct. I assume that those gelogists were telling us the truth and were giving us information as to the geology of the region. Senator WALSH of Montana. Exactly, but no one gave any information contradictory to the information given to the committee. Senator GLENN. I believe you stated the other day that there was a published notice, and the hearing was free to anybody that desired to come. Mr. FINNEY. It was. Senator GLENN. Did you subpoena anybody or notify anybody to come except by giving the notice? Mr. FINNEY. No, sir. Senator GLENN. In other words, did you have anything to do with the selection of those who were present at this hearing? Mr. FINNEY. No, sir; nothing whatever. Senator GLENN. I want to ask one other question. I think it is clear, but it may not be. Was anybody who came and desired to be heard at this hearing refused the opportunity? Mr. FINNEY. Absolutely not. Everyone who asked to be heard was heard. Senator GLENN. Do these States in which these lands in question were located have, any of them, or all of them, have bureaus of conservation or departments that have in charge matters relating to the public lands? Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir; each of the States has. In some cases it is called the public lands commission. It is sometimes made up of three people and they deal with all the lands that are acquired under school and other grants, or any lands in which the State has an interest. Senator GLENN. Were any of those bodies of the States represented in an official capacity? I believe you made the statement about that the other day. Mr. FINNEY. The attorney general of Colorado was present, Mr. Boatright, and his statement, as I recall it, was somewhat along the line of the statement of Senator Kendrick and Congressman Taylor of Colorado, and Congressman Winter. He was interested in the development of the resources of the State. Senator GLENN. That is all. Senator WALSH of Montana. Without going into them in detail, Mr. Finney, can you tell us in a general way what there was in these affidavits that induced the granting of the extraordinary order? Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir; in a general way I can. These were filed, as you will see from the record, at various times. Some of them were filed in support of the original motion for a rehearing, and then some were filed at a later date. Now, as I recall them, their background was this, that they, either through erroneous advice of the register, or through their own lack, or the lack of their attorneys' knowledge or effort, had not put in evidence that they had available as to discovery in these various claims. I recall, in one of his affidavits, Mr. Freeman said that he would be able at a later hearing to identify more particularly the alleged points of discovery and give some information as to what was found there. It was stated also, as I said to your Committee on Tuesday, by the attorneys for Freeman, that the register had misled them by rather directing their thought to the matter of the regularity of the homestead and the homesteaders' good faith in the character of the land. Then, here was another feature that was presented in either the motion or the affidavit, and that impressed me more than anything else, and that was that all the facts had not been brought out at the original hearing. Senator WALSH of Montana. The facts in relation to what? Mr. FINNEY. To the character of this land in the discoveries and what work in the nature of discoveries had been done by Freeman and his associates. Now, it is my tendency, or was, at all times when I had the power of decision, where I felt the evidence was not complete, to remand for the taking of additional evidence so that the department could have all the facts. I feel that the Secretary of the Interior or his assistants, when they are deciding a case, are entitled to have all the facts that may be available and if those are not presented by the parties contestant, that he can, on his own motion, as I said, call for them. Senator GLENN. I did not catch that. Mr. FINNEY. If the facts are not presented by parties to a contest, he, in the exercise of his supervisory authority, has a right to get that additional evidence. Senator GLENN. He, the Secretary of the Interior? Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir; and of course the proper way to do it is to get it through a further hearing where both parties, if there are two parties, can be represented and where witnesses can be examined and cross-examined. Senator WALSH of Montana. Was there any opposition to this application for the exercise of the supervisory authority? Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir; I think that Mr. Summers' attorney in Colorado-I know he filed at one time the brief or paper in opposition. I am not absolutely sure whether it was in connection with the motion for a rehearing. Senator WALSH of Montana. Well, your records show whether Summers had any information about the pendency of the application for the exercise of the supervisory authority. Mr. FINNEY. I think they should show; yes, sir. Senator WALSH of Montana. Have you the record available? Mr. FINNEY. It would be in the record in the case. I do not know whether these gentlemen have it here or not. Have you the record here? That would mean, I think, whether the opinion had been served. In that connection, Senator, let me state that our rules of practice provide that a petition for supervisory authority need not be served on the other party, but ordinarily, if the petition is sustained and the decision is to be changed, that then notice must be served on the other party and he be given the opportunity to come in and resist. Now, the purpose of that rule was not to stir them up unnecessarily and put them to anxiety and expense unless there was a disposition on the part of the department to entertain the supervisory petition. If, however, the department was inclined to entertain it, then the rule provided that service should be made. However, I am not clear as to just what occurred in this case, but the sole purpose that actuated me in remanding this case for a future hearing was to ascertain all the facts it was possible to ascertain through such a proceedings, as to the character of the land, the nature of the discoveries, and so forth. Senator WALSH of Montana. Now, up to that point had the controversy proceeded as one strictly and exclusively between these two rival claimants? Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir. I am very glad you asked that question. Senator WALSH of Montana. When, if at all, did the Government, if we may so speak, get into the controversy for the purpose of determining whether either of them was entitled to the land in question? Mr. FINNEY. After the decision, ordering the new or supplemental hearing in the field, a direction was sent by the Commissioner of the General Land Office to Inspector Kelley directing the inspector to intervene and represent the Government at the trial. That was August 12, 1925. I had been consulted by the land office as to that and agreed to it. Senator WALSH of Montana. That was before this general conference, was it not? Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir, that was. I have the telegram here dated August 12, 1925. Senator WALSH of Montana. Yes. Mr. FINNEY. Shall I read it? Senator WALSH of Montana. Yes. Division Inspector KELLEY, 325 Post Office Building, Denver, Colo. Decerp twelfth copy secretary's letter July 29 mailed to-day. Register Glenwood Springs directed by wire to allow you to intervene in cases mentioned. HAVELL, Acting Commissioner. I think Kelley had written or sent some telegrams to the commissioner requesting or suggesting that he be allowed to intervene at the hearing. Now, he was to intervene, as I understood it, not to take sides against Freeman or Summers. Senator WALSH of Montana. Have you the letter that speaks about, Mr. Finney? Mr. FINNEY. That was the decision, Senator, ordering the hearing. July 29, 1925, was my decision, remanding the case for further hearing. That is what the commissioner refers to. He was sending a copy to Mr. Kelley of my decision or letter he calls it, of July 29, 1925. Senator WALSH of Montana. Well, was there no further letter or directions to Kelley in relation to intervention than that telegram? Mr. FINNEY. Yes; I sent a telegram to the register later with respect to what sort of evidence might be received at the hearing. It was not sent to Kelley. Senator WALSH of Montana. No other instructions were sent to Kelley at all? Mr. FINNEY. I don't recall that any further definite instructions were sent to Kelley direct. I did send a telegram to the register as to the admission of evidence. I have that here. Senator WALSH of Montana. To the register? Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir; the man to preside over the new hearing. Senator WALSH of Montana. Read it. Mr. FINNEY (reading): REGISTER, United States Land Office, Glenwood Springs, Colo. JANUARY 28, 1926. Referring my telegram yesterday Freeman against Summers, it is intended that mineral claimants after submitting evidence as to discovery or exposure |