sentatives should make separate reports, in which latter event a hearing would be necessary only on the points of disagreement. I believe that quite a percentage of the cases now pending might be thus settled without a hearing, reducing the number of hearings materially. These representatives, of course, would only have the facts to determine.

A decision based on those facts, and based on the law applicable to such cases must, as heretofore intimated, remain with the register, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and the Secretary of the Interior.

I believe that once the facts are determined by some such method as I have suggested, the administrative action which would follow, probably would not be the subject of much controversy, and will obviate the necessity of considering the appointment of any committee, even if authority be found therefor.

The attorneys contend that they should be heard on far-reaching legal questions before they are decided adversely to the oil-shale claimants. They refer, evidently, to the decision of the department of February 28, 1930 (Exhibit D), and ask that the same be reconsidered. The oil-shale people were so certain that the Krushnic decision settled all possible controversy as to assessment work, that the action of the department created quite a furore among them. The question is one of interpretation of the Krushnic decision and it is a fact, as they state, that no opportunity for presentation of their views was given before the decision was rendered. I believe that it would be advisable to notify the interested parties that the department is willing to hear any arguments, either verbally or by briefs, on the merits of the decision complained of, and that the same would be carefully considered and a formal decision rendered. The authority of the Government to question assessment work on the claims is being denied in numerous answers to charges of default now being filed, and in connection with said decision of February 28, 1930, the entire matter of assessment work should be discussed so that as far as the department is concerned a final decision may be made.

In connection with the oil-shale work, attention is called to the fact that all other investigation work in the field in the Salt Lake district has been entirely suspended, while in the Denver district only a few field men are left for work other than the oil-shale investigations. In both districts probably more than a summer's work on other classes of cases is on hand, a great part of which must be held over for another season. This situation is one of many that has arisen in the past years where we have found ourselves with a shortage of funds, and it emphasizes the fact that the public is not being served because of lack of sufficient appropriations. I earnestly recommend that every effort be made to obtain additional funds for our field work on oil shale and other cases, not only for the fiscal year of 1931, but for the fiscal year of 1932 as well.

Summarizing the situation I make the following recommendations:

1. As to oil-shale locations: That the work of posting be continued and expedited as much as possible where defaults exist and work has not been resumed, or that charges of default be served, where that may be done sooner than the posting may be accomplished.

2. As to patent applications: That the present procedure be continued, except that a reexamination of the claims be made in the field as suggested, if oil claimants express a willingness to cooperate in such field examinations, and that such work be expedited as much as possible.

3. That the decision of the department of February 28, 1930, be reconsidered after an opportunity has been given the oil-shale claimants to present whatever arguments, either orally or briefs, they desire.

4. That additional appropriations be obtained for our field force for the year 1931 and a larger appropriation than heretofore made, for the year 1932 for making examinations of oil-shale cases, as well as all other classes of cases requiring such field exminations, in order that reasonably prompt action may be taken on such cases.

Very respectfully,

Approved:

C. A. OBENCHAIN, Supervisor, General Land Office.

RAY LYMAN WILBUR

Mr. C. A. OBENCHAIN,

Supervisor General Land Office, Denver, Colo.

DENVER, April 11, 1930.

DEAR SIR: I inclose herewith the statement which you suggested, which statement summarizes what I said to you to-day.

I also inclose a log of oil-shale sampling which I thought would interest you. This sampling was done on patented ground of the Columbia Oil Shale & Refining Co., lying just west of the land of naval oil reserve No. 1, Colorado.

You will note that it shows 9 feet of 58-gallon shale and 30 feet that will average around 40 gallons, with 50 feet which will average approximately 35 gallons.

This sampling was done by Mr. F. A. Goodale, an extremely careful engineer, and is corroborated by other sampling done in the neighborhood of other engineers.

Respectfully,

MALCOLM LINDSEY.

Mahogany vein below power house-log of oil-shale samples

[Scale of oil: 1 inch, 20 gallons; scale of width: 1 inch, 10 feet]

A MEMORANDUM AS TO THE OIL SHALE SITUATION, RELATING ESPECIALLY TO THE FIELD SERVICE

DENVER, April 11, 1930.

Since 1917 our firm has represented oil-shale claimants holding oil-shale claims in Garfield County, Colo. We have had occasion to apply for numerous oil-shale patents on behalf of these claimants. Some of the patent applications have been granted; many of them are still pending.

During the last four or five years it has been exceedingly difficult to obtain patents to oil-shale placers. The cost of obtaining such patents has increased enormously, due to the trial of contest cases before the local land office and repeated hearings in Washington.

The burden of this delay and expense has become so heavy upon our clients, all of whom are people of limited means, that many of them have become practically bankrupt; others have simply thrown up their claims and abandoned them for want of funds to carry on.

In the course of this work we have necessarily had occasion to come into close contact, from time to time, with the field division of the General Land Office. We believe the chief of the field division to be absolutely honest and also believe him to be diligent in the gathering of information. We have no charges to make against him or his subordinates except that (and this applies particularly to his subordinates) it has seemed to us that there has been an idea prevalent in the field division that it is the wish of the Department of the Interior to defeat every shale claim possible. This has led, in the case of certain inspectors, to what has been excessive zeal in trying to carry out what we hope is a mistaken idea as to the wishes of the department. If the inspectors of the field division could be made to understand that they always occupy a judicial position, we think the result would be the removal of a just ground of criticism.

We suggest for consideration the adoption of the following two rules of procedure which we believe would, in large measure, do away with the delay and execessive cost which have characterized the granting of shale patents in the last five years.

First, that where the only charge against a shale claim is nonperformance of assessment work the field division be called on for immediate report as to resumption of work; and, if there has been resumption of work, then that the contest be dismissed and patent issued, if the claim is otherwise ready for patent.

Second, that where the only charge against an oil-shale patent application is inadequacy of patent work and it appears that such inadequacy has not been the result of bad faith either

(a) That the patent application be dismissed but the claim held intact so as to enable the claimant to perform the additional work necessary for patent; or

(b) That the patent application be suspended a reasonable time to give the claimant an opportunity to perform the additional work and to make showing thereof by supplemental proof.

Respectfully submitted.

LINDSEY & LABWILL, By MALCOMB LINDSEY.

C. A. OBENCHAIN, Esq.,

General Land Office, Denver, Colo.

DENVER, COLO., April 16, 1930.

MY DEAR SIR: I had not intended to identify myself with the details of your mission to Colorado until you requested, at the conference of this afternoon, such suggestions regarding the subject matter thereof as might prove useful in the consideration of possible improvements in the present policy of dealing with shale-oil claims and applications for patents therefor under the present rules and regulations of the department.

Fundamentally the chief difficulties attending present methods of procedure spring from the departmental construction heretofore and now given to the proviso to section 37 of the leasing act. The construction placed thereupon by the department immediately after the passage of the act and still existing, although modified by a recent decision of the Supreme Court, is that, upon delinquency in assessment work, the premises involved are not subject to relocation under section 2324 of the revised statutes but revert to the public domain and again become a part thereof and therefore subject to the general provisions of the leasing act.

This means that, as to such lands, the Government takes the place of a relocator and therefore must enforce the law in its own behalf. Hence the government becomes the party in interest as against the alleged delinquent, which means that it must be both the complainant and the ultimate judge of the issue. If this position be correct, we must, in order to accomplish results, begin with this situation and, in view of the last announcement of the department regarding forfeitures, the object desired can, in my humble judgment, be materially improved only if a definite method of initiating the forfeiture by the act of a citizen can be resorted to.

I have no intention of suggesting any change of attitude of the department as to the construction it long ago placed upon the statute, but I think that if, as a substitute, so to speak, for the relocation of the old mining claims as provided by section 2324, an application by a citizen of the United States for a permit or a lease covering the delinquent claims could be required as the initial act of forfeiture, it would greatly improve the situation. The idea is not at all original with me. It has been asserted by Mr. Larwill and, I think, by Mr. Roberts in controversies heard before the department. I have, however, been impressed with the necessity, if any substantial change reasonably satisfactory to claim owners is to be accomplished, of amending the proviso to section 37 by adding thereto a clause providing that, upon such failure to make the required expenditure, the premises shall be open to application under the leasing act by citizens for permit for lease. Indeed, I have prepared such an amendment and forwarded it to Senator Waterman and also to Representative Eaton for their consideration.

I think the advantage of this method of procedure would be to relieve the Government of the charge of being both claimant and arbiter and would

leave the situation practically as it is with regard to other than shale claims which may become delinquent. The application would take the part of the relocator and the Government would determine the controversy just the the same. If the applicant's contention of delinquency be sustained, his application will be considered and disposed of one way or the other. The necessary consequences of a ruling in his favor would be to restore to the Government the public domain, whose title would of course be acknowledged by the licensee or permitee and thus terminate the matter.

I wish, my dear sir, that you would give this suggestion your best thought, since, if the department would approve or at least acquiesce in the suggestion, the legislature would, in my judgment, enact it as a matter of course and would save the Government an infinite amount of trouble, expense, and criticism and, at the same time, do much toward modifying the irritation necessarily created by an arbitrary declaration of forfeiture accompanied by reentry of the Government agencies upon the property.

Very sincerely yours,

C. S. THOMAS.

DENVER, April 24, 1930.

Hon. C. A. OBENCHAIN,

General Land Office, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. OBENCHAIN: Inclosed is the memorandum you asked for at the oil-shale conference in Denver last week. It has been signed by all the attorneys present at the conference with you except Mr. William V. Hodges, who is out of the city and will not return for a week or 10 days.

We are addressing the original signed memorandum to you at Salt Lake City and are addressing a copy to you at Washington.

Very truly yours,

DINES, DINES & HOLME.

DENVER, COLO., April 23, 1930.

Hon. C. A. OBENCHAIN,

General Land Office, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. OBENCHAIN: You have asked us to give you a short memorandum of our criticism of the administration of oil shale mineral applications by your department and especially by the Denver field division.

The tremendous number of contests now pending in the Denver land office, especially in view of the small number of department men and very limited Government funds available for this investigation and ultimate trial on the merits, alone constitute a very serious situation. If adequate trials are to be had on all these contests, years will be consumed and this office so congested as to render it impossible for your department to give careful consideration to any of the matters handled. Even in the past the obstacles, delays, and heavy expense which have been encountered in practice by oil shale placer claimants have forced a general feeling in this region that it has been the policy of the department to defeat every oil shale claim possible.

We believe that no Government policy of conservation of oil shale for future governmental leasing can justify the confiscation of property rights and investments in oil shale placer claims established under laws as construed by the highest courts of the land and as understood by the people of this mining region and as administered by your department for the half century preceding the leasing act.

We believe the claimants are entitled to a fair, impartial, and judicial investigation of the facts upon which their applications for patent are based, as they were before the leasing act. We believe they are entitled to an impartial determination of the legal questions which arise after they have had a chance to be heard. We believe that claimants who in good faith and in keeping with the long established practice of the department have made a substantial compliance with all the things required for patenting these claims should be able to obtain their patents without long delays and excessive expense. There is a general feeling that we have not been getting détached judicial consideration of these matters either by the Denver field division or its superior officers in Washington.

After the leasing act the attitude and position of the department underwent a radical change toward oil shale claimants. The Government for the first

time assumed the attitude of an interested litigant against every oil shale placer owner. Every placer claim canceled meant so much more oil-shale land for the Government as landlord. The department began to look upon itself as the guardian of the public domain. In practice, under this new and changed policy, the department became the adverse claimant, the prosecutor, the judge and jury, all in one. Under this system it was inevitable that the attitude of adverse claimant and prosecutor would be reflected in the Denver field division entrusted with the examination of the claims.

Among the evidence of this is the enormous number of pending contests against oil-shale claimants wherein the Government seeks to forfeit the possessory mining titles and investments of the claimants. The number of these Government oil-shale contests on a small mining area in Colorado probably exceeds those on any similar area in the history of the public domain. A constantly declining ratio between the number of oil shale patents issued and the number of applications presented has developed in the last four or five years.

The delays and great financial burdens incident to the trials of these contests and repeated hearings in Washington are fast exhausting the funds of the owners, and almost amount to a denial of justice. In many cases claimants have already been forced to give up large investments in these claims and to abandon the claims for want of funds to carry on. If these contests are tried it usually means the taking in each case of a thousand or more pages of testimony and trips across the Nation to take the depositions of scattered witnesses. Then follow special trips half way across the continent to Washington for more hearings. The expense to both the Government and claimant is often more than the lands involved are worth.

We believe the chief of the Denver field division and his subordinates, however honest and sincere they may be in the performance of their duty, have in practice exhibited a zeal in their effort to secure all shale land possible for the Government which has frequently impelled them to assume the attitude of partisan prosecutor against shale claimants. There has been a general feeling that in the majority of cases it is exceedingly difficult and often impossible for the oil shale claimant to obtain any fair, impartial, and judicial investigation of the facts upon whch his right to a patent is based.

Evidence of this are numerous reports which have in the past come to us of inspectors securing erroneous written statements and affidavits from the locators and more ignorant laborers and workmen by threats and other means which to us seem unfair.

When the inspectors secure the signature of a locator or a laborer to a statement which the inspectors have written out, they seldom leave a copy. When the person who signed the statement later writes the Denver Field Division for a copy of what he has signed his letters go unanswered or he is met with excuses. It is usually impossible from any source to obtain copies of the statements. The first opportunity the man interviewed has of learning what he signed is during the trial of the contest when he is on the witness stand with the threat of perjury hanging over him if he tries to correct any matters in the statement. This does not seem to us to be a judicial way to arrive at the true facts.

Further evidences of unfairness are found in the practice of obtaining and using the so-called "confidential reports" sent to Washington with no opportunity afforded to the claimants to know and meet the statements therein contained. If the claimants were advised of what specific objections the field division were making in these confidential reports many of the long expensive contests could be avoided. Even the later broad blanket charges in the contest furnish the claimant with little knowledge of the real issues of fact which have been raised in the confidential reports.

In order to attack the patent work or assessment work the inspectors frequently value all the work on the basis of what the most experienced and able engineer in the field could do at the present time even though the work in question was done in earlier years when prevailing costs were much higher and less experienced and less efficient workmen were available. This has led many oil shale owners to feel they would not be free from attack unless they expended $120 to $150 instead of the required $100 or unless they expended $600 to $1,000 instead of the required $500 patent work.

Even when such overexpenditures are made the patent work has frequently been contested because the inspector in the light of later events claims that he would have made the excavations in different kind of material, or at a