field division, which was then under my supervision. A hearing was had upon this matter before the Public Lands Committee on January 5, 6, and 7, 1920. having special reference to Senate bill 3016, which read as follows: "Provided, that where the validity of purchases heretofore made under the act of March 3, 1905 have been or may hereafter be questioned in any departmental or court proceeding on the ground that a larger area than 640 acres has been directly or indirectly acquired by one person or corporation, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized in his discretion to validate, ratify, and confirm such sales or to examine and determine the present value of said lands and upon payment by the patentee or purchaser or his assigns of the difference between the amount heretofore paid and such ascertained value, to validate, ratify and confirm such sales."

Mr. Don B. Colton spent a large part of his time in Washington for a long period prior to this hearing in an attempt to secure such remedial legislation as provided in this bill. He testified at the hearing, as did many others. Mr. Matthew K. Sniffen, secretary of the Indian Rights Association, Philadelphia, Pa., and Mr. S. M. Brosius, agent, Indian Rights Association, Washington, D. C., both appeared at this hearing and testified in detail and opposed the passage of this act. The reports of the Salt Lake field division showed this land to be worth several times the amount received for it, and that the Indians had been defrauded of a large sum of money, clearly amounting to from $500,000 to $1,000,000. Later on Mr. Finney, then First Assistant Secretary, was in my office in Salt Lake City at a time when Commissioner Spry was also in the office. Mr. Finney pulled me over into a corner of the office and said that an offer had been or would be made by the purchasers of this land for a settlement under Senate bill 3016 which had been enacted into law, and that I was not to make any reports to the department setting forth any reasons why these offers should not be accepted, as the department desired to settle the matter on the offers made, which, as nearly as I can recollect, was $5,000 or $10,000. Eventually these offers were accepted and under the authority given the Secretary, the suits in the United States district court were dismissed and the entire transaction settled. The sum paid could not have been in excess of 2 or 3 cents per acre and was an outrageous settlement inasmuch as, although some of the land involved was of poor quality, a large part of it was splendid grazing land.

The evidence obtained by the field service showing the corruption practiced in obtaining title to these Indian lands was not presented to the Public Lands Committee for its consideration at the hearing mentioned. The attorney who appeared at the hearing and who was endeavoring to protect the public interest was denied the privilege of inspecting any of this evidence. This attorney repeatedly said that his attempts to obtain the evidence were refused. Among other statements made by this attorney with respect to the refusal of the Interior Department to permit him to inspect this evidence, all of which appear in the printed record of the proceedings, is the following: "They denied it to me absolutely in the Department of the Interior. I went there inquiring as to the status of those cases. I was confronted at once with the inquiry,For whom do you appear? Upon replying that I appeared for those opposing the bill I was told I could not inspect the records. Is there anybody here from the Department of the Interior to gainsay that statement?"

To the foregoing Mr. Finney is quoted as saying:

"I will say that he should not have had those papers."

Here was a case where a request of an attorney who desired confidential records for use in protecting the public interests, was denied by Mr. Finney. How different is his attitude with respect to requests by attorneys for the Standard of Indiana, who wanted confidential records for the purpose of defeating a Government case. But to those who know the official record of Mr. Finney in the Interior Department for a great many years, it is not difficult to understand why he has continued during this entire period to grant favors to attorneys representing this company.

The oil conservation conference called by the President met at Colorado Springs June 10, 1929. Mr. Finney represented the Interior Department at that meeting. I am advised by those closely associated with the firm of Dines, Dines & Holme, as well as by their own clients, that they were instru

mental in presenting to Mr. Finney at that time the matter of making an investigation of my office and that since that time Senator Waterman and Congressman Eaton have been, to use the expression of Mr. Eaton, "working upon it," and that this matter was being pushed by this firm of attorneys through these Colorado representatives in Congress. I may say that I know that this firm of attorneys are the principal ones behind any complaints of this kind. Both the Colorado senators, but principally Senator Waterman, have been actively engaged in defending the interests of the oil companies with respect to their oil shale holdings in Colorado before the Interior Department for years. In fact, their services have been as devotedly and consistently rendered as could have been that of the attorneys themselves. Senator Waterman was actively engaged in an attempt to induce Secretary West not to appeal the Krushnic case, and had he been successful the decision handed down by the Supreme Court, largely favorable to the Government's contentions, would not have resulted, and perhaps the major part of the oil shale deposits lost to the public. I am advised by no less a person than Mr. Freeman, that he secured a rehearing of the Freeman-Summers case mainly through pressure brought by Senator Phipps and representatives of the oil shale interests have confirmed this statement (Mr. Waterman was not then a senator); that the continuance of all oil shale hearings was secured at the request of Senator Waterman, and that the failure of the Secretary to consider the deceitful attitude of the firm of Dines, Dines & Holme when they appeared in the rôle of amicus curiae at the hearing in the Secretary's office, December 1, 1926, was due to the attitude of both Colorado senators. The correspondence regarding this matter is in the files of the General Land Office and the Secretary's office.

Messrs. Dines, Dines & Holme have represented to the Secretary that the engineers and attorneys of this office have misrepresented the fasts in connection with mineral applications reported upon in which that firm represents the owners. This office has repeatedly informed the Commissioner of the General Land Office and Mr. Finney in writing that this firm of attorneys have not only refused to cooperate with this office in its investigation, but have placed obstacles in our pathway and have issued instructions to their employees to refuse to assist in any investigations being made. The correspondence received from Mr. Finney, as well as his general attitude, has indicated that he preferred to accept the word of this firm rather than my own, and has acted accordingly. As a consequence, these attorneys have become more and more arrogant and their general attitude, which has been supported by their statements, is that they are easily able to persuade the Interior Department to reverse me, and want me to know it. That they were lying in their statements that they had furnished this office with the information requested of them and had cooperated is now shown quite conclusively, for in the last few days they have shamefacedly come into my office and at my request submitted under oath a statement that on a certain mineral application now pending under adverse charges, $400 worth of work had been performed on each claim for the year 1926. They swear that the $400 expended on each claim in 1926 was for assessment work for that year, whereas the law only required them to perform $100 worth of assessment work. It follows, as we had alleged, that the extra $300 worth of work was performed to make up three years' back work which had not been performed. They are willing to make this explanation now, inasmuch as the Krushnic decision relieves them of the burden of having performed the assessment work during the three previous years. They had stated to the department that we had willfully misrepresented the facts as to the foregoing. Now they admit our charges were true. The firm has also sent an emissary to this office who states that he has been furnished with the data which the firm has consistently refused heretofore to submit but has asserted to the department that it was furnished, and which assertion has apparently been accepted over my statement that this information had not been furnished. These acts ought to convince the department of the bad faith of this firm and the untruthfulness of their statement that the employees of this office misrepresented the facts with regard to these cases.

If the Secretary desires any further information about the operations of the Interior Department under past administrations in which Mr. Finney has evidently exercised a guiding hand, upon request same will be furnished.

Very truly yours,

RALPH S. KELLEY,
Chief Field Division..

259

EXHIBIT C

DENVER, COLO, July 14, 1928.

Hon. E. C. FINNEY,

First Assistant Secretary,

Department of the Interior,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. FINNEY: Attached hereto is a letter referring in large part to the correspondence you have had with Messrs. Dines, Dines & Holme, but also discussing other important matters affecting the oil shale situation in Colorado.

While the letter is rather lengthy, yet I believe it should receive your personal consideration because, in my opinion, the matters therein discussed transcend in importance any other business the department may have pending before it.

While in your letter to me of July 2, you refer to my letters to Captain Hair regarding the matter therein discussed, yet I may say I have no recollection of sending any letters to Captain Hair bearing upon these matters. On May 4, and again on May 15, 1928, letters were addressed to the Commissioner of the General Land Office. These letters discussed applications for indefinite continuances of pending hearings and requested that such applications be denied, stating that the public interests required immediate hearings. These letters also discussed the methods practiced by the firm of Dines, Dines & Holme to prevent the representatives of this office from obtaining facts regarding pending applications for patent for oil shale claims. No action, so far as I have been advised, has yet been taken upon the request that this office be authorized to proceed with these hearings.

The letter of May 15, in addition to the discussion hereinabove outlined, referred to the application of Mr. William R. Eaton for a severance of the charges preferred against mineral application 025371, Glenwood Springs series. This letter requested a reconsideration of this order for severance of the charges. No action, so far as I have been advised, has yet been taken upon this request.

On July 3 Mr. Eaton came into my office and for more than an hour we discussed the pending hearing affecting this application. I insisted that Mr. Eaton give his reasons for desiring a severance of what are termed the Pritchard charges and a separate hearing thereon. He finally said that since this charge was different in character from the other charges, that if they were all tried at the same time it would serve to "mess up and confuse the record." This was the only reason he could give for wishing a severance. no merit to this contention. It might as well be said that because there were charges of nonresidence and noncultivation preferred against a homestead There is entry that separate trials must be had upon each charge because they were different in character and the evidence introduced to prove one of the charges would serve to mess up and confuse the department in considering the evidence submitted to substantiate the other charge. nesses to substantiate the Pritchard charge would be the same who would I told Mr. Eaton that the witbe called to substantiate the other charges and we desired to avoi duplicating the cost of the trial of the case and that all of the charges could be tried out at one time and the matter disposed of without delay. It is apparent that he has an ulterior motive in desiring a severance of the charges. Your attention is invited to a discussion of this matter in my letter to the commissioner of May 15.

May I respectfully request that the department advise what action will be taken with regard to the applications for indefinite continuance of pending hearings and this application for a severance of charges. Advice upon these matters is essential to this office in order that it may know how to proceed with pending hearings and to map out our plan of campaign with regard to same in the future.

May I also respectfully request that I be advised of what action will be taken by the department upon the recommendations contained in the attached letter.

Very truly yours,

RALPH S. KELLEY, Division Inspector.

DENVER, COLO., July 14, 1928.

Hon. E. C. FINNEY,

First Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have read your letter of June 6 to Messrs. Dines, Dines & Holme, their reply thereto of June 11 prepared by Mr. Harold Roberts, and your letter to me of July 2, which you state is to be made public.

The United States Geological Survey, noted for its conservatism of statement, in its Bulletin 729, page 34, makes the following statement with regard to the amount of recoverable oil contained in the oil shales of northwestern Colorado:

"After a careful study of the thickness and oil-yielding capacity of the shales exposed in each of the localities where sections have been measured, it is estimated that if 60 per cent of the total shale in northwestern Colorado existing in the ground as beds 3 feet or more thick and yielding at least 15 gallons of oil to the ton were treated in retorts it would produce a total of 40,640,000,000 barrels (42 gallons each) of crude shale oil. If 60 per cent of the nitrogen in the shale that is treated is converted into ammonium sulphate, the yield of this substance should approximate 400,000,000 tons."

While the United States Geological Survey estimates the recoverable oil in northwestern Colorado to exceed 40,000,000,000 barrels, which at the present low value of crude petroleum would be worth more than $50,000,000,000, a representative of one of the large oil companies, who should be well posted upon matters of this kind, has publicly estimated the available oil supply in a thickness of but 427 feet of the formation in western Colorado to be 48,000,000,000 barrels, having a value at present prices of more than $488,000,000,000. Of course these figures are not presented with the idea that they respresent the exact value of these lands, but they do serve to reflect their perfectly astounding potential value as a future petroleum reserve for the people of the United States. That the interests of the public in this tremendous natural resource may not be jeopardized, it becomes my duty to promptly present for your careful consideration certain vitally essential matters which have been touched upon in this correspondence, and which in my judgment must receive the prompt and firm action of the department, if this reserve, perhaps the last of such deposits existing within the public domain of the United States, is to be preserved from exploitation in violation of the public land laws by the very oil companies and individuals who have recently attained such notoriety because of the exposures of frauds practiced by them. I refer particularly to Messrs. Dines, Dines & Holme, attorneys for the Midwest Refining Co., a subsidiary of the Standard Oil of Indiana, whose representatives have recently been the subject of almost universal condemnation. Only within the last two months this firm of attorneys, whose various individual members are directors in oil companies of Standard Oil of Indiana control, gave a legal opinion to the Midwest Refining Co., that Mr. H. K. Blackmer, its former president, who for reasons first best known to himself, suddenly left the United States for France, but which now are fully appreciated by the general public, was not in any way obligated to said company for the seven hundred and fifty thousand odd dollars he received as his share of the loot for betraying his trust as chairman of the board of this company, and in a meeting of the board of directors this company announced that it held Blackmer blameless. As a local paper well said, this action doubtless was taken to make it as easy as possible for Mr. Blackmer in any Government proceeding which might be brought against him, and it might be pertinent here to say that shortly following the issuance of this bill of good moral character to Mr. Blackmer, he was indicted in the United States district court at Denver and at New York City, and efforts are now being made to extradite him for trial.

It is not necessary for me to say that since the enactment of the leasing law of February 25, 1920, the Department of the Interior has uniformly held that to maintain the validity of an oil shale or oil placer mining claim $100 in labor must have been annually expended thereon and that failure to comply with this requirement for one or more years resulted in automatic forfeiture of the rights of the owners of the claim and the land reverted to the United States. As a consequence it became the duty of the field representatives of this office to make investigation to determine whether this provision of the mining laws had been fulfilled.

261

The owner of mining claims in attempting compliance with these requirements usually made open cuts or tunnels upon the claims in the oil shale. To July 1, 1928, eight years' annual labor or assessment work should have been performed upon each claim, the aggregate value of which must have been at least $800. The annual assessment work was usually performed in a different place upon the claim each year, although in many instances excavations which had been made during previous years were enlarged for the purpose of assessment work for a subsequent year. struction it is impossible to distinguish from mere observation such work from After the lapse of one year since its conthat which may have been performed two, four, or six years prior thereto. It is, therefore, impossible for a representative of this office to determine from mere observation of the work when it was performed. Yet it is absolutely necessary that he obtain the facts concerning this essential matter. avenues are open whereby the evidence may be obtained. The foreman in charge of the work when it was performed, or his employees may be escorted Several to the ground by the representative of the United States, which pays him the same wages he may then be receiving in other employment; an engineer or geologist may have been employed by the owner of the claims some years ago to make a survey of the work then existing upon the claims, and to submit a map and written report illustrating and explaining the facts found. When these can be obtained by the representatives of this office they are accepted as the best evidence obtainable as to the actual conditions when such examinations were made. Having this information as a basis with which to start, the investigator can then eliminate it from further consideration and may proceed to determine when the other work was done which he had heretofore observed and measured.

Nearly all of the claims pending under application for patent were purchased by large oil companies several years after the passage of the leasing act. When they found deficiencies in assessment work over preceding years, men were put to work to make up such deficiencies. It is only by taking the foreman or his workmen over the ground and having them point out the work they performed, state the year or years when it was performed, whether the excavations were new work or previous work enlarged, and the sums paid them, and by comparison of this data with previous reports of engineers and geologists, that the Government investigator is finally enabled to arrive at the truth. If the Government investigator, for instance, can obtain accurate data regarding the position of work performed in the years, say, of 1926 and 1927, this will enable him to eliminate it from further consideration when attempting to ascertain the position of work performed during the previous five years. By such processes of elimination and inquiry the investigator secures the truth as to the attempted performance of back assessment work, or the failure to perform any work at all, or the fact that insufficient assessment work was performed during any one or more years.

Our practice has been to call upon the owners of the mining claims or their attorneys for maps or copies of maps and reports of engineers or geologists made, say, as long ago as 1922 or 1923 or 1924. We believe reports made by responsible engineers or geologists showing the extent and location of work performed at that time to be worthy of acceptance at their face value. Noncompliance with the mining laws was much more prevalent during those years than it has since been.

We have also sought to secure as a valuable aid the field notes and written memoranda preserved by foremen in charge of the men performing assessment work, and we have sought the names of these foremen and their workmen from the owners of the claims because it is extremely difficult to secure them from other sources. four years we have received cooperation either from the owners of the claims In a few instances covering a period of the past or their attorneys in obtaining the data requested, but as a general rule we have been refused the information requested, especially so in those cases represented by the firm of Dines, Dines & Holme, who have given one excuse after another for not furnishing the information or data requested. Except in cases represented by Mr. William R. Eaton, we have not met with a flat refusal to furnish information, but usually a polite excuse given for the purpose of delay, which runs on year after year until we are finally compelled to complete our investigation and submit our reports without having secured any of the information requested. Mr. Eaton has repeatedly informed me