before the department, and numerous other oil-shale claims are under investigation in the field.

These cases involve not only a determination of the facts pertinent to each case but determination under the law as to what constitutes a sufficient discovery to support the claim of an oil shale placer locator who is seeking or intends to seek patent under the general mining law.

In view of expressions of interest or requests to be heard by various persons on this subject, the Secretary of the Interior has announced that on December 1, 1926, at 10 a. m., he will hold in his office a public hearing upon this subject. At that time and place any person interested and desiring to submit his oral or written expression of views, statements of fact, or discussion of applicable law, will be heard.

Senator WALSH of Montana. How extensively was that notice published?

Mr. FINNEY. I can not answer that. I know it was published in some of the western papers, Colorado papers and others. It was open to all the press, in the information room, for distribution.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Do you know whether any of the Washington papers carried it?

Mr. FINNEY. I can not recall.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Were there any special invitations sent out to anybody?

Mr. FINNEY. I think none. I found no record.

Senator WALSH of Montana. You have no recollection?

Mr. FINNEY. No.

Senator WALSH of Montana. I will continue, then.

The record shows the following present:

Hon. Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior.

Hon. E. C. Finney, First Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Dr. George Otis Smith, director, United States Geological Survey.

Dr. Elwood Mead, Commissioner of Reclamation.

Mr. Robert D. Hawley, Denver, Colo.

Hon. William L. Boatright, attorney general of Colorado.

Mr. D. E. Winchester, consulting geologist, Denver, Colo.

Mr. Fred. Carroll, Denver, Colo.

Mr. Charles A. Mitke, consulting mining engineer, Phoenix, Ariz. Mr. Samuel J. McMullin, Grand Junction, Colo.

Mr. William G. Russell, Denver, Colo.

Mr. L. H. Larwill, Denver, Colo.

Mr. Harold D Roberts, Denver, Colo.

Hon. John B. Kendrick, United States Senate.

Hon. Edward T. Taylor, House of Representatives.

Hon. Charles E. Winter, House of Representatives.

Mr. George K. Thomas, First National Bank Building, Denver, Colo.

Mr. C. W. Church, Index Shale Oil Co., De Beque, Colo.

Mr. George E. Brimmer, The Prairie Oil & Gas Co., Cheyenne, Wyo.

Mr. Charles F. Consaul, Mills Building, Washington, D. C.

Mr. Daniel J. Danker, Brookline, Mass.

Mr. Lewis Z. Harrison, 160 Broadway, New York City.
Mr. A. C. Harvey, The Pure Oil Co.

Mr. Samuel Leon Levy.

Mr. J. D Northrop, Geological Survey.

Mr. L. G. Owen, Mr. Edward F. Johnson, and Mr. Peter Q. Nyce, representing L. P. Lyons.

Mr. David A. Shepherd, secretary the Columbia Oil Shale & Refining Co.

Mr. C. D. Sinclair, American Shale Reduction Co., 115 Broadway, New York City.

Mr. H. I. Smith, Geological Survey.

Dr. Joseph P. Umpleby, geologist.

Mr. F. D. Weaver, Camden, N. J.

Do you know who Robert D. Hawley is?

Mr. FINNEY. He is an attorney at law at Denver, Colo.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Did he appear in any of these oil shale claims?

Mr. FINNEY. I think he did.

Senator WALSH of Montana. For the claimant or for the Government?

Mr. FINNEY. For the claimant. He is an attorney in private practice.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Did he represent anybody in opposition to the oil-shale claimants, or did he represent oil-shale claimants? Mr. FINNEY. Some oil-shale claimants.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Hon. William S. Boatright, the Attorney General of Colorado. That identifies him.

D. E. Winchester, consulting geologist, Denver, Colo. Had Mr. Winchester appeared there before in any other proceedings?

Mr. FINNEY. Mr. Winchester was formerly in the Geological Survey and was the first member of that survey to make a geological examination of these regions, and I am told first brought their value to the attention of the Geological Survey and the public. He went into business as a consulting geologist, which means he maintains. an office, and is open to be employed by those who need his services. I do not recall he appeared in any of the cases before. I am not positive, but I do not recall his appearance.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Mr. Fred Carroll, Denver, Colo.? Mr. FINNEY. He stated he was an engineer. He made a statement during the hearing and filed a stratigraph, showing shale formation.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Does the record show whether Mr. Winchester was there under employment by anybody or not?

Mr. FINNEY. I can not tell you that, Senator. May I suggest it might be well to put this in the record?

Senator WALSH of Montana. You mean the entire proceedings? Mr. FINNEY. Yes; it contains the statements of these men. Senator WALSH of Montana. Yes.

Mr. FINNEY. I can thumb over it and find his statement.

Senator WALSH of Montana. I want to call your attention to that. I wanted to see if we could identify these people who appeared, as being pro bona publico, or whether they were really paid for their attendance by some one else.

Mr. FINNEY. It is hardly probable Winchester would come all the way from Denver at his own expense.

Senator WALSH of Montana. The reasonable inference is he was representing some oil-shale claimants.

Mr. FINNEY. The record does not state. He was put on the stand, and said he would discuss at this time some of the geological phases. Senator WALSH of Montana. Mr. Consaul was there and he represented Freeman.

Mr. FINNEY. Yes; and their firm represents some other shale claimants.

Senator WALSH of Montana. There was no one there representing Summers.

Mr. FINNEY. No; Summers originally had a local attorney, but I understand Summers ran out of money, and the attorney did not appear at this time.

Senator WALSH of Montana. So far as you know there was no one there representing Summers?

Mr. FINNEY. No; so far as I know.

Senator WALSH of Montana. So far as you know, you can probably tell us definitely about this, there was no one who spoke there at the meeting against the contention made by the oil-shale claimants?

Mr. FINNEY. No. That is not the practice in our Government hearings, if you mean Government officials.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Either Government officials or otherwise.

Mr. FINNEY. No; no one was representing Summers.

Senator WALSH of Montana. The contention of everybody who spoke was that the rule of the department had been too exacting. Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. And they wanted it modified and alleviated.

Mr. FINNEY. That is true.

Senator WALSH of Montana. There was no one insisting that the rule of the department, whether it was good or bad, ought to be sustained.

Mr. FINNEY. No; but the Secretary, the First Assistant Secretary, and these other officials were present.

Senator WALSH of Montana. But they did not have anything to say. This was all addressed to Secretary Work.

Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Secretary Work only heard one side of the question. Is that not the case?

Mr. FINNEY. Except for such questions as were asked by myself

and others.

Senator WALSH of Montana. In the way of interruption and interrogation of the witnesses?

Mr. FINNEY. Yes; or statements.

Senator GLENN. Did Senator Kendrick make any statement or take any position?

Mr. FINNEY. Yes; I think he made a brief statement, and Congressman Winter and Congressman Taylor.

Senator WALSH of Montana. They all made statements, but they said nothing on the question at issue?

Senator GLENN. That is nothing unusual for a Senator.

Senator WALSH of Montana. No one of them took any position at all, either for or against the question at issue, did they?

Mr. FINNEY. The impression I got from their statements was that they were arguing for a liberal view for the encouragement of the development of the mining industry in their States.

Senator WALSH of Montana. So far as they did say anything at all, it was giving their encouragement to the position taken by the attorneys and geologists for the oil claimants?

Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. That is correct, is it not?

Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. I want to call your attention to a few of the portions of this transcript. I shall be very glad, Mr. Chairman, if the whole thing might be incorporated in the record at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it the thought of the committee there is anythink of value?

Mr. FINNEY. I think it should go in.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be ordered made a part of the record, preferably as an appendix.

Senator WALSH of Montana. I read from page 1, statement by Mr. Hawley, representing J. D. Freeman, the Pure Oil Co., the Federal Shale Oil Co., and some other oil-shale interests.

Mr. Hawley, is apparently an attorney, Mr. Finney, is that correct? Mr. FINNEY. He is an attorney representing various claimants; yes, sir.

Senator WALSH of Montana. He says on page 2:

The question of the discovery, or a discovery, sufficient to uphold or validate an oil-shale placer location has been of particular interest to the oil-shale men during the past few months because of a rule of standard of discovery which was laid down by this department in the case of Freeman v. Summers and which we think has been applied to some other cases since. The rule has thus gained some of the dignity of a precedent.

That rule was laid down in the opinion granting the application for a retrial of the case.

Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. The supervisory control power.
Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. The same page [reading]:

In the second place, it is our belief that this rule in effect seeks to establish as a basis of discovery the exposure of a bed which would produce oil in commercial quantities; that is, to fix the commercial value of the ore disclosed as a basis for discovery. This in effect is done arbitrarily at a time when no one knows what commercial oil shale will be. There are not now in operation in this country, I think, on any considerable scale at least, commercial operations in oil shale. The effect of the rule is contrary, as we view it, to the thoughts and practices of the miners themselves since the beginning of the mining industry in America. They have always recognized among themselves and respected a discovery such as in their opinion justified the ordinary prudent man in spending his time and money in following the ore with a reasonable expectation of sucess.

That obviously refers to the rule of the discovery of a quartz mining claim.

Mr. FINNEY. It was primarily used in the decision of Castle v. Womble, submitted in the case of a quartz mining matter, but it

has been applied to porphyry copper disseminated through rock, and to a degree coal; in other words, I see no reason for confining it wholly to a quartz vein, if conditions were substantially the same. Senator WALSH of Montana. That is where it originated.

Mr. FINNEY. Yes; in the quartz case.

Senator WALSH of Montana. And that contemplated a vein which is a crack in the earth filled up with mineral matter of one kind or another.

Mr. FINNEY. Yes; something a miner could follow.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Something a miner could follow. Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. And he followed it by the walls, as it is called, of his vein; that is, the country rock on either side so long as he could follow that down, with traces of mineral in it, he followed his vein.

Mr. FINNEY. Right.

Senator WALSH of Montana. If he got off into the country rock on either side of his vein, he was not then following the vein exactly. Mr. FINNEY. No.

Senator WALSH of Montana. That rule has been applied to some extent, you say, to mineral deposits that can not be regarded as being vein deposits.

Mr. FINNEY. Sedimentary deposits such as phosphate, applied in some of those porphyry copper deposits, and I think coal; in fact, I see no reason why it should not be applied to the mineral deposits, if there is something for the miner to follow.

Senator PITTMAN. How about the gravel containing gold?
Mr. FINNEY. I think that is true.

Senator WALSH of Montana (reading):

The basis for the consideration of any problem with reference to oil shale in these three States, at least, is a study of the nature and character of the deposit in which the oil shales occur, and we hope to be able to show during the course of this hearing that the Green River formation in the States which I have mentioned is synonymous with oil shale; that this huge deposit is everywhere one ore body which in the light of experiments which have been conducted in Colorado recently will yield oil in various quantities from each and every section or zone of the entire formation; that it is one mountain, if you please, of similar material laid down under similar climatic conditions by the waters, each and every section or zone of which is impregnated in some degree with those organic hydrocarbon materials which under destructive distillation will yield oil. It is not uniform in color or richness, but it is ore on its every part. You may speak of it as a layer or a series of layers, as a bed or a series of beds, as one stratum or a series of strata; and it is immaterial which term you apply because in whatever form it lies it is all mineral bearing. The formation may be identified in its every section by its distinct fossils, notably fossil insects.

The contention was, then, as I understand, that the Green River shale was all one solid body of ore. That is correct, is it not? Mr. FINNEY. That is what he contended.

Senator WALSH of Montana. What he contended?

Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Can you tell me about how extensive in area the Green River shale is, so that we can get some idea of this body of ore?

Mr. FINNEY. It covers several hundred thousand acres. I can not give you the exact figures. It is quite extensive in northwestern Colorado.