perfectly willing to rest on his report, whatever it may be, as to the existence and value of these improvements, all of which are entirely ignored in the decision of Secretary Finney.

While, of course, I realize that the validity of my claims must depend on full compliance with the placer law rather than bad faith on the part of the homesteader, as a practical matter, it is quite apparent from the record, and from personal familiarity with all the circumstances, I believe it to be the fact, that this homesteader and numerous others in the vicinity are pretending to maintain homestead claims for the sole and only purpose of obtaining some advantage by interference with the rights of shale claimants who were there long before the homesteaders came in. This land having been formally classified as chiefly valuable for its shale oil content and being in the section of the country that is outstanding in this respect, it follows that in no event would this, or any other homesteader in this area, be granted a patent to the land homesteaded, inclusive of the mineral rights. If it be practical and legal, I am quite willing to procure patent for only the oil shale deposits in these claims and surface ground for working same, and leave to the homesteader all the rights that he can ever, under any circumstances, acquire by means of a homestead entry.

As to the matter of the public interest concerned, I may say that these particular claims, and numerous others in the immediate vicinity, on which I have had supervision of the work for the last four years, are generally regarded as the principal basis and opportunity for the practical development of the shale oil industry in the De Beque district. In this work and development, more than $400,000 has been expended under my personal supervision, for the purpose of developing and perfecting title to shale properties in this district. Other owners of claims and myself have negotiations under way which will undoubtedly lead to large bona fide operations of this sort imediately questions of title are settled. Senator Phipps, who has given much time and attention to the development of the shale oil industry in this State, is familiar with these facts.

For the reasons above stated, I have requested my attorneys, Messrs. Consaul & Heltman, to file a motion for rehearing. If the department is unable to see its way clear to reconsider this decision on the existing record, and other data now available to the Government, it would seem that the least that could be done under the circumstances, would be to remand the case for further evidence of the facts hereinabove briefly indicated.

Appreciating such personal attention as you may see fit to give this matter,

I am

Very respectfully,

J. D. FREEMAN.

The CHAIRMAN. He is a pretty good lawyer himself, is he not? Mr. FINNEY. Yes; unless he had some help on it.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Now, Mr. Finney, what is the date of the decision denying the motion for rehearing and a new trial? Mr. FINNEY. That was May 23, 1925.

Senator WALSH of Montana. And the date of the filing of the application for the exercise of supervisory control power.

Mr. FINNEY. June 13, 1925.

Senator GLENN. That is the date of the filing; application filed on that date?

Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir; I think so.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Now, up to that time what part did Secretary Work have in these proceedings, Mr. Finney?

Mr. FINNEY. As far as I can recall, he took no part in any of these decisions. It is barely possible he mentioned to me the receipt. of some of these letters. am not very clear on that. I know at one time during the pendency of these matters he told me there had been some complaint about my decisions that the shale claimants felt I was arbitrary and unfair.

I can not recall whether it was at this time or later. He took no part in the decision.

Senator WALSH of Montana. What was the date of that general hearing before Secretary Work?

Mr. FINNEY. That was December 1, 1926.

Senator WALSH of Montana. What was the date of the order under the petition for supervisory control?

Mr. FINNEY. When I remanded the case for hearing?

Senator WALSH of Montana. Yes.

Mr. FINNEY. That was August 29, 1925.

Senator WALSH of Montana. The conference was held after you had remanded the case.

Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir; after the case had been remanded, after the trial had been held in the local office, and after the supplemented record had been returned.

Senator WALSH of Montana. When was the new hearing in the local office?

Mr. FINNEY. This was the additional hearing under the remanding ordered held at Glenwood Springs, Colo., January 25 to February 4, 1926, and it covered, according to the statement here of the affidavit of the stenographer, 856 pages.

After the record was received in the department, Senator, the local counsel asked to be heard in oral argument.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Let me get that straight. now. The rehearing was held January 25 to February 4, 1926.

Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. And when did the record get to your office?

Mr. FINNEY. I do not know that; very soon afterwards, because in cases of that sort where a supplemental hearing is ordered new testimony is taken to supplement the original record; there is not a decision by the register and by the commissioner. The new record is forwarded directly up.

Senator WALSH of Montana. No intervening decision.

Mr. FINNEY. No intervening time, and it was in the department some time prior to September 1926.

Senator GLENN. The chances are it got there much earlier than September.

Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir.

Senator WALSH of Montana. When was the final decision rendered validating the Freeman location?

Mr. FINNEY. That was not until September 30, 1927.

Senator WALSH of Montana. In the meanwhile a conference was held on December 1, 1926.

Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. That was in anticipation of a final hearing in the Freeman case.

Mr. FINNEY. I can not say what the people who participated had in mind. It was not an argument on the Freeman-Summers case at all. It was a general hearing of the question of what constituted discovery and geological formations of the area and things of that sort.

Senator GLENN. What hearing was that?

Mr. FINNEY. December 1, 1926. That was a general hearing and not limited to this case.

I may say that after the record was received in the department the attorneys for Freeman, Consaul & Heltman, asked to be heard orally before me, and by my letter of September 29, 1926, I authorized an oral argument. Subsequently I found Summers was not represented at that time by any Washington lawyer, so on October 14, 1926, I revoked the order for oral argument on the ground that the attorney for Summers could not attend any oral argument that might be had before the department, and advised them the case would be considered on the evidence and briefs filed. Senator WALSH of Montana. So there was no oral argument? Mr. FINNEY. Not in that specific case; no, sir.

Senator WALSH of Montana. But intervening, this general conference was had?

Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. I have here a memorandum showing who was present at that conference. I will put it in the record at this time. It is before the Secretary of the Interior on December 1, 1926, on the question of what constitutes a sufficient discovery to support the claim of an oil shale placer locator under the general mining law.

Let me inquire: How did this discussion come to take place, Mr. Finney?

Mr. FINNEY. That is a question that I can not answer definitely. It is my recollection that a number of people in Colorado, in the West, and possibly some members of Congress, asked the Secretary to have a general hearing on this subject.

Senator WALSH of Montana. On what subject?

Mr. FINNEY. On the subject of what constituted a sufficient discovery of a shale mining claim.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Have you any record showing by whom that conference was had?

Mr. FINNEY. I have not been able to find any. I have looked and found none. We found the departmental press notice authorizing

the hearing.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Can you put that in the record?
Mr. FINNEY. Yes; that does not say on whose request.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Will you read the notice?
Mr. FINNEY (reading):

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESS

(Immediate release)

OCTOBER 22, 1926.

The act of February 25, 1920, commonly known as the general leasing law, provided that thereafter oil shale and certain other mineral deposits should be subject to disposition only in the form and manner provided by said general leasing act, "except as to valid claims existent at the date of the passage of this act, and thereafter maintained in compliance with the laws under which initiated, which claims may be perfected under such laws, including discovery." The records of the Department of the Interior show that prior to the enactment of the general leasing law numerous locations under the placer mining laws had been made upon alleged oil-shale deposits, particularly in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Some applications for patent are pending

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.