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 prob ably 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. 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? 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? I can Mr. FINNEY. It covers several hundred thousand acres. not give you the exact figures. It is quite extensive in northwestern Colorado. Senator WALSH of Montana. So that under his contention if one went upon any portion of this several hundred thousands of acres and found on the surface, as he would, of course, find, under the statement it is all one solid body of ore, what would he have to do in order to make a discovery Mr. Finney, not your contention, but if his contention is correct? Mr. FINNEY. Either find the exposure on the surface or dig down for it. Senator WALSH of Montana. If a rock came to the surface, all he would do would be to put up his stakes or notice? Mr. FINNEY. That is right. Senator WALSH of Montana. If there was the overburden of soil, he would clear off the soil until the rock was disclosed? Mr. FINNEY. Yes. Senator WALSH of Montana. Under that condition he would not have to make any discovery? Mr. FINNEY. He would not have to exert himself further than find it and see it and discover it. Senator WALSH of Montana (reading): And so we believe. gentlemen, that when you have discovered visually exposed within the four corners of a claim oil shale which you may identify as a part of the Green River formation then you have discovered that enormous bed, or deposit of ore, which must be the foundation and very basis of any operations that are ever conducted in oil shales in those three States. Was there anybody there who combatted that theory? Mr. FINNEY. No; there was no contention against it, as I recall, when it was filed there were geologists' statements, maps, stratigraphs, which we could consider. Senator WALSH of Montana (reading): In order to bring more clearly to your attention this question, which to us is all important, mining engineers of the highest standing will speak to you to-day concerning the methods to be employed, in their opinion, in mining and handling this gigantic deposit of ore. In the early days of the study of this formation the geologists were wont to look upon it as a few layers of shale of some richness separated entirely from other portions of the Green River formation by barren streaks or zones of foreign materials. The mining engineers, following the geologists in their conception of this thing, looked at it from the viewpoint of a selective mining problem; that is, to mine only the rich or richest bed or stratum; if you care to view it in that way, of some 10, 12, or 20 feet in thickness-that bed or stratum that would produce the most oil-believing that the rest of the formation was of little value. And so we had discussions of, and papers written about, the selective system of mining this property, and it was compared to the coal problem. Then when the geologists began to made a more intensive study of the problem and began to accumulate more information and knowledge about the deposit they found that they had been mistaken in their original position and that the whole formation was an ore bed; that it all carried considerable mineral value; and then the mining engineers, following this lead of the geologists, began to look at the formation in the light of wholesale mining methodsmethods which would move the mountain in effect-and they have determined, if you please, that they can mine sections of the formation of 500 or 600 feet in one operation at a lower mining cost per gallon of oil produced than the cost of mining one section of the richest ore. Was there anybody there who defended the old geological theory referred to here, namely, that this was not all one solid body of ore, but that some of the whole body was barren, and some had oil in it of an inconsequential quantity, and other strata were rich and valuable? Mr. FINNEY. Oh, we were there to hear a presentation. We were to make our determination later on that presentation. Senator WALSH of Montana. What was the other presentation made? Everything that was said there was in support, or at least not in contradiction, of the theory advanced by Mr. Walker? Mr. FINNEY. That is substantially correct; yes, sir. Senator GLENN. You had nothing to do with who saw fit to come there and argue this matter? Mr. FINNEY. It was a free for all and open to anybody who wanted to come and make a statement and file evidence. It was not a contest between two sides. Senator WALSH of Montana. George Otis Smith appears to have been there. Mr. FINNEY. Yes. Senator WALSH of Montana. He was the head of the Geological Survey at that time, was he? Mr. FINNEY. Yes. Senator WALSH of Montana. He was responsible, of course, for putting out this theory that there would have to be 15 gallons of oil per ton in the rock in order to justify the classification of it as oil shale? Mr. FINNEY. Yes; that was his rule of classification. Senator WALSH of Montana. Did he say, Mr. Finney, anything at that time in contravention of this theory that is backed by Mr. Walker? Mr. FINNEY. I do not recall he made any statement at the hearing at all. Senator GLENN. Did any of the Government officials or employees make any statement there at all? Mr. FINNEY. No statement. There are some questions there. I asked one of the men, perhaps it was Mr. Hawley, whether it was his contention this was a continuous formation bearing oil, and he replied it was. From time to time questions were asked or statements made. For instance, there seemed to be a general impression then, and it seems to have been the impression of Mr. Kelley and these men that appeared at the hearing and others, that that open hearing was a free for all and not directed to any specific case laying down a rule which would compel the department to issue every patent applied for in this large area. I made a statement on page 65 of these hearings: I suppose you gentlemen agree that if and when applications for patents are presented to the department that the department will consider each case on its own facts; in other words, each applicant for patent must make his original showing as to what discovery he has made on his claim, in the consideration of those individual cases if and when they arise in the future, we would pass upon those particular records. Of course, we will have the benefit, however, and will refer to such briefs and arguments as have been made here or left with us in this hearing. Senator GLENN. May I ask a question, Senator Walsh, for information? I am not familiar with this oil country. I take it from your questions or the statements made, the importance which you attach to the position taken by this attorney from whom you have read, is this, that if this is one oil body, one solid oil body, that that position being taken or adopted by the department-it was taken or |