# Appendix — Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0213%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 400 U.S. 48 ## Text IN THE Supreme Court of the United Stutes OCTOBER TERM, 1969 | No. 221 WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary of the Interior e THE OiL SHALE CORPORATION, ET AL. 7 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 4 COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT INDEX Page _ ll crehteariere tis natithincesiintdianenndtinnnnnnntandinicnntsenens eosin 1 | __ District Court tiipebceone . ~% x Court of Appeals - pliaealiliibchalehhlas saphena laa hcialbins 1 3 No. 9581 ' Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss lita PEE ne nee: Date is 16 _ Defendant’s Pre-Trial Statement - 28 * Memorandum Opinion and Order filed December 21, 1966 _. 26 » Judgment filed March 1, 1967 48 | Notice of Appeal of Defendant 51 | Transcript of the court reporter of the proceedings had in ' the trial to Court before the Honorable William E. hina Judge, presiding, on July 18-19, 1966 52 INDEX Page Plaintiff’s Exhibits: 1—Memorandum for the Secretary of the Interior 4/20/20 — oom : fie 62 keel itis Reihiey of Oe teheer 68 8—Letter to Secretary of the Interior from Seiad, sioner, dated March 7, 1927 _._._____ 64 4—Letter to the Commissioner per E. C. Wien. 65 56—Memorandum for the — * from C. L. ies | ae 67 6—Letter to Mr. . See sé ‘De Rouen ‘juin » eet pow 6/16/39 aca 68 8—Letter to aaitne from Wm. Spey 1 12/10/27 | (Clers Stee SERS 7 69 9—Letter to Restter pom Senate 5/4/28 (Clerk’s Note) iss 69 10—Letter to Register from Wm. Spry 12/10/21 (Clerk's | ee 69 11—Letter to Register from Wm. Spry 5/4/28 (Clerk's Note) - —— 69 12—Letter t to » Register eit wm. . Spry 12/10/27 (Clerk’s Note) - i 69 18—Letter t to Register 1 pm Wm. Spry 5/4/28 (Clerk's Note) - NEES RUSTE IE TAS es LOND Wee) Pee IT, 69 14—Letter t to » Register en aC. ©. Shciee 6/ 12/29 ‘(Clerk's Note) - LD EEE SERA NE PORT RT ET 69 15—Report - the dialed of t the Diteibin eee pans 70 16—Telegram to Kelly from Moore 1/15/30. nae 70 17—Letter to Kelly from Moore 3/26/30 _ ae 71 18—Letter to Mr. R. S. cd from Cc C. siete 4/19/30 _ ee 72 ‘e-ciiiatiaieest for the iain 9/29/30 te 74 20—Letter to the Secretary of Agriculture from 1 Ray Lyman Wilbur 6/7/30_. aes 15 21—Report of the Secretary of the Interior _ acidic 76 22—Report of the Secretary of the Interior 1982 - ee 77 23—Report of the Secretary of the Interior 1933 _...__.___. 78 24—Letter to Register from C. C. Moore 7/8/80__...._____. 78 25—Letter to the Secretary of the Interior from C. C. Moore dated 6/7/30 79 INDEX iii Page Plaintiff’s Exhibits—Continued 26—Letter to Kelley from Commissioner 6/19/30 _.__. 81 27—Telegram to Commissioner from Kelley 6/23/30 (Clerk’s Note) 81 28—Letter to Kelley from Moore 6/30/30 (Clerk’s Note) _ 81 29—Letter to Register from Moore 6/80/80 (Clerk’s | Note) 82 30—Letter to Register from Moore “1/22/30 (Clerk’s FR arengrsetensnetspenncnenaesimnereanenicnenapienesitinemete 82 31—Letter to Register from Moore 7/3/81 —___. 82 82—Letter to Register from acting Commissioner | 11/9/31 83 33—Letter to Register from Moore 6/30/80 (Clerk’s | Note) 83 84—Letter to Register from acting Commissioner RR RE oe oon a 83 85—Letter to Register from Moore 6/30/30 (Clerk’s I ciliaiats heals loiienteihieiniataais 85 | 86—Letter to Register from acting Commissioner 10/20/81 _ ‘dian 85 87—Letter to Siesians of the tow pn Ray Lyman [ i 86 f 88—Letter to A. D, Hathaway from acting Commissioner Re cicalechiieasei cctistasaapteietes 87 ; $9—Letter to Walter Spencer from Moore 7/20/31 (Clerk’s Note) 88 40—Letter to Register from Moore 12/2/31 88 41—Appeal from the General Land Office 3/10/82 90 42—Photostat of letter to Register from Moore 1/20/32 | RCE as a cient OR Li she AE 91 } 48—Letter to Attorney General from Harold Ickes | ERS ee eae ke Se Male Ceres ne ee Sree 91 . ' 44—Summaries of Bureau Rapaate a 93 ; 45—Appeal from General Land Office 8/13/35 _..___. 93 46—Letter to Doctor McKee from T.A. Walters 5/26/34 _ 95 47—Memo for the Press 2/12/31 96 48—Letter to Messrs. Thomas from John H. Edwards | RE een ec ate 97 i : \ ' | : ’ iv INDEX Plaintiff’s Exhibits—Continued 49—Letter to Eli F. Taylor from Harold Ickes 5/26/83 _ 50—Letter to Attorney General from Harold Ickes 2/6/84 51—Letter to Jenson from Franklin Lane 10/28/18 __ 52—Letter to Chris Dere from — Asst. Commis- sioner 1/20/19 _ Saas 538—Letter to Cnune Ez Taylor pony pay ‘Gucties 6/2/33 aainmesceeneaiasnbenennsnnsedsbwainsunesinnbehnasamsaseap 54—Letter to W. J. Owen from Johnson 6/28/85 cae ais 55—Letter to Gowin from Johnson 7/25/85... 56—Letter to Van Dorsten from Johnson 7/26/85... 57—Letter to Willard Boeher from Johnson 7/20/35 ____ 58—Letter to Stephen O. — from Johnson 7/20/85 _ waa _— ad Sree 59—Letter to inate Ecton on presen 2/ 11/48 er... 60—Decisions Relating to Public Lands =.= isoee 62—Letter to Phipps from Payne August 4, 1920... 63—Motion for Summary Judgment 4/15/55. 65—Letter to Commissioner from Register 6/15/85 66—Letter to Joseph Bellis from Johnson 6/24/85 67—Letter to E. P. Costigan from Jos. Ahearn 6/8/35 _ 68—Letter to Costigan from Johnson 6/24/86 69—Motion for Rehearing 9/3/35 ea AS 70—Decisions of the Department of the Interior...__.__ 71—Letter to Register from Commissioner 7/6/35 72—Letter to Register from Johnson 7/29/85 = 73—Letter to Register from Johnson 7/80/85... >= 74—Letter to Register from Johnson 7/81/35 _...__. 75—Certified copy of Letter to Register from Johnson ee SINT a ate SRP eae NR omits eer SR Jame a 76—Appeal from the General Land Office 7/80/35 —_._. ae a from General Land Office Re: U.S. Oil Shale np es to eatiiee puny Site 8/1/35 De say ae: 79—Letter to Register from Johnson 8/19/35 _......__. 80—Letter to Register from Johnson 8/19/35 102 103 103 104 104 105 110 110 117 117 118 119 120 121 123 125 126 127 128 130 131 132 187 INDEX v Page Plaintiff’s Exhibits—Continued 82—Memorandum for the Register from Johnson 8/30/40 139 g3—Letter to Commissioner from Gardner 4/26/40 ____-. 140 84—Memo for Register 3/6/41 141 85—Memo for the Register 8/9/40 > _ 142 87—Memo for the Register 8/9/40 _...--_-»_>S >See 143 89—Memorandum for the Register from Commissioner SIT dati ittnetadehnennsidieddacettbeitennecidlaliingsecherieadibetinndatiticcnpionasesin 144 91—Memo for the Supervisor from Waddell 6/5/42 145 91A-Memo for Wolfsohn from Havell 7/29/42... ==———s—(isi«‘i2 4 95—Oil Shale Claims patented on Applications filed __ 148 102—Photocopy of a Page 91 Description of tract (Clerk’s RO STIS SL? RT ee he EL ee ea 158 108—Photocopy of a Page 9 96 § Description o of tract — HIND scitenniciciiisinicgedighdseien tinea rtniennicisnacminn ; 158 104—Final Cert, of Mineral Entry a, aaa 114—Oil Shale Mineral Entries 2/27/50... == ——sst— 256—Memo to Regional Director from Puckett 4/21 761 - 264—Case Record C-012327 - ; 283—Letter to the Cumniesener oun Subiee 1/24/81 ne ees oes 268 284—Contest No. 147 = — 286—Letter to R. D. George 9/6/17 weet i 288—Report of the Secretary of the Seteuten (1928) ae 289—Letter to Hazelwood from First Asst. Sey, ee 271 292—Letter to Register fom Commies 6/28/85. 272 296—Description of Claim (Clerk’s Note)... =... 278 INDEX Plaintiff's Exhibits—Continued 297—Description of Claim (Clerk’s Note) 306—Service Record of Altizer, Posey J. 307—Service Record of Chapman hie $08—Deposition of J. Elliott Hall... 309—Deposition of William Shafer $18—Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories, and Defendant’s Answers Civ. $14—Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Defendant’s answers Civ. 9202 Deine Defendant’s Exhibits: Or I On K—Docket Sheet, Minutes of Proceedings Bute #1- 18 incl. Oil Shale Placers Claims, 1/2/1928 Atlas #1-18, Oil Shale Claims, 12/26/1919 Camp Bird #1-20 incl. Oil Shale Placers, 1/2/1920 Oyler #1 to 4, Sept. 25, 1916 Carbon Nos. 1-12 incl. May 18, 1918 United States Land Office Schedule of Allowances. NW; NE; SE, and SW, Oil Shale Placers, Contest 12972-1424895 “N” “RLW”, July 29, 1981 Oil Shale Placers (Clerk’s Note) L—Notation of prefatory pages from Synopsis of 1 meet- ing of Department of Interior Oil Shale Advisory Board and pages from Interim Report of Oil Shale Advisory Board to Secretary of the Interior —.___. S—Decision of September 30, 1927, directing cancella- tion of the homestead entries because made upon lands covered by prior valid mineral locations. Decision of July 1, 1931, declaring the mining claims nul! and void on an assessment work charge. Decision of October 14, 1931, permitting the filing of an application for the reinstatement of the can- celled homestead entries Decision of November 20, 1931, reinstating the home- stead entries The contest docket pages for Contest 12021, Contest 12022A and Contest 12178 serial register pages for serial No, 018827-082575 and serial No. 018825-032576 involving homestead en- tries re: Triumph Nos. 22 and 28, the F.D. No. 7, the J.D. Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 5 oil shale placer mining claims 332 x INDEX Defendant’s Exhibits—Concinued U—Decision of August 18, 1930, declaring the Lucy Agnes No. 1 and No, 2 oil shale placer mining claims null and void. The contest docket page for Contest No. 12872 ix- volving the Lucy Agnes claims. The serial register page for serial No. 688956 invoiv- ing the oil and gas prospecting permit and the oi! and gas lease. $39 W—Decision of Department of Interior dated June 24, 1985 re: The Shale Oii Company, The contest docket pages for Contest No. 12019 in- volving the mining claims of The Shale Oil Com- pany (Clerk’s Note) 840 X—Departmental decision of November 11, 1930 in- volving the Federal Shale Oil Company and the Buck Canyon placer No. 1 Decision of January 5, 1931 from the Commissioner | of the General Land Office promulgating the Depart- mental decision of November 11, 1930, and allowing ; the mining claimants 30 days in which to file a proper , answer Memorandum of February 27, 1981 from the Regis- ter of the Land Office advising that no answer had been filed Decision of April 6, 1931 from the Commissioner of ( the General Land Office declaring the Buck Canyon No. 1 oil shale placer null and void The contest docket for Contest No. 12264 involving the Buck Cauyon No. 1 oil shale placer (Clerk’s Note) 840 Y—Francis D. Weaver case: Departmental decisions of August 28, 1980 and De- ! cember 18, 1930 Instructions dated January 5, 1931, ‘ from the Commissioner relative to closing the case Memorandum of May 4, 1934 transmitting the closed case records to the Commissioner of the General Land Office The contest docket for Contest No. 122838 waneaniieed | the Francis D. Weaver case (Clerk’s Note) i a KK—Term Rental Permits and Billings for Ques Priv- ileges and Licenses for Grazing Privileges _ E—Letter to Dr. Ertl from J. Elliott waned Acting State Supervisor of December 16, 1960 - s a INDEX xi Page Defendant’s Exhibits—Continued No. 9582 Complaint with attached exhibits 342 Exhibit A-3—Written Decision, Union Oil Company of California, et al. A-29560, rendered by the Solicitor of the Department of Interior, 4/17/64 352 Answer 386 Judgment filed March 1, 1967 890 Notice of Appeal of Defendant 391 Clerk’s Certificate : Lichen tatnenehabnntone 391 No, 9583 RD, cere rcerenccnnsenctnnemnnmnrveennmnnncaranineesia tapas 892 SED CIES aciuneemicsesnnnsesendnssunmiqnineniiimincssannemanseente 404 Judgment filed March 1, 1967 __.. fete 405 Notice of Appeal of defendant —.. 407 Clerk's Certificate 407 No. 9584 Complaint . _— a — 408 an ae eto 417 Defendant’s Pre-Trial Statement 423 Supplement to defendant’s pre-trial statement 00.0.0... 426 Judgment filed March 1, 1967 427 Notice of Appeal of Defendant 432 Clerk’s Certificate . 483 Opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit __... 434 Judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit — 447 Order of the Supreme Court of the United States hucwonestin a writ of certiorari 451 RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES (Oil Shale Corporation, and Energy Resources Technology Land, Inc. v. Walter J. Hickel, Sec- retary of the Interior, No. 9581) Date 7/10/64 12/ 7/64 3/28/66 12/21/66 8/ 1/67 4/26/67 10/22/67 T/ 9/68 2/ 4/69 3/12/69 Proceedings Complaint filed. Issued 4 summons. Answer filed. Order on Deft’s. Motion for consolidation of No. 8680, No. 8685, No. 8691, and No. 9202. Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court filed. Judgment entered. Notice of Appeal filed by U.S. Attorney. Record Docketed, Court of Appeal. Argument, and submission of case. Opinion issued, Court of Appeals. Judgment issued as mandate. RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES (Joseph B. Umpleby, and Wasatch Development Co. v. Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of the Inter- ior, No. 9582) Date 7/13/64 9/11/64 3/28/66 12/21/66 3/ 1/67 4/26/67 10/22/67 7/ 9/68 2/ 4/69 3/12/69 Proceedings Complaint filed. Issued 4 summons. Answer filed. Order on Deft’s. Motion for consolidation of No, 8680, No. 8685, No. 8691, and No. 9202. Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court filed. Judgment entered. Notice of Appeal filed by U.S. Attorney. Record Docketed, Court of Appeal. Argument, and submission of case. Opinion issued, Court of Appeals. Judgment issued as mandate. Date 1/15/64 9/11/64 3/28/66 12/21/66 3/ 1/67 4/26/67 10/22/67 1/ 9/68 2/ 4/69 3/12/69 RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES (Barnette T. Napier, et al. v. Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of the Interior, No. 9583) Proceedings Complaint filed. Issued 4 summons. Answer filed. Order on Deft’s. Motion for consolidation of No. 8680, No. 8685, No. 8691, and No. 9202. Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court filed. Judgment entered. Notice of Appeal filed by U.S. Attorney. Record Docketed, Court of Appeal. Argument, and submission of case. Opinion issued, Court of Appeals. Judgment issued as mandate. RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES (Penelope Chase Brown, individually and as Trus- tee, and The Oil Shale Corporation v. Walter J. -Hickel, Secretary of the Interior, No. 9584) Date Proceedings 6/14/65 Complaint filed. Issued 4 summons. 8/23/65 Answer filed. 8/28/66 Order on Deft’s. Motion for consolidation of No. 8680, No. 8685, No. 8691, and No. 9202. 12/21/66 Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court filed. 8/ 1/67 Judgment entered. 4/26/67 Notice of Appeal filed by U.S. Attorney. 10/22/67 Record Docketed, Court of Appeal. 7/ 9/68 Argument, and submission of case. 2/ 4/69 Opinion issued, Court of Appeals. 8/12/69 Judgment issued as mandate. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Pleas and proceedings before the Honorable Hatfield Chilson, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and the Honorable William E. Doyle, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, presiding in the following entitled cause: THE OIL SHALE CORPORATION, and ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY LAND, INC., PLAINTIFFS vs. STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior, DEFENDANT No. 8680, Civil [1] COMPLAINT FoR RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs The Oil Shale Corporation, et al., by their attorneys, for their complaint, allege: First Claim 1. Plaintiff The Oil Shale Corporation is a corporation duly incorporated under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Nevada having its principal office and place of business at 680 Fifth Avenue, New York City, New York. Plaintiff Energy Resources Technology Land, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado having its principal office and place of business at 305 South 39th Street, Boulder, Colorado. 2. The defendant, Stewart L. Udall, here sued in his official capacity, is the duly qualified and acting Secre- tary of the Interior of the United States, having his of- ficial place of business at the seat of the government in 6 Washington, D. C. Under and by virtue of 9 Stat. 395; 5 U.S.C. § 485; 43 U.S.C. §§2,1201; 1950 Reorganiza- tion Plan No. 8, 15 F. R. 3174, 6% Stat. 1262, the de fendant is charged with the control, direction and super- vision of all officers and employees of the Department of [2] the Interior, the administration and enforcement of all laws relating to the public lands and to mining claims thereon, and the issuance of rules and regulations relating thereto. 3. This action arises under the Constitution, more par- ticularly the Fifth Amendment, and the laws of the United States including 30 U.S.C. §§ 22-38, pursuant to which plaintiffs claim vested rights in and to certain oil shale placer mining claims, and involves both the rights of the plaintiffs to enjoy and possess said mining claims without regard to certain unauthorized and invalid De partment of the Interior contest proceedings hereinafter set forth, and the duty of the defendant owed to the plaintiffs to administer the laws under which plaintiffs claim said mining claims upon a proper construction of those laws. The matter in controversy, exclusive of in- terest and costs, exceeds in value the sum of $10,000, The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1381 and 1861. 4, This is an action to obtain an order and a judg- ment of this Court requiring the defendant to discharge his duties under the mining laws of the United States according to the requirements of those statutes as inter- preted by the Supreme Court of the United States, and more particularly, to require the defendant to withdraw and expunge from the records of the Department of the Interior and decisions or judgments in the unauthorized and invalid contest proceedings more fully described here- inafter. 5. Plaintiff Energy Resources Technology Land, Inc., owns the Bute Placer Mining Claims Nos. 1 through 19, both inclusive, Nos. 21 through 28, both inclusive, and Nos. 30, 31 and 32. Plaintiff The Oil Shale Corporation owns the Bute Placer Mining Claims Nos. 33 through 48, both inclusive. Plaintiff Energy Resources Technol- ogy Land, Inc., owns the Camp Bird Placer Mining 7 Claims Nos. 1 through 20, both inclusive, and the Atlas Placer Mining Claims Nos, 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 18. Plaintiff The Oil Shale Corporation is the [3] lessee, with an option to purchase, of the foregoing claims owned by Energy Resources Technology Land, Inc. The said Bute Claims are situated in and encompass Sections 7 through 18, both inclusive, of Township 4 South, Range 96 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, with the excep- tion of the Southeast quarter of Section 10 and the Northeast quarter of Section 16. The said Camp Bird Claims are situated in and encompass Sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 16, and the Southeast quarter of Section 17, of Town- ship 4 Suuth, Range 95 West of the 6th P.M., with the exception of the Northeast quarter of Section 2. The said Atlas Claims are situated in and encompass the Northwest quarter of Section 10, the Southwest quarter of Section 12, the West half of Section 13, the East half and Southwest quarter of Section 14, and the South half of Section 15, of Township 4 South, Range 95 West of the 6th P.M. All of the foregoing placer mining claims contain valuable deposits of oil shale and are located in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. 6. In 1927, the defendant’s predecessors in office in- stituted and thereafter conducted Contests Nos, 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761 against the vested rights in and to the mining claims referred to in Paragraph 5 above, owned by plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest. The de- fendant’s predecessors in office acted in those contests through subordinate agents, including the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Register of the Den- ver Land Office, all of whom were exercising the author- ity of the defendant’s predecessors in office and were subject to their supervision and control at all times. The said contest proceedings were based solely upon the charge that annual assessment work in the amount of $100 had not been performed upon or for the benefit of each of the above mining claims. 7. In initiating and conducting the contests, the [4] subordinate agents purported to act pursuant to Depart- mental Circular No. 460 “Manner of Proceeding in Con- tests Initiated Upon a Report by a Representative of the a — General Land Office’, 44 L.D. 572. The Commissioner and the Register named as contestees in the contests per- sons they regarded as being the then owners of the min- ing claims and purported to effect service of contest upon these contestees. In 1928 the Commissioner entered de fault judgments in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761 purporting to declare the mining claims null and void for failure to perform annual assessment work, 8. In the first case brought in the courts to challenge the authority and jurisdiction of the Interior Depart- ment to inquire on behalf of the United States whether annual assessment work had been performed for the benefit of a mining claim, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Wilbur v. Krushnic, 280 U.S. 306 (1930), that failure to do annual assessment work did not authorize the defendant’s predecessors in office to declare mining claims null and void. 9. On or about June 7, 1930, the defendant’s prede- cessor in office, as a result of the decision in Wilbur v. Krushnic, supra, acknowledged the invalidity and nullity of all prior contests in which the United States had charged only failure to perform assessment work, includ- ing Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761, and in- structed his subordinates to renew contest proceedings against the mining claims referred to in Paragraph 5 above. 10. Thereafter, the Commissioner and the Register re- newed Contests Nos, 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761. The only difference between the original and the renewed con- test proceedings was that in the latter the charge of failure to perform assessment work was expanded to in- clude a charge that performance of assessment work had not been resumed prior to the assertion of challenges to the [5] claims by the defendant’s predecessor in office. 11. The Commissioner and the Register prepared new notices of contest, naming as contestees persons they ap- parently thought owned the above mining claims. The renewed proceedings were also purportedly conducted pursuant to Department Circular No. 460. The Register purported to effect service of notice of contest upon per- sons he regarded as being the then owners of the mining 9 claims referred to in Paragraph 5 above, and in 1930 and 1931 the Commissioner from time to time declared that, either to the extent of the interest of the contestees served in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759 and 11,761 or in their entirety, the mining claims referred to in Para- graph 5 above were null and void for failure to perform assessment work. 12. In the first case brought in the courts to chal- lenge the authority and jurisdiction of the Interior De- partment to conduct the renewed contest proceedings, the Supreme Court of the United States in Ickes v. Virginia- Colorado Development Corp., 295 U.S. 689 (1935), held that no charge of failure to perform assessment work, regardless whether performance of the work had been resumed, could serve as a basis for invalidating mining claims, and that the Department’s renewed challenges of oil shale claims for failure to perform assessment work, its institution and conduct of contests based on failure to perform assessment work, and its decisions, such as those in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761, declaring claims null and void for failure to per- form assessment work, went beyond the authority con- ferred by law upon the defendant’s predecessors in office. 13. Following the decision in Ickes v. Virginia-Colo- rado Development Corp., supra, defendant’s predecessor in office decided and declared that all prior decisions de- claring mining claims null and void for failure to per- form assessment work, including all the [6] decisions in Contests 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761, were null and void and had no effect; upon the validity of mining claims. Such decision was publicly evidenced by, among other things, the Department’s decision in The Oil Shale Co., 55 I.D. 287 (1935) (annexed as Exhibit A hereto and made a part hereof) overruling all decisions holding the Depart- ment had jurisdiction to challenge mining claims for non-performance of assessment work and expressly re- calling and vacating the Departmental instructions au- thorizing the renewal of assessment work contests follow- ing the decision in Wilbur v. Krushnic, supra, in 1980. Pursuant to these decisions, Contests 11,757, 11,759, and “taba were dismissed and closed adversely to the United tates. 10 14. At no time prior to the termination of Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761 had any of the owners of the above mining claims or anyone else made applica- tion to the defendant's predecessors in office for patents for the claims or for any other interest in the lands coy- ered by the claims. Defendant’s predecessors in office and their subordinates were therefore without authority of law to enter upon said contest inquiries into the valid- ity of any mining claims to such lands, and the Commis sioner’s decisions in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761 were and are invalid. 15. The defendant and his predecessors in office have at all times lacked authority to inquire or decide whether assessment work has been performed. Consequently the actions of the defendant and his predecessors in office in instituting the Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761 and in purporting to cancel the mining claims referred to in Paragraph 5 above for failure to perform assess- ment work were and are null and void and of no force or effect. 16. At no time during the Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,- 759, and 11,761 did the defendant’s predecessors in of- fice or their agents [7] serve the contestees with notice of contest or follow the applicable Depart- mental procedures for service of notice of contest, which were set out in Circular No. 460. No contestees ever entered an appearance in the contests. At no time did the Department obtain personal jurisdiction over the con- testees in the said contests, and the decisions in the said contests were and are of no force and effect. 17. In originally bringing and subsequently renewing Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761, the defendant’s predecessors in office failed and neglected to name as con- testees or to effect service upon all of the then owners of the mining claims involved in the said contests. All con- testees and all the then co-owners of the said mining claims were indispensable parties without whose presence no valid judgment or decision in said contests affecting said claims could be entered. 18. The Commissioner’s decisions, which were based on an erroneous legal premise, became ripe for purposes a of judicial review when the time allowed for appeal to the Secretary expired. Thereupon they became, and are now, subject to judicial correction if in fact they have not already been nullified by administrative action. 19. After Wilbur v. Krushnic, supra, in 1930, and again after the 1935 decision in Ickes v. Virginia-Colo- rado Development Corp., supra, the defendant’s predeces- sors in office decided that all prior decisions invalidating oil shale claims for failure to perform assessment work, including all the decisions by the Commissioner in Con- tests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761 were null and void and had no effect on such claims. 20. During the period 1935 through 1962, the defend- ant, his predecessors in office and officials and employees of the Department of the Interior repeatedly and publicly affirmed that [8] the decisions in the assessment work contest proceedings, including Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,- 759, and 11,761, were void and of no effect and did not operate to invalidate or otherwise adversely affect the interests of the plaintiffs, their predecessors in interest and others similarly situated. 21. During the period 1935-1962, the defendant and his predecessors in office issued land patents covering at least 74,000 acres of oil shale claims which had been de- clared null and void in assessment work proceedings such as those here involved and which were in all respects of fact and law the same as the mining claims referred to in Paragraph 5 above, with full knowledge that such contest proceedings had resulted in decisions adverse to the claims, and in recognition of the invalidity of the prior contest proceedings. The Department’s consistent practice of issuing patents for oil shale claims which had purportedly been invalidated by assessment work pro- ceedings was widely known throughout the area in which the claims were located, and was known both to the plain- tiffs and to their predecessors in interest. 22. By reason of the facts set forth in Paragraph 19, 20, and 21 above, the Department has duly adopted a rule of law, which cannot be retroactively altered, that the assessment work contests, including Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759 and 11,761, had no effect on the validity of mining claims. ll 12 23. From 1935 until 1962, the plaintiffs or their pred- ecessors in interest both knew of and relied upon the con- sistent policy of the defendant and his predecessors in office of treating the decisions in the original and the renewed assessment work contests, including the deci- sions “» Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759 and 11,761, as nulli- ties with no force and effect. During that period the de fendant and his predecessors, through their authorized subordinates, made repeated representations to the [9] plaintiffs, their predecessors in interests, their repre sentatives, advisers, and neighbors, that the assessment work contests had no effect on the validity of mining claims, and the plaintiffs have justifiably relied upon such representations in the expenditure of time and money in acquiring, improving, and perfecting their rights to the mining claims set out in Paragraph 5 above. 24. On February 16, 1962, the Manager of the Colo- rado Land Office of the Bureau of Land Management is- sued decisions rejecting patent applications for mining claims which, while not involved in this Complaint, were subject to contest proceedings prior to 1935 based upon charges identical with those made by defendant’s prede- cessors in office in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759 and 11,- 761. The Manager’s decisions for the first time asserted on behalf of the defendant that decisions in the old as- sessment work contests barred the patenting of the min- ing claims involved in such contests. 25. On appeal from the Manager’s decisions, the So licitor of the Department of the Interior, acting pursu- ant to the direction and with the express authorization of the defendant, ruled on April 17, 1964, that, although the decisions in the old contest proceedings were errone- ous in law, the defendant would now and in the future assert decisions in the assessment work contests such as Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759 and 11,761 to bar the pat- enting of mining claims provided only that notice of con- test had been properly served therein. 26. Since 1930 and 1935, the defendant and his pred- ecessors in office have treated the decisions in the old as- sessment work proceedings identical with Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761 as nullities. The arbitrary 13 and unreasonable change of position by the defendant on April 17, 1964, pursuant to which legally erroneous and long overruled decisions in old contest. [10] proceedings are now for the first time being asserted to defeat the vested property rights of the plaintiffs, violates the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiffs fairly and equit- ably to administer the statutes of the United States re- lating to public lands and the rules and regulations of the Department of the Interior. 27. The defendant has a duty to the plaintiffs to with- draw and expunge from the Department of the Interior land records the erroneous decisions in Contests Nos. 11,- 757, 11,759, and 11,761, which purportedly now bar the patenting of the mining claims set out in Paragraph 5 above by the plaintiffs. The resurrection by the defend- ant and his subordinates of the erroneous decisions in old contest proceedings, including the decisions in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759 and 11,761, casts a serious cloud upon the validity of the plaintiffs’ mining claims and have directly and adversely affected the vested property rights of the plaintiffs; and the defendant should be re- strained from now asserting the validity or effect of the erroneous decisions in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759 and 11,761. Second Claim 28. This is a suit under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, to obtain a declaration of rights and other legal relations, including a declara- tory judgment or decree herein, an order for injunctive relief and for such other and further relief as may be necessary or proper. A case of actual controversy exists between plaintiffs and defendant which is definite, con- crete, real and substantial and which touches the legal relations of plaintiffs and defendant. The controversy between the parties concerns the interpretation and the application of the mining laws of the United States, in- cluding 30 U.S.C. [11] §§ 22-38, and the validity and effect on plaintiffs’ vested rights in oil shale claims of decisions made by the defendant and his predecessors in office and theix subordinates in assessment work con- 14 tests purportedly administering and interpreting said laws. This case of actual controversy admits of an im. mediate and definitive determination of the legal ri of the parties and admits a specific relief through fina] decree, as hereinafter more fully appears. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000, exclusive of costs. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 29. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every al- legation of Paragraphs numbered 1, 2 and 5 through 27 of the Complaint with the same force and effect as if they were fully set forth herein. 30. Plaintiffs are subjected to and threatened with an absolute bar, based upon the invalid assessment work decisions in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759 and 11,761 as given new effect by the defendant on April 17, 1964, in securing patents to land in which they have vested rights pursuant to the mining laws of the United States. 31. Plaintiffs’ property rights in and to such mining claims have been and will continue to be seriously and adversely affected by the defendant’s action in asserting that the prior decisions in the assessment work con including Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761, de stroyed the mining claims involved therein, including those owned by the plaintiffs. 32. Plaintiffs’ injuries, actual and potential, will con- tinue to occur and exist, and the injuries, doubts and uncertainties raised by the defendants’ decisions of April 17, 1964, will continue to exist until this Court settles the aforementioned controversy and grants plaintiffs the relief they seek. [12] 33. The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Wherefore, plaintiffs pray the Court: 1. To issue its mandatory order compelling the de fendant to perform the duty owed to the plaintiffs by recalling, vacating, and expunging from the records of the Department of the Interior any decisions, orders, judgments or cancellations entered by the defendant or his predecessors in office or their subordinates in Contests 15 Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761 with respect to the min- ing claims of the plaintiffs. 2. To adjudge that any decisions, orders, judgments or cancellations entered by the defendant or his predeces- sors in office in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761 are erroneous, invalid and of no force or effect on the mining claims involved therein and now owned by the plaintiffs. 8. To adjudge that the defendant be restrained from asserting the validity or effect of the decisions in Con- tests Nos. 11,757, 11,759, and 11,761 to bar the patenting by the plaintiffs of the mining claims referred to in Paragraph 5 of this complaint. 4. To issue such other restraining orders, temporary injunctions, and permanent injunctions as may be re- quired to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of plaintiffs, preserve the jurisdiction of the Court, and assure the due and fair administration of justice. 5. To grant such cther and further relief as the Court deems reasonable, just and proper. Dated: Denver, Colorado July 10, 1964 Tweedy, Mosley, Sullivan & Young By John B. Tweedy Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton New York, New York 10005 Of Counsel ‘ Filed July 10, 1964 16 [19] DEFENDANT’S MOTION To DISMISS Defendant Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, by his attorneys, Lawrence M. Henry, Esquire, United States Attorney, and David Shedroff, Esquire, Assistant United States Attorney, moves the Court as follows: 1. To dismiss the action because the complaint fails to state a claim against defendant upon which relief can be granted. 2. To dismiss the action on the grounds that it is pre maturely filed and that plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies. 8. To dismiss the action on the grounds that defend- ant has primary authority to determine what conditions bar the patenting of mining claims and this Court has no jurisdiction to grant either declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to the issuance of a mining patent where no application therefor has been submitted to de fendant and where legal title to the land remains in the United States. 4. To dismiss the action on the ground that the United States is an indispensable party. Lawrence M. Henry United States Attorney By: David Shedroff Assistant United States Attorney Denver, Colorado 80201 Attorney for Defendant Filed September 30, 1964 17 [29] ANSWER Defendant Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, by his attorneys, Lawrence M. Henry, United States At- torney, and David I. Shedroff, Assistant United States Attorney, for his answer says: First Defense The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Second Defense The United States, a sovereign not amenable to suit, is an indispensable party. Third Defense Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and lack standing to sue. Fourth Defense As a result of notices by the holder of oil and gas ieases Colorado 03189-A, 03190-B and 03191-A, published pursuant to Section 7 of the Act of August 13, 1954, 68 Stat. 708, 30 U.S.C. sec. 527, and as a result of the veri- fied statement filed pursuant to the provisions of that Act by Energy Resources Technology Land, Inc., there remains pending in the Department of the Interior a proceeding involving the [30] validity of the so-called unpatented oil shale placer claims designated as Bute Nos. 5 to 8, 13 to 16, 21 to 24 and 30, 31 and 32, all of which are referred to in paragraph 5 of the complaint in this proceeding. The verified statement as to these claims was rejected by the Manager of the Denver Land Office on March 27, 1963, and an appeal was filed by Energy Resources Technology Land, Inc., on April 26, 1968, and that appeal remains pending in the office of the defendant. 18 Fifth Defense First Claim I. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint. II. Defendant is without information sufficient t form a belief with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegation in paragraph 3 that the matter in controversy exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $10,- 000. The remaining allegations in paragraph 8 and the allegations in paragraph 4 are conclusions of law which require no answer. III. With respect to the allegations in the first four sentences of paragraph 5, defendant states that the min- ing claims listed therein, having previously been declared null and void, are no longer capable of ownership. De- fendant is without information sufficient to form a be lief with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegations in these four sentences. Defendant admits that the claims, when originally located, were situated in the areas de scribed in sentences 5, 6 and 7 of paragraph 5 and that the claims, as originally located, were situated [31] in Rio Blanco County, Celorado. Defendant is without in- formation sufficient to form a belief with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegation that these claims con- tain valuable deposits of oil shale. IV. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 6, defendant admits that in 1927 officials of the general Land Office instituted Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759 and 11,761 wherein the validity of the mining claims de scribed in paragraph 5 of the complaint was challenged on the ground that annual assessment work in the amount of $100 had not been performed. Defendant de- nies that these claims represented vested rights of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest. V. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 7, defendant admits that the contest proceedings were con- ducted pursuant to departmental Circular No. 460 by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and that in 1928 default judgments were entered in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11,759 and 11,761 declaring the mining claims 19. nuli and void. Defendant is without information suf- ficient to form a belief with respect to whether the per- sons named or served in those contests were the persons that the Commissioner and the Register regarded as be- ing the then owners of the mining claims. VI. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 8, defendant says that the decision of the Supreme Court in Wilbur v. Krushnic, 280 U.S. 306, speaks for itself. Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegation that this was the first case. [32] VII. Defendant denies the allegations in para- graph 9, except the allegation that orders were issued to renew contest proceedings against the mining claims re- ferred to in paragraph 5 of the complaint. VIII. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 10. IX. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 11, defendant admits that contest proceedings were conducted pursuant to departmental Circular No. 460, admits that service was effected on the owners of the mining claims and admits that in 1930 and 1931 the Commissioner of the General Land Office entered default judgments de- claring the mining claims referred to in paragraph 5 of the complaint null and void. Defendant denies the alle- gations in paragraph 11 not herein specifically admitted. X. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 12, defendant says that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corp., 295 U.S. 639, speaks for itself. Defendant specifically denies that the Supreme Court held in that decision that the contest proceedings therein involved went beyond the jurisdic- tion of the Department of the Interior although it was held that the contest proceedings had been erroneously decided. XI. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of the complaint. XII. Defendant admits the allegations in the first sen- tence of paragraph 14 and denies the allegations in the second sentence of that paragraph. 20 [83] XIII. Defendant denies the allegations in para- graph 15 of the complaint. XIV. Defendant denies the allegations in the first and third sentences of paragraph 16 and admits the allega- tions in the second sentence of that paragraph. XV. With respect to the allegations in the first sen- tence of paragraph 17, defendant says that the records of the Department of the Interior indicate that service was made on the contestees in Contests Nos. 11,757, 11, 759 and 11,761 and that the known owners of the mining claims were named as contestees. The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 17 are therefore denied. In his decision in a separate case involving other oil shale mining claims, Union Oil Co. of California, et al., 71 I.D. 169 (1964), defendant has held that questions claim- ants might wish to raise with respect to the legal ade quacy of service in earlier contests will be reviewed upon the filing of a proper application with defendant. De- fendant denies the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 17. XVI. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 18, defendant says that plaintiffs’ alleged predecessors in interest failed to appeal to the Secretary of the Interior within the time permitted by the then existing regula- tion and thus failed to exhaust their administrative reme- dies. Defendant denies the allegations in the second sen- tence of paragraph 18. XVII. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the complaint. [84] XVIII. Defendant is without information suff- cient to form a belief with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 20 as they refer to indi- viduals other than the defendant. As applied to the de fendant, the allegations in that paragraph are denied. XIX. As they relate to defendant, the allegations in paragraph 21 are denied. Defendant admits that his pre- decessors issued some patents based on oil shale placer claims which had previously been declared null and void for failure to perform assessment work. Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief with re spect to the acreage involved in such patents or what 21 knowledge his predecessors might have had of the con- test proceedings. Defendant is without information suf- ficient to form a belief with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegations in the last sentence of paragraph 21. XX. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 22 of the complaint. XXI. As they relate to defendant and his authorized subordinates, the allegations in paragraph 23 are denied. Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief with respect to the truth or falsity of the allega- tions in this paragraph as they relate to other persons. Defendant notes that despite the length of the complaint it contains no allegation as to the dates on which plain- tiffs purchased the alleged interests of the locators or the manner in which they were acquired. XXII. With respect to the allegations in paragraphs 24 and 25, defendant admits that the so-called Union Oil Co. of California decision, 71 I.D. 169, was announced on April 17, 1964. Defendant says that this decision speaks for itself and any paraphrase thereof in para- graph 25 is denied. Defendant admits that this decision did not involve the mining claims described in paragraph 5 of the complaint. The allegations in the last sentence of paragraph 24 are denied. [35] XXIII. The allegations in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the complaint are denied. Second Claim XXIV. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 28, defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief with respect to the truth or falsity of the allega- tion that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000, exclusive of costs. The remaining allegations in paragraph 28 are conclusions of law which require no answer. XXV. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 29, defendant adopts his answers to paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 through 27 of the complaint. XXVI. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the complaint. ener Se a MEET * [1715] Affidavit State of Utah County of Salt Lake ss. H. Byron Mock, being first duly sworn, on oath, de- poses and says: 1. During the years 1952 and 1953, the period in- volved in the above-entitled action, as appears in plain- tiff's complaint, he was employed by the defendant as Regional Administrator in the Bureau of Land Manage- ment, United States Department of the Interior, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and his as- sistants, with offices in Salt Lake City, Utah, and during the said two years as such Regional Administrator in said Bureau he was in charge of the administering and supervising of grazing on the surface of public lands in Region IV located within the States of Utah and Colo- rado, which included grazing District No. 7 within the State of Colorado; ae a 112 2. Pursuant to and in accordance with the authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America by Act of United States Congress of June 28, 1934, 48 Stat. 1269, Title 43, Section 315, et seq., called Taylor Grazing Act, and for the purpose of permitting the use of the surface of the lands therein described for grazing under the supervision and control of the United States Department of the Interior, on to wit, October 12, 1940, there was duly established, by order of A. J. Wirtz, Acting Secretary of the Interior, of the United States of America, Grazing District No. 7, in the State of Colorado, embracing, among other lands, the lands located in Township 5 South, Range 100 West, ¢ P. M. described in paragraph 5 of plaintiff’s complaint, and notice thereof was duly published in the Federal Reg- ister of Tuesday, October 22, 1940, on [1716] pages 4179, 4180 and 4181 thereof, in accordance with the Federal Register Act, approved July 26, 1935, (49 Stat. 500, Title 44, Section 305, et seq., U.S.C.A.) ; 8. During the said years 1952 and 1953 there was in full force and effect in the said Bureau of Land Manage ment the administrative practice and policy as to the con- trol and regulation by the United States Government of grazing on the surface of unpatented mining claims, in- cluding the claims described in plaintiff’s complaint, established by and operated under the hereto attached memorandum approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior on January 3, 1946, and the hereto attached memorandum approved June 9, 1947, by the Acting Sec- retary of the Interior, which in the years 1952 and 1953 were a part of the duly established rules, regulations and directives under which the Bureau of Land Management did control and regulate the grazing of the surface of un- patented mining claims, as shown on the attached forms numbered 4-1096 and 4-1180; 4. All acts performed by the employees of defendant, named in plaintiff's complaint, in respect to the grazing of the surface of the unpatented mining claims described in plaintiff's complaint in the said years 1952 and 1953 were performed by said employees pursuant to and in the execution of the rules, regulations, and directives of 113 the Bureau of Land Management, United States Depart- ment of the Interior, of which the said establishment of said Grazing District No. 7 and the said attached memo- randa are a part. H. Byron Mock Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of April, 1955. Lucy S. Taylor Notary Public, residing at: Bountiful, Utah My Commission Expires: [1717] Copy United States Department of the Inter- ior Grazing Service Office of the Director Salt Lake City 9 Box 659 December 3, 1945 Memorandum for the Secretary: Orderly administration of the grazing districts estab- lished since June 28, 1934, under the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act, comprising large areas of the public domain in western Colorado, eastern Utah and southern Wyoming, has been affected seriously by the practice of numerous unpatented oil shale mining claimants leasing the located lands to stockmen for grazing purposes. The administrative difficulties resulting from the practice have long been a serious problem. A solution has been diligently sought by the Grazing Service. The unsatis- factory situation persists and becomes more acute from year to year. The mining locations in question were initiated under the placer mining laws prior to the enactment of the Mineral Leasing Law of 1920, and little or no annual assessment work or other mining work has since been performed upon the claims and cannot be required by the Government under existing law as announced in decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Wilbur v. Krushnic, 28C U.S. 306 (1930), and Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, 295 U. S. 639 (1935), holding that failure to perform such work i i ' : 114 did not render the claims invalid, but merely subjected them to loss through relocation by another claimant, Since the existing United States mining laws do not require mining locations to be recorded on the records of the General Land Office or of its district offices, there are virtually thousands of these mining locations of which the Department has little or no knowledge. The only source of information, other than such marks as may appear upon the ground, is the county records in those cases where the claims have been recorded, and it would be impractical for the Grazing Service to make examina- tions and attempt to determine the respective rights of the numerous locators in view of the many conflicting claims. Legislation has been proposed by the Department which would require the oil shale claimants to file notice of their intention to [1718] hold and develop the claims, In other words, it would require them to place the claims of record with the Federal Government. The proposed legislation (S. 1139, 78th Congress, 1st Session) was dis- cussed extensively before a Subcommittee of the Commit- tee on Public Lands and Surveys under Senate Resolu- tion 241, extended, at Denver, Colorado, on November 15 and 16, 1943. The proposed legislation has not been en- acted. Following a conference in the Solicitor’s Office, attend- ed by members of the staff and representatives of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service, it was agreed that in the circumstances it would be advisable that the Department establish the administrative prac- tice of not recognizing any rights in the mining locators to the surface resources, except such as may be required for actual mining purposes and that permits or licenses to utilize the grazing resources be issued under the Tay- lor Act and the Federal Range Code to qualified livestock owners, with the inclusion in the present form of grazing permits or licenses of suitable provisions to that effect. It is therefore recommended that the present forms used in the issuance of grazing permits or licenses be amended to include the following or similar language: * od - * 115 “This permit or license applies to all Federal range within the area described, including the surface of un- patented mining locations or claims not needed by the jocator of mining purposes or in extracting and removing the mineral deposits therein. It is understood that the permitee or licensee will exercise due care not to disturb or damage any mining improvements thereon and that he will be responsible for any damage to such mining im- provements resulting from the grazing of his livestock upon any such claims under this permit or license.” If you approve of this procedure, it is believed that it will be of material help in the administration of the large areas in grazing districts included in numerous unpat- ented mining claims. In the event the suggested pro- cedure would in any case result in litigation between the mining locators and the grazing permittees, steps may be taken through intervention on behalf of the Government, to [1720] secure a judicial determination of the respec- tive rights of the Government and all the parties con- cerned, and of other important questions which should be settled as early as practicable. /s/ C. L. Forsling Director of Grazing Approved: January 3, 1946 /s/ Oscar L. Chapman Assistant Secretary [1721] Copy Bureau of Land Management Washing- ton 25, D.C. June 3, 1947 Memorandum To: The Secretary of the Interior From: Director Subject: Grazing on unpatented min- ing claims Reference is made to a memorandum from the former Director of Grazing, approved by the Assistant Secretary on January 3, 1946, in which the Department established the administrative practice of not recognizing any rights in the mining locators to the surface resources, except such as may be required for actual mining operations and i i Te i ee ae 116 that permits or licenses to use the grazing resources be issued under the Taylor Act and the Federal Range Code to qualified livestock owners, with the inclusion in the present form of grazing permits or licenses of suitable provision to that effect. The present forms used in the issuance of grazing permits or licenses are to be amended to include the following or similar language: “This permit or license applies to all Federal range within the area described, including the surface of unpat- ented mining locations or claims not needed by the locator for mining purposes or in extracting and removing the mineral deposits therein. It is understood that the per- mitee or licensee will exercise due care not to disturb or damage any mining improvements thereon and that he will be responsible for any damage to such mining im- provements resulting from the grazing of his livestock upon any such claims under this permit or license.” We recommend a change in the wording of this added provision by deleting therefrom “and that he will be re sponsible for any damage to such mining improvements resulting from the grazing of his livestock upon any such claims under this permit or license.” The Bureau is not in a position to demand that either the livestock or the mining industry satisfy the other in cases in which [1722] damage may result from joint-use operations upon the public lands. The Bureau is in a position, however, to direct its grazing licensees and permittees to exercise due care not to disturb or damage mining improvements, and this has been accomplished in the amended provision. /s/ Thos. C. Havell Assistant Director Approved: June 9, 1947 /s/ Oscar L. Chapman Acting Secretary of the Interior | 117 [1726] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 65 (Illegible) Requests United States Department of the Interior GEW General Land Office District Land Office Salt Lake City, Utah. June 15, 1935. Commissioner, General Land Office, Washington, D. C. Sir: In a recent newspaper dispatch we noted that the Supreme Court had held invalid all of the proceedings looking to disposing of oil shale placer claims where the regular assessment work had not been performed. As you know there are very many uncompleted adverse proceedings in this office. We would be pleased to be ad- vised as to the disposition of these papers. If disposition of these papers may be had by transmit- tal to your files the space now occupied by these papers could be used to advantage for the grazing files referred to under paragraph “f” of circular 1356. I would appreciate early answer to this letter. Very respectfully, Thomas F. Thomas Register. (illegible) Jun 17 1935 (illegible) [1727] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 66 June 24, 1985 Mr. Joseph Bellis, Secy. The Para- chute Mining District, Grand Valley, Colorado Oil Shale. My dear Sir: I have received your letter of May 25, 1935, concerning the Little Jim, Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, oil shale placer claims. You are advised that on June 3, 1935, the Supreme Court of the United States held in the case of Harold L. Ickes, as Secretary of the Interior, v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, that the Department’s challenge and adverse proceedings against the oil shale placer Ee Soren CE Errencnenmeerenen Se 118 claims involved went beyond the authority conferred by law. Accordingly, action on oil shale cases will remain suspended until final action is taken by the Department in the above mentioned case. Very respectfully, /s/ Fred W. Johnson Commissioner [1729] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 67 1532 Court Place Denver, Colorado June 8, 1935 Hon E. P. Costigan Senate Chamber Washington D.C. Jun 11 1935 Dear Sir: I am a resident of Denver and one of the locators of a group of oil shale placer mining claims lo- cated in Garfield County, Colorado. Our locations were made in 1919 and have never been questioned as to bona fides of locators or as to discovery. But after doing an- nual assessment work from the time of location until and including the year ending July 1, 1931 our title was ad- versed by direction of the Department of the Interior in office letters of October 8, 1931 and Nov. 13, 1931 on the ground of failure to perform adequate assessment work. After hearings the Land Office decided our work was ade- quate on six claims and not sufficient on six so declared our title to the latter six null and void. These proceed- ings bore the number 1333556 “N” CRB and [1730] were titled United States vs Joseph Ahearn et al. This letter notifying me of the final decision, after appeal by me to the Secretary from the Land Office decision, was dated July 6, 1932 and was marked refer to A-16739. I am not an attorney and am at somewhat of a loss as to the method of procedure by which we may have our title cleared of the cloud placed upon it by the action of the Secretary of the Interior which the Supreme Court 119 of the United States in a decision given out on June 3rd was declared to be beyond his authority. Would it be possible for you to take the matter up with the Secretary’s office and so have our titles cleared? Please advise me as to what course I should pursue and I will appreciate anything you may be able to do for me. There are other cases similar to mine in that same area. Respectfully yours Joseph D. Ahearn 1532 Court Place Denver, Colorado [17381] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 68 June 24, 1935 13833556 “N’” CRB Information Hon. Edward P. Costigan, United States Senate My dear Senator: I have received your letter of June 12, 1935, with enclosed letter to you from Mr. Joseph D. Ahearn of 1532 Court Place, Denver, Colorado, concern- ing his oil shale placer claims. The records of this office show that as a result of de- partmental decision of June 30, 1932, the Little Jim Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, oil shale placer claims owned or claimed by Josehp D. Ahearn and others were declared to be null and void on October 17, 1932, because of the claimants’ failure to perform the annual assessment work upon the claims for the year ending July 1, 1931. On June 31, 1935, the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary of the Interior v. Virginia-Colorado Develop- ment Corporation, involving a similar question, held that [1732] the United States is without authority to declare invalid an oil shale placer claim because of the claimant’s a to perform the annual assessment work upon such aim. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court Mr. Ahearn’s letter has been treated as an informal request ae 120 for reconsideration of the Department’s decision of June 30, 1962, referred to above. It has, accordingly, been filed with the case and the entire record has been trans- mitted to the Secretary of the Interior for his considera- tion. Mr. Ahearn will be duly advised of the final action taken upon his request. A carbon copy of this letter is enclosed herewith. Very respectfully, /s/ Fred W. Johnson Commissioner LME: 6/14 [1735] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 69 Department of the Interior Washington September 3, 1935 Joseph D. Ahearn et al. A. 16739. “N” : File 1333556. : Oil shale placers held void. : Vacated. Motion for Rehearing Official Copy, not to be taken from the record. By decision of June 30, 1932, the Department, in af- firmance of a decision by the Commissioner of tiie Gen- eral Land Office, held the Little Jim oil shale placer claims numbered 2, 7, 8, 9, and 11 for lands situate in T. 5 S., R. 95 W., and T. 6 S., R. 96 W., 6th P. M., Colorado, null and void on account of failure to perform assessment work. On October 17, 1932, the Commissioner declared Little Jim No. 10 claim null and void because it had been inadvertently omitted from the departmental] decision al- though it had been included in the decision appealed from. Josehp D Ahearn has filed an informal motion for rehearing. In the case of Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, decided June 3, 1935, the Supreme Court of the United States held that failure to do assessment work on mining claims gave the Government no right to de- 121 care forfeiture and that the mining claimants lost no rights by such failure. Received Sep 9 1985 C. L. O. [1786] In view of this decision by the Supreme Court the action of the Department in declaring the claims in- volved forfeited was without authority of law and void. It is noted that no application for patent or other claim has been filed in the Land Department for the placers in- volved. This means that the matter will stand as if no adverse proceedings had been brought. If and when ap- plication for patent shall be filed for these placer claims such application will be considered on its merits. In the meantime, so far as the records of the Land Department are concerned, the lands involved appear and are re- garded as vacant and unappropriated public lands. The departmental decision of June 30, 1932, and the adverse proceedings and the Commissioner’s decision are vacated. (Sgd) Charles West, Under Secretary. [1737] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 70 The Shale Oil Company Decided June 24, 1935 Mining Claim—Validity—Cancelation—Authority of Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior has authority to deter- mine that a mining claim is invalid for lack of discovery, for fraud, or other defect, or that it is subject to cancela- tion for abandonment. Mining Claim—Oil Shale Lands—Assessment Work— Default—Who May Challenge Folling Default. Under section 2324 of the Revised Statutes, a default in performance of annual work on a mining claim ren- ders it subject to relocation by another claimant, but does not affect the locator’s right as between him and the United States, and he is entitled to preserve his claim by 122 resumption of work after default and before such reloca- tion. [1788] Decisions of the Department of the Interior Mining Claim—General Leasing Act—Excepting Clause in Section 37. The excepting clause in section 37 of the General Leas- ing Act, saving existing valid claims “thereafter main- tained in compliance with the laws under which initiated, which claims may be perfected under such laws,” held to preclude the United States from declaring a forfeiture of a mining claim, otherwise valid, for default in per formance of assessment work. Prior Decisions and Regulations Overruled. The decisions and regulations of the Land Department, in so far as in conflict with the decision herein, over- ruled.* Walters, First Assistant Secretary: * * 2 [1739] By letter of May 26, 1934, in reply to a request for oral argument in support of the appeal, the Depart- ment stated that the question whether the Department has authority to forfeit oil shale placer claims by reason of defaults in the performance of assessment work has recently been answered in the negative by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in the case of Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, but that a petition for certiorari had been granted by the Supreme Court, and agreed to suspend action on the appeal in the instant case pending the decision of the Supreme Court in the Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation case. [1740] The Supreme Court, adverting to the fact that the validity of the locations there involved was not ques- tioned, except as to failure to perform assessment work, held that plaintiff (The Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation) lost no rights by failure to do the assess- ment work; that failure gave the Government no right of forfeiture; that the plaintiff came directly within the exception contained in Section 37 of the Leasing Act saving existing valid claims “thereafter maintained in 128 compliance with the laws under which initiated, which claims may be perfected under such laws”; that the chal- to the valid existence of the claims had no proper basis; and that the Department’s challenge, its adverse proceedings, and the decision set forth in the bill, went beyond the authority conferred by law. In view of this opinion of the court, the adverse pro- ceedings and decision of the Commissioner therein in the instant case must be held as without authority of law and void. The above-mentioned decision of the Depart- ment in the Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation case and the instructions of June 17, 1930, are hereby re- called and vacated. The above-mentioned decisions in the cases of Francis D. Weaver and Federal Oil Shale Com- pany and other Departmental decisions in conflict with this decision are hereby overruled. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed and the record in the case remanded with instructions to reinstate the application and entry in toto and dispose of the same unaffected by the default in the performance of assessment labor, and if all else is found regular, to clear-list the application for patent. Reversed and remanded. [1741] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 71 Address only the Commissioner of the General Land Office United States Department of the Interior General Land Office Washington, Jul 6-1935 10 In reply please refer to 1606652 “N” CRB Oil shale records. Instructions. Register, Salt Lake City, Utah. Sir: Further reference is had to your letter of June 15, 1935, relative to records in contest cases involving oil shale placers, answered June 28, 1935. On June 24, 1935, the Department, in the case of the Shale Oi] Com- pany, Denver mineral entry 042552, stated that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case entitled Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, hold- 124 ing that the Department is without authority to challenge the validity of an oil shale placer on account of a failure to perform the annual assessment work, all previous de partmental decisions in conflict therewith “are hereby overruled”. Said departmental decision has now been promulgated [1742] and in view thereof and of the Department’s ac- tion in remanding the Shale Oil Company case with in- structions to reinstate the application and entry in toto and dispose of the same unaffected by the default in the performance of annual assessment work, you are in- structed to close out on your records and transmit to this office all contest cases involving solely the question of a failure to perform annual assessment work and failure to resume work on oil shale placers prior to the date of a challenge by the United States to the valid existence of the claims, where no answer has been filed by the claimants. In all cases involving only the question of annual assessment work where answer has been filed by any of the contestees, you will transmit the records to this office without action. You will retain in your files, sub- ject to further instructions from this office, all contest cases involving oil shale placers wherein charges have been made involving other questions than that above stated, even if a charge has also been made in that re- gard. In your response hereto refer to this letter by date and number. Very respectfully, Antoinette (name illegible) Commissioner. 7-1 edt 125 [1743] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 72 Address only the Commissioner of the General Land Ofice 2x1xS. AC. United States Department of the Interior General Land Office Washington 7/29/35 In reply please refer to 1290989 “N” CRB Mountain States Mineral Land Company, et al. Contest No. 11823 dismissed. Case closed. Instruc- tions. Register, Denver, Colorado. Sir: . * a a [1744] On June 3, 1935, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Cor- poration, that the United States has no right to declare oil shale placers null and void because of failure on the part of the claimants to perform annual assessment work thereon, and on June 24, 1935, the Department in the case of the Shale Oil Company, Denver, mineral applica- tion 042552, recalled and vacated its decision in the Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation case, and overruled its previous decisions in conflict with the Su- preme Court’s decision. From the foregoing it is clear that the adverse pro- ceedings in this case are invalid for any purpose. Ac- cordingly, contest No. 11823 is dismissed and the case is closed. Advise the parties hereof. Several contest cases involving oil shale placers are now pending in your office. In view of the decisions re- ferred to hereinabove, you are instructed to close out on your records and transmit to this office all contest cases involving solely the question of a failure to perform an- nual assessment work, and failure to resume work on oil shale placers prior to the date of a challenge by the United States to the valid existence of the claims, [1745] where no answer has been filed by the claimants. In all cases involving only the question of annual assessment work where answer has been filed by any of the contes- tees you will transmit the record to this office without action. eeeenso eens: 126 You will retain in your files, subject to further instrue- tions from this office all contest cases involving oil shale placers wherein charges have been made involving other questions than that above stated, even if a charge has also been made in that regard. In your response hereto refer to this letter by date and number. Very respectfully, Sgd Fred W Johnson Commissioner. LMN 7/18 [1746] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 73 4 Address only the Commissioner of the General Land Offse 11 x1xS. A.C. United States Department of the Interior General Land Office Washington Jul 30 1935 In reply please refer to 1412210 “N” CRB United States vs. F. V. Larson et al Contest No. 6255. Register’s decision reversed. Con- test dismissed. Case closed. Register, Salt Lake City, Utah. Sir: June 30, 1931, adverse proceedings involving the validity of the Hell Hole Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, 7 to 44, inclusive, and 49 and 50 oil shale placers, were ordered on the charge that annual assessment work to the value of $100 was not performed upon each or any one of the claims for the year ending July 1, 1930, and that work had not been resumed thereon when challenges to the va- lidity thereof were posted thereon on behalf of the United States. Notice issued, answer denying the charge was filed, hearing was duly held, and on July 12, 1933, you recom- mended that the claims be declared null and void. [1747] August 24, 1933, vou transmitted the record to this office. On June 8, 1935, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Ickes vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corpor- 127 ation, that the United States has no right to declare null and void oil shale placers because of failure on the part of the claimants thereof, to perform annual assessment work thereon, and on June 24, 1935, the Department, in the case of the Shale Oil Company, Denver mineral ap- plication 042552, recalled and vacated its decision in the Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation case and overruled its previous decisions in conflict with the Su- preme Court’s decision. From the foregoing it is clear that the adverse pro- ceedings in this case are invalid for any purpose, and your decision, therefore, is reversed, the contest is dis- missed and the case closed. So note your records and advise the parties in interest by ordinary mail. Very respectfully, Fred W. Johnson Commissioner. LMN 7/18 [1748] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 74 Address only the Commissioner of the General Land Office United States Department of the Interior General Land Office Washington Jul 31 1935 In reply please refer to 1606652 “N” CRB Oil shale records. Instructions. Register, Evanston, Wyoming. Sir: Several contests involving the matter of a fail- ure to perform the annual assessment work on oil shale placer mining claims or to resume work thereon before a charge to the valid existence of the claims was made by the United States are pending in your office. On June 3, 1935, the Supreme Court in the case of Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, v. Virginia-Colorado De- velopment Corporation, held that the United States is without authority to challenge the validity of an oil shale placer on account of failure to perform the annual assess- _—_———— , 128 ment work thereon. June 24, 1935, the Department in the case of the Shale Oil Company, Denver mineral entry 042552, stated that in view of the above decision the [1749] Department is without authority to challenge the validity of an oil shale placer on account of failure to perform annual assessment work, and over-ruled all pre vious Departmental decisions in conflict therewith. In view of the said decisions, you are instructed to close out on your records and transmit to this office al] contest cases involving solely the question of a failure to perform annual assessment work and failure to resume work on oil shale placers prior to the date of a challenge by the United States to the valid existence of the claims where no answer has been filed by the claimants, In all cases involving only the question of annual assess- ment work where answers have been filed by any of the contestees, you will transmit the records to this office without action. You will retain in your files, subject to further instruc- tions from this office, all contest cases involving oil shale placers wherein charges have been made involving other questions than that above stated, even if a charge has also been made in that regard. In your response hereto, refer to this letter by date and number. Very respectfully, Fred W. Johnson Commissioner. 7-27-gmr a * = a [1751] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 75 July 31, 19385 1606652 “N” CRB Oil shale records. Instructions. Register, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Sir: Several contests involving the matter of a failure to perform the annual assessment work on oil shale 129 placer mining claims or to resume work thereon before a to the valid existence of the claims was made by the United States are pending in your office. On June 3, 1935, the Supreme Court in the case of Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, v. Virginia-Colorado De- velopment Corporation, held that the United States is without authority to challenge the validity of an oil shale on account of failure to perform the annual as- sessment work thereon. June 24, 1935, the Department in the case of the Shale Oil Company, Denver mineral entry 042552, stated that in view of the above decision the * e 2 - [1753] Department is without authority to challenge the validity of an oil shale placer on account of failure to perform annual assessment work, and over-ruled all previous Departmental decisions in conflict therewith. In view of the said decisions, you are instructed to close out on your records and transmit to this office all contest cases involving solely the question of a failure to perform annual assessment work and failure to re- sume work on oil shale placers prior to the date of a challenge by the United States to the valid existence of the claims where no answer has been filed by the claim- ants. In all cases involving only the question of annual assessment work where answer has been filed by any of the contestees, you will transmit the records to this of- fice without action. You will retain in your files, subject to further in- structions from this office, all contest cases involving oil shale placers wherein charges have been made involv- ing other questions than that above stated, even if a charge has also been made in that regard. In your response hereto,refer to this letter by date and number. Very respectfully, Fred W. Johnson Commissioner. 130 [1754] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 76 Department of the Interior Washington Jul 30 1935 Address only the Secretary of the Imterior A. 17353. United States v. Fred A. Bloss et al. “N” 1375534. Oil placers held void. Reversed. Appeal From The General Land Office. O. E. Daniels, jr. and Barge Hicky, among the co- owners of the Big Springs Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, oil shale placers, have appealed from a decision of the Com- missioner of the General Land Office dated February 18, 19338, which held upon the evidence adduced in adverse proceedings that the claims were void. The sole charge against the validity of the claims was as follows: “That annual assessment work to the value of $100 was not performed upon each or any one of the Big Springs Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, oil shale placers for the year ending July 1, 1931, and that work had not been resumed on said claims September 1, 1931, when chal- lenges to the validity thereof were posted thereon in be half of the United States.” For the reasons fully stated in departmental decision of June 24, 1935, entitled The Oil Shale Company, the challenge to the validity of the claim, the adverse pro- ceedings, and the decision [1755] therein were without authority of law. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed and proceed- ings dismissed. T. A. Walters First Assistant Secretary. 104633 — = En 131 [1756] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 77 Department of the Interior Washington Jul 30 1935 Address only The Secretary of the Interior A. 17342. 10-8 General United States v. The U. S. Oil Shale Company. “N” 13843406. Contest No. 12009. Oil shale placers held void. Modified. Appeal From The General Land Office. August 15, 1930, proceedings were instituted charging that annual assessment work to the value of $100 was not performed upon each or any one of the Golden City Nos. 1 to 36, inclusive, 40 to 42, inclusive, 44 to 47, in- elusive, and Sunny Brook Nos. 1 to 37, inclusive, oil shale placers for the year ending July 1, 1930, and that work had not since been resumed. Notice thereof was served on the U. S. Oil Shale Com- pany, the record holder of the mining title, who demurred to the charge, contending that the Department was with- out authority to prefer it, and filed answer admitting the charge as to the Golden City Nos. 7 to 27, 32 to 35, and 44 to 47, inclusive, but denying it as to the remain- ing claims. By decision of April 8, 1931, the Commis- sioner of the General [1757] Land Office overruled the demurrer, held void the claims last above named, and di- rected that the hearing proceed on the charge against the remaining claims, namely, Golden City Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, 28 to 31, inclusive, 36, 40 to 42, inclusive, and Sunny Brook Nos. 1 to 37. The Commissioner’s action was affirmed by the departmental decision of August 7, 1931. A like charge was subsequently made against cer- tain of the last-named claims, alleging a similar default for the year ending July 1, 1931. Hearing was held March 10, 1932. Upon review of the evidence, the Com- missioner, by decision of February 21, 1933, held the charge that the work had not been done for the year 1930, had been sustained as to Golden City Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, 28 to 31, inclusive, 36, 40 to 42, inclusive, Sunny Brook Nos. 14 to 37, inclusive, and held such 132 claims null and void. Golden City No. 36 was held null and void for the further reason that the evidence showed it had been abandoned. As fully set forth in the decision of the Department of June 24, 1935, in the case of The Shale Oil Company, 55 I. D. ——, the Supreme Court in Ickes v. Virginia- Colorado Development Corp., decided June 3, 1935, that the failure to do assessment work gave the Government no right to forfeit a mining claim; that charges based upon such defaults and decisions thereon were without proper legal basis. The decision of the Commissioner of April 8, 1931, declaring the Golden City Nos. 7 to 27, 82 to 35, 44 to 47, inclusive, to be nullities [1758] and his decision of February 21, 1933, declaring the Golden City Nos. 3 to 6, 28 to 31, 40 to 42, inclusive, Sunny Brook Nos. 14 to 37, to be nullities were without effect on defendant’s rights, and must be reversed. Depart- mental decision of August 7, 1931, above mentioned, is hereby vacated. As the uncontradicted evidence shows that Golden City No 36 was abandoned by the defendant company because of a claim thereto by one Huelit, the Commissioner’s decision as to that claim is affirmed. T. A. Walters First Assistant Secretary. 104633 [1759] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 78 G. L. O. 1804251 “N” AKJ Denver contest August 1, 1935 United States vs K. C. Schuyler Contest dismissed; case closed in part. Register, Denver, Colorado Sir: Pursuant to a field investigation and report this office, by letter “N” of March 3, 1932, ordered proceed- ings against certain oil shale placer mining claims lo- cated in T. 7 S., R. 97 W., 6th P. M., Coloraod, named and described as follows: 183 K. C. Schuyler No. 2, being the NE % K. C. Schuyler No. 3, being the NW % of Sec. 24 of said township, lo- cated July 26, 1917, with E. R. Ong, G. H. and P. C. Hotz, and M. H., W. F., K.A., B. M., and M. H. Calla- han, named as locators; Harold Shoup No. 1, being the SE %, Harold Shoup No. 2 being the NE %4, Harold Shoup No. 3, being the NW % and Harold Shoup No. 4, being the SW % of Sec. 23 of said township, located September 29, 1917, with W. F., H. M., K. A, M. H., and B. M. Callahan, P.C. and G. H. Hotz and named as locators. [1760] The proceedings were based on charges pre- ferred as follows: 1. That the K. C. Schuyler Nos. 2 and 3 claims were not located for the use and benefit of the parties whose names were used in making the locations, but for Ralph Hartzell, K. C. Schuyler, James Doyle and the Callahan Oil Shale Company, the organization of which was in contemplation at the time the locations were made. 2. That G. H. Hotz, P. C. Hotz, W. F., K. A., B. M., and H. M. Callahan were dummy locators, their names having been used by M. H. Callahan without their knowl- edge and consent in locating the K. C. Schuyler Nos. 2 and 8 claims for the purpose of securing to the Callahan Oil Shale Company, or other parties more land under the location than they themselves could lawfully locate there- under. 8. That the Harold Shoup Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, claims were not located for the benefit of the parties whose names were used in making the locations but for Karl C. aa Ralph Hartzell, James Doyle and M. H. Calla- 4. That W. F., H. M., K. A., B. M. Callahan and P. C., G. H. Hotz and E. R. Ong were dummy locators, their names having been used by M. H. Callahan with- out their knowledge and consent in locating the Harold Shoup Nos. 1 to 4 claims for the purpose of securing for himself, K. C. Schuyler, Ralph Hartzell and James Doyle more land under the locations than they themselves could lawfully locate thereunder. 134 5. That annual assessment work to the value of $100 was not performed upon each or any one of the K. (, Schuyler Nos. 2 and 3 and Harold Shoup Nos, 1, 2, 3 and 4 oil shale placers for the year ending July 1, 1931, and that work had [1761] not been resumed on said claims October 20, 1931, when challenges to the validity ~ vanes were posted thereon on behalf of the United tates. On August 1928, K. C. Schuyler and George A. Taff attempted to change the boundaries of said claims so as to include in each claim portions of the same land not theretofore included therein. As sought to be the claims were so described by mets and bounds as to cover the following described grounds, to wit: Schuyler No. 2, the N %N Y%N & of Sec. 28 and NUYNUN & of Sec. 24. Schuyler No. 8, thee S %N YN & of Sec. 28 and S%NUN & See. 24. Harold Shoup No. 1, the N % S \% of Sec. 23. Harold Shoup No. 2, the N %S%N % of Sec. 28 andN%4SUN & of Sec. 24. Harold Shoup No. 3, the S %S%N \% of Sec. 23, andS %YSUN & Sec. 24. Harold Shoup No. 4, to cover the S %& S \& of Sec. 23. You are directed to advise the claimants that, as no location of lands valuable for oil shale could be made after the date cf the leasing act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 487), the amendments, which seek to include land within a claim which was not embraced therein on the date of said act, are in effect new locations as to such land [1762] and to that extent they were null and void and would not be recognized by this office. Notice of the charges, which also included the state ment and declaration regarding the amendments, was issued and served and in approprite time Karl C. Schuy- ler, for himself and the contestees named, filed answer, in which he admitted that the boundaries of the claims had been changed so as to include new land as to each of them, but denied every other allegation contained in the charges, or that he had not the right to include in each claim the new ground embraced therein, and applied for a hearing. Pursuant to notice and stipulation, evidence limited to charge 5 was taken September 10 to 15, 1932, before a notary public at Glenwood Spr‘ags, while at the final hearing before you at Denver, evidence dealing with the alleged invalidity of the locations under charges 1 to 4 was introduced the same being carbon copies of the evi- dence previously introduced in the case of the United States vs. Karl C. Schuyler et al, under contest No. 11667, serial 035333, involving the Annex and Black Bess oil shale placers upon similar charges. [1763] The record together with briefs and argument by counsel for contestee was transmitted by you under date of January 25, 1934, without decision or recom- mendation. The charges involving the Annex and Black Bess claims, in contest 11667, were, as above stated, similar to charges 1 to 4, inclusive, in the present case. The loca- tors of those claims, namely, W. F. Callahan, H. M. Cal- lahan, B. M. Callahan, K. C. Callahan, M. H. Callahan, P. C. Hotz, G. H. Hotz, and E. R. Ong are the same persons, the record shows named as locators of the K. C. Schuyler Nos. 2 and 3 and Harold Shoup Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 claims herein described. The burden was upon the Government to prove, as the charges allege, that the locators were not locators in good faith, in that their names were used without their knowledge and consent by M. H. Callahan for the pur- pose of securing the land for the use and benefit of the Callahan Oil Shale Company, Ralph Hartzell, K. C. Schuyler and James Doyle. Finding the evidence to be insufficient to sustain the charges involving the Annex and Black Bess -laims that contest was, by office letter “N” of February 6, 1935, finally dismissed and the case closed. Likewise [1764] the evidence, after a careful re- view of the same in connection with this case, has been found to be insufficient to sustain the allegations con- tained in charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 in this case also. To the extent of these charges, therefore, the contest is hereby dismissed, subject to the right of appeal by 135 ending July 1, 1931, the Supreme Court of the United States on June 3, 1985, held in the case of Ickes, Secre- tary of the Interior, vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, that the oil shale claimant lost no rights by failure to do assessment work on its claims; that such failure gave no right to declare the claims null and void; and that the proceedings brought by the Government against the claims, based solely on that ground, went beyond the authority conferred by law and did not affect the validity of the claims. [1765] As charge 5 had no foundation in law there fore, no consideration of the evidence introduced con- cerning it is necessary, and to that extent the proceed- As to the question of annulment of the amended loca- tions, since no application for patent has been filed no consideration of the matter in that respect is deemed necessary at this time the decision being confined to the issues raised by the charges only. Notify the special agent in charge, also the contestees or their attorney of record, hereof, and in due time report. Very respectfully, /s/ Fred W. Johnson Commissioner 137 [1774] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 79 August 19, 1985 1406966 “N” CRB Contest No. 5991 dismissed. Case closed. Register, Salt Lake City, Utah. Sir: Adverse proceedings against the Lyons No. 2 oil shale placer, SY; NE%4 Sec. 24, T. 10 S., R. 6 E, S.L.M., were directed by office letter of May 8, 1931. ‘Title to the claim appears in E. L. Soules, R. M. Teachout and L. J. Lyons. Subsequently, certain proceedings were had resulting in a hearing on April 18, 1934, at which the attorney for Teachout appeared and stated that his client consents to the cancellation of the location and the closing of the case, May 24, 1934, you transmitted the record to this office where it was suspended pending final decision in the case of Ickes vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Cor- poration, which was then before the Courts. On June 8, 1935, the Supreme Court held in the case last referred to that an oil shale placer claimant [1775] lost no rights by failure to do the annual assessment work on his claims, that his failure gave the Govern- ment no right to declare the claims null and void, and that the proceedings brought by the Government against the claims on the sole ground of failure to perform such work went beyond the authority conferred by law and did not affect the validity of the claims. On June 24, 1985, the Department, in the case of the Shale Oil Com- pany, Denver mineral application 042552, recalled and vacated its decision in the Virginia-Colorado Develop- ment Corporation case, and overruled its previous deci- sions in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court. The only charge involved in Contest )'o, 5591 relates to a failure of the claimants to perform the annual as- sessment work. In view of the decisions referred to above it appears that the action previously taken by this office in the said contest was without authority of law and the contest is accordingly dismissed and the case is — 138 closed. Advise the parties in interest who have been served with notice of the charge hereof by ordinary mail, Very respectfully, /s/ Fred W. Johnson Commissioner LMN 8/16 * . * = [1778] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 80 August 19, 1935 1337598 “N” CRB Oil Shale contest dismissed. Case closed. Register, Denver, Colorado Sir: May 14, 1929, adverse proceedings were directed against the validity of the Hydrocarbon No. 73 oil shale placer, title to which appears in the Shale Oil Company, Grand Junction, Colorado, on the charge that annual as- sessment work to the value of $100 was not performed upon the claim for the year ending July 1, 1929, and that work has not been since resumed. November 8, 1982, you reported that notices were duly issued and served and that answer had been filed. The case has been suspended in this office pending a determi- nation by the courts of the question of the right of the United States to proceed against oil shale claimants on the ground stated in the charge outlined above. [1779] On June 8, 1935, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States did not have the right to question of validity of an oil shale placer on the ground stated, and on June 24, 1935, the Depart- ment, pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court re- called and vacated its decision in the case of Ickes vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, and upon the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision the Department overruled its previous decisions in conflict therewith. In view of the decisions referred to above it is clear that the action previously taken by this office in initiat- 139 ing the said contest was without authority of law and the contest is accordingly dismissed and the case in closed. Advise the parties hereof by ordinary mail. Very respectfully, /s/ Fred W. Johnson Commissioner. [1792] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 82 In reply refer to [illegible] -““N” Commissioner of the General Land Office United States Department of the Interior General Land Office Washington Mar 30 1940 Oil shale records. Instruc- File copy tions. Surname Wilkins Cummiford Bradshaw Cunningham (illegible) Wolfsohn Memorandum for the Register, Denver, Colorado. Several contests involving the matter of a failure to perform the annual assessment work on oil shale placer mining claims or to resume work thereon before a charge to the valid existence of the claims was made by the United States, are pending in your office. In view of the rulings made in the case of Ickes, Sec- retary of the Interior vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, decided June 3, 1935, and in the case of Shale Oil Company, mineral entry Denver 042552, de- cided June 24, 1935, the previous decisions of the De partment declaring oil shale placer mining claims for- feited because of the failure of the claimants to perform seiehteaeetiiadeiietinie se 140 the annual assessment work or to resume work before a charge to the valid existence of the claims was made, were held to be without force and effect. In view there of, you are instructed to close on your records all contest cases involving solely the question of a failure to perform annual assessment work and failure to resume work on oil shale placers prior to the date of a challenge by the United States to the valid existence of the claim. A list of these cases should be transmitted to this office. Also furnish this office with a list of all other oil shale contests wherein charges were made involving other ques- tions than that above stated, even if a charge was also made in that regard. In response hereto, refer to this memorandum by date and number. Fred W. Johnson Commissioner. 8-27-ime Copy for General Land Office files [1793] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 83 1606652 “N” United States Department of the Interior General Land Office District Land Office 342 Postoffice Bldg., Denver, Colorado April 26, 1940 The Commissioner, General Land Office, Washing- ton, D.C. : Report Oil Shale Records My dear Mr. Commissioner: Referring to your letter “N” of March 30, 1940, directing this office to close all contest cases against oil shale placers involving solely the question of a failure to perform annual assessment work and failure to resume work on oil shale placers, in view of the rulings made in the case of Ickes, Secretary of the Interior vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, decided June 3, 1935, in the case of Shale Oil Company, Denver 042552, you are advised that this office dismissed and closed all such cases that were in the office, following 141 instructions given in your letter 1290989 “N” of July 29,1935. A list of all cases closed pursuant to your letter of July 29,1935, on that charge, is herewith attached. I also transmit a list of cases remaining in this office, containing that charge in some cases, but all cases con- taining other charges. Service of notice has never been obtained on all Contestees in these cases, because it has not been possible to obtain addresses. Very truly yours, Jessie M Gardner. Register fr. (Received stamp) [1810] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 84 In reply refer to 1606652 “N” Address only the Com- missioner of the General Land Office United States Department of the Interior General Land Office Washington Oil shale contest. Mar 6-1941 File copy Surname Wilkinson (illegible) Altizer Memorandum for the Register, Denver, Colorado. Reference is made to your letter of April 26, 1940, and the list of oil shale cases attached thereto which shows the miscellaneous and contest numbers, names of the con- testees and of the claims involving charges other than that of the failure of the claimants to perform the annual assessment work or to resume work before a challenge to the validity of the claims was posted thereon. In view of the ruling made in the case of Ickes, Secre- tary of the Interior, vs. Virginia-Colorado Development 142 Corporation, decided June 3, 1935, the adverse proceed- ings against the oil shale claims contained in the list are hereby dismissed as to the charge relating to assessment work and the cases are closed to that extent. You will issue notices of the other charges to the par. ties not already served with notice and submit reports thereof in the usual manner. Fred. W. Johnson Commissioner :¢: D.I. (3) 3-4jph Official copy Copy for General Land Office files [1811] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 85 In reply refer to 1606652 “N” Address only to the Commissioner of the General Land Office United States Department of the Interior General Land Office Washington Aug 9-1940 Oil shale records. Instruc- File copy tions. Surname (illegible) Altizer Memorandum for the Register, Salt Lake City, Utah: Several contests involving the matter of a failure to perform the annual assessment work on oil shale placer mining claims or to resume work thereon before a charge to the valid existence of the claims was made by the United States, are pending in your office. In view of the rulings made in the case of Ickes, Secre- tary of the Interior vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, decided June 3, 1935, and in the case of Shale Oil Company, mineral entry Denver 042552, de cided June 24, 1935, the previous decisions of the Depart- ment declaring oil shale placer mining claims forfeited because of the failure of the claimants to perform the 143 annual assessment work or to resume work before a to the valid existence of the claims was made, were held to be without force and effect. All contest cases involving this charge alone have been dismissed and osed. you are instructed to furnish this office with a list of all oil shale contests pending in your office wherein charges were made involving the question above stated in con- junction with other charges. In response hereto, refer to this memorandum by date and number. Fred W. Johnson Commissioner (Illegible) Official copy Copy for General Land Office files a + a oa [1813] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 87 In reply refer to 1606652 “N” Address only the Com- missioner of the General Land Office United States Department of the Interior General Land Office Washington Aug 9 - 1940 Oil shale records. Instruc- Fille copy tions. Surname Bradshaw Altizer Memorandum for the Register, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Several contests involving the matter of a failure to perform the annual assessment work on oil shale placer mining claims or to resume work thereon before a charge to the valid existence of the claims was made by the United States, are pending in your office. In view of the rulings made in the case of Ickes, Secre- tary of the Interior vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, decided June 3, 1935, and in the case of a ae 144 Shale Oil Company, mineral entry Denver 042552, de cided June 24, 1935, the previous decisions of the Depart- ment declaring oil shale placer mining claims forfeited because of the failure of the claimants to perform the annual assessment work or to resume work before a charge to the valid existence of the claims was made, were held to be without force and effect. All contest cases involving this charge alone have been dismissed and closed. You are instructed to furnish this office with a list of all oil shale contests pending in your office wherein charges were made involving the question above stated in conjunction with other charges. In response hereto, refer to this memorandum by date and number. Fred W. Johnson Commissioner (illegible) Official copy Copy for General Land Office files. * * * * [1815] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 89 In reply refer to 1606652 “N” Address only the Com- missioner of the General Land Office United States Department of the Interior General Land Office Washington Aug 9-1940 Oil shale records. In- File copy structions. Surname Bradshaw Altizer Memorandum for the Register, Evanston, Wyoming: Several contests involving the matter of a failure to perform the annual assessment work on oil shale placer mining claims or to resume work thereon before a charge 145 w the valid existence of the claims was made by the United States, are pending in your office. In view of the rulings made in the case of Ickes, Sec- retary of the Interior vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, decided June 3, 1935, and in the case of Shale Oil Company, mineral entry Denver 042552, de- cided June 24, 1935, the previous decisions of the De- ent declaring oil shale placer mining claims for- feited because of the failure of the claimants to perform the annual assessment work or to resume work before a to the valid existence of the claims was made, were held to be without force and effect. All contest cases involving this charge alone have been dismissed and closed. You are instructed to furnish this office with a list of all oil shale contests pending in your office wherein charges were made involving the question above stated in con- junction with other charges. In response hereto, refer to this memorandum by date and number. Fred W. Johnson Commissioner. (Illegible) Official copy Copy for General Land Office files [1817] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 91 United States Department of the Interior General Land Office Branch of Field Examination 355 Post Of- fice Building Salt Lake City, Utah June 5, 1942 Refer to File: 1606652 B.F.E. Oil Shale Cases, Colo- rado [Handwritten notation] Reports rel to pending Advising of status of oil : shale cases in Colo- rado. 146 Memorandum for the Supervisor, Branch of Field Ex- amination, General Land Office: a * * a When I took charge of this Region in January, 1935, there were 4203 pending oil shale cases. In practically all of these cases adverse proceedings had been directed on the ground that the required assessment work had not been done on the claims, [1818] As a result of various conferences held between myself and the Director of Investigations, and as a result of some correspondence, I was finally authorized by the then Director of Investigations on August 21, 1935, to close all of those cases in which adverse proceedings had been directed on the ground that the assessment work had not been performed, and to keep open only those cases in which adverse proceedings had been directed on the ground of non-discovery. The cases were examined in detail, and as a result, all except 67 were closed during the months of January and February, 1936. It required considerable time to examine all of the cases and prepare appropriate lists. [1820] N. F. Waddell Regional Field Examiner NFW:DB [1821] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 91-A 1606652 General Land Office Office communication July 29, 1942 Memorandum for Mr. Wolfsohn. Following this decision the Department in its instruc- tions of June 17, 1930, modified the prior instructions of February 28, 1930, and directed that challenges made to the validity of an oil shale claim for failure to do the annual assessment work must be initiated prior to the 147 commencement of patent proceedings, including the com- mencement of publication of notice. Following these in- structions every oil shale claim of record during the years 1930 to 1933 was examined and a notice posted on each claim, where the field examination justified such action, stating that possession of the claim had been taken in the name of the United States. The Government expended thousands of dollars in its attempt to clear the records of these supposedly invalid oil shale claims only to be overruled by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Virginia~Colorado Development [1822] Company (295 U.S. 639). Briefly, the Supreme Court held in this latter case that a mining claimant lost no rights by failure to do the assessment work; that failure gave the Govern- ment no right of forfeiture, and that the holder of such mining claim came directly within the exception con- tained in section 37 of the leasing act of 1920 saving existing valid claims “thereafter maintained in compli- ance with the laws under which initiated, which claims may be perfected under such laws”; that the challenge to the valid existence of the claims had no proper basis; and that the Department’s challenge, its adverse proceedings, and the decision set forth in the bill went beyond the au- thority conferred by law. Following this decision the Department in the case of Shale Oil Company decided June 24, 1985 (55 I.D. 287), revoked its instructions of June 17, 1930 (53 I.D. 181). This briefly resulted in the cessation of any activities on the part of this office in clearing the oil shale claims, since no new oil shale placer claims can be initiated since the 1920 leasing act, and the Government cannot defeat the claims or take posses- sion because of failure of the claimant to perform annual assessment work. The only action we can take is to chal- lenge the claim on the general ground of no discovery or abandonment. This already has been done in the few cases where the facts warranted the preferring of such charges. Under the circumstances, therefore, about all we can do is to wait until the Gulf Oil Corporation or any other oil shale placer claimants present applications for patent ——— 148 and then see that the showing made in each case justifies a patent. The Grazing Service has been eager for years to clear the records of this oil shale as the lands are with- in grazing districts. Howell Supervisor of the Branch of Adjudication [1827] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 95 Oil Shale Claims Patented on Applications Filed Subsequent to the Virginia-Colorado Decision, June 3, 1935 numbers Contest Patent Dateof Number Acreage of Claims Number Number Patenting of Claims of Claims Coral T. 1, 2, 8, 9 12610 Coral T. 26, 28- 30 18028 1128255 2/9/50 8(of 10) 1,277.45 Clear Creek 12906 1129498 7/24/50 1 118.47 Lucky Strike 15 18080 1180498 12/ 4/50 1 29.80 Coral T.39,4¢ 12420 1180494 12/ 4/50 2 $15.78 Last Chance 1-8 18001 1180598 12/18/50 8(of 6) 480.00 Triumph 21-28 12021 1130594 12/18/50 8 1,271.84 A.D.1; J.D.5 12179 A.D. 2-4; F.D. 8-8; P.D, 1-8; J.D. 1-4,6-8 12022 1180595 12/18/50 26 4,162.40 Westfield 1,2 12257 11818382 8/ 6/61 2 80.00 Grand Valley 7,8 11956 Gem 1-10 1181891 8/19/51 18 2,080.10 Community1 12018 [1829] F.and C. 1,2 Midas 8 Midas 8 Double B 1,3 Bituminite 1 Midas 4 Bituminite 2 Pratt 11, 12 Pratt 1, 2, 5, 6 Clear Creek 2, 4 Velvet Shale 20 Adelaide 1-4 Massive 1-4, 6, 7 Shale King Shale King 1-9 Debeque Debeque 1, 3, 4 Shale Mountain Fraction Patent Contest Number Number 12082 11855 11855 12927 1181892 11813894 1181843 1182289 1186446 1189057 1139294 11411938 1141578 1142205 1142214 1143461 1143855 1143856 1144370 Dateof Number Patenting of Claims 8/19/51 2(of 8) 8/19/51 1 5/ 1/51 6/14/51 8 9/16/52 11 5/ 5/58 2 5/28/58 8(of 9) 10/ 7/58 2 11/18/58 4 12/29/58 3 12/30/58 4 3/23/54 29 4/ 7/54 1 4/ 7/54 1 5/ 7/54 2(of 5) 149 of Claims 51.00 74.33 157.27 1,450.64 224.75 936.17 320.00 646.00 70.43 583.77 4,400.80 80.84 40.00 316.76 1145915 150 [1830] Names and numbers Contest Patent of Claims Number Number G.M. 1-8, 5-16, 21-24 26-80 12198 G.M. 4 12262 G.M. 19, 20, 25, $1-35 12578 Roosevelt 1-4,6 123867 Becky 5, 6 11864 Victor 7, 8 12621 Victor 8; Woody 3,4 12871 Grand 8, 4,7 12367 Little Pete 11861 Ransom 5, 6 12725 Big Pete 3,5-7 11855 Big Pete 4 Adelaide 5-8 12854 Buffalo 1, 2 11855 Lucile 1-7 11855 Martin 1 12854 Dere 5-8 11855 Colorado 1-6 (Colorado Group (2claims)) 11855 Dere 2-4 11855 [1831] Denver 1-8 12069 Coscoro 1-4 11746 Coscoro 5-9,11 11748 Ureca 1-16 11745 War Eagle 5-9 11748 Marcedus 1-14 11752 Black Eagle 1-6 11755 Aspin 1-8 11756 War Eagle1,2 11748 C.F 40.8.Co. 1-18, 20, 21, 23-27, 30-86 11749 1146469 1146470 1146471 1146472 1150854 1151423 1151424 1151425 1151426 1151427 1151428 1151429 1151430 1151544 Date of Number Patenting of Claims of Caine 8/ 5/54 9/ 3/54 9/ 3/54 9/ 3/54 9/ 3/54 8/17/55 4/ 7/55 4/ 7/55 4/ 7/55 4/ 7/55 4/ 7/55 4/ 7/55 4/ 7/55 4/ 7/55 4/13/55 83 4,688.29 7 915.12 5 $10.00 3 57.50 1 120.00 2 $19.74 9 1,400.00 2 $20.00 7 1,120.00 1 160.00 4 600.00 6 960.00 3 $60.00 s 1,202.36 88 18,988.68 Names and umbers Contest Patent Dateof Number Acreage aCaime Nambor Number Patenting of Claims of Claime Black Sulphur Falls 1-17 117538 Ute 1-12 11754 1151868 4/26/55 29 4,640.00 Buffalo 3, 4 11855 1151870 4/26/55 2 $23.79 DryLand1,2 12152 1151915 4/27/55 2 191.60 South Star 1-4 Snow Crest 1-4 12025 1152194 65/10/55 9 1,440.00 North Star 5 Pratt $,4,9,10 12271 1152512 6/ 7/55 4 640.00 Denver 111,112 11862 1156994 2/ 2/56 2 820.00 Columbine 1-8 11855 1157155 2/ 9/56 8 1,280.00 Champion 5 12626 116070! 6/19/56 1 36.04 Joe T. 1 13066 Woodrow Wilson 12 12105 1174074 8/18/57 2 $20.00 [1832] Roosevelt 8,11 12867 1174144 8/14/57 2 244.34 January 4 New Year 12046 1174146 8/14/57 8 860.00 Error New Year 8 12046A 1175082 9/18/57 1 80.00 Aspin 5, 6 11756 1175468 10/ 2/57 $20.82 Yankee 6; Grand 12 12861 1176290 11/ 7/57 2 162.57 Coscoro 10,12 11748 TwoGems1,2 11744 1176336 11/ 8/57 § 960.00 War Eagle 8,4 117438 Virginia 1-5 12870 1176915 11/27/57 5 800.00 Massive 12082 1184014 7/ 1/58 1 160.00 Colorado Figure Four Oil Shale Co. 19, 22, 28, 29 11749 1190477 1/ 9/59 640.00 T.N.T. 1 12088 1191551 1/26/59 1 78.37 Names and numbers Contest Patent Dateof Number Acreage of Claims Number Number Patenting of Claims of Claims Lucky Strike Red Top Evergreen Black Eagle 12024A 1192886 2/10/59 T7(of9) 1,121.04 [1833] Sulphur Springs 12780 Mount Blaine 12182 Mary L. 12670 Mt. Blaine 1,8 12798 1196641 6/19/59 10(of 17) 1,840.82 Mount Blaine 13096 Mount Blaine 1, 4 John A. Herman F. Mary L. Gertrude L. Alva A. West Star 14 North Star 1-4, 6 12025 1204188 1/26/60 9 1,070.16 G.M. 17, 18 12261 1205189 2/17/60 2 820.00 Bitumen 24 18071 1210618 7/ 6/60 1(of 14) 50.00 Totals 507 74,578.06 [1834] II. Oil Shale Claims in Colorado Patented on Applications filed Subsequent to the Virginia-Colorado decision, June 3, 1935 Patent Dateof Number Acreage Name of Claim Number Patenting of Claims of Claims Golden City 1, 2 Sunny Brook 7, 10, 12 1110478 2/18/41 5 605.23 Golden City 5, 6, 28 1118261 8/ 3/42 3 400.00 Sunny Brook 1-3 11138262 8/ 3/42 3 459.92 Mt. Mamm 12-15 1119490 2/19/45 4 488.61 Golden City 3, 4, 29-31 1122907 10/27/47 5 698.58 Buck Canyon 8, 4, 9, 10 1124594 2/ 3/49 4 640.00 Blue Bird 3 1126338 6/17/49 1 120.00 Big Bell 1, 3, 5-8 1126450 6/29/49 6 960.00 Name of Claim Triumph 1-12, 15, 16 JB, 14 Chicago 1-4 Smuggler 1-4 Clear Creek 1-3, 5-8 Triumph 29-44 F.D.1,2 C.D. 1-8 C.C.D. 1-8 Coral T. 1, 2, 8, 9, 26-80, 38 Sunny Brook 15-87 [1835] Clear Creek Clear Creek 1 Coral T. 81-87 Golden City 40-42 Sunny Brook 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 18, 14 Lucky Strike 15 Coral T. 39, 40 Last Chance 1-6 Triumph 21-28 J.D. 1-8 AD, 14 P.D. 1-8 F.D. 3-8 Westfield 1, 2 Gem 1-10 Community 1 Grand Valley 7, 8 Lucky Strike 1-8, 19, 20, 24-26 Lucky Strike 23 Velvet 13, 14 Coral T. 3, 4, 7 Patent Number 1126492 1127287 1127298 1127499 1128041 1128042 1128255 1128451 1129498 1129799 1129902 1129903 1180493 1180494 1180593 1180594 1130595 1131882 1131891 1181392 1181394 1131843 1182289 153 Dateof Number Acreage Patenting of Claims of Claims 6/80/49 14 2,240.00 9/21/49 4 635.16 9/22/49 8 1,278.40 10/19/49 7 1,118.40 1/26/50 16 2,560.00 1/26/50 18 2,886.00 2/ 9/50 10 1,594.04 3/ 8/50 23 8,681.48 7/24/50 2 118.47 8/29/50 7 1,116.49 9/ 7/50 8 $16.68 9/ 7/50 8 1,214.83 12/ 4/50 1 29.80 12/ 4/50 2 $15.78 12/18/50 6 960.00 12/18/50 8 1,271.84 12/18/50 26 4,162.40 3/ 6/51 2 80.00 3/19/51 18 2,080.10 3/19/51 8 1,207.22 3/19/51 1 51.00 5/ 1/51 2 74.38 6/14/51 3 157.27 en | 154 Patent Dateof Number Acreage Name of Claim Number Patenting of Claims of Claims [1836] French 1-11, 26-31 1182814 8/20/51 17 2,394.51 Sookum 1 1136026 7/31/52 1 161.15 Echo 1-4, 6 1186446 9/16/62 11 1,450.64 Texas 30, 41, 46-49 F. and C. 1, 2 1189057 5/ 5/58 2 224.75 D. & R. G. 1-8 1189281 5/27/53 8 448.36 Midas 8, 4, 7, 8 Double B 1, 8 1189294 5/28/58 9 1,248.35 Bituminite 1-8 Falls 1-8 1189295 5/28/58 3 359.20 Pratt 11, 12 11411938 10/ 7/58 2 $20.00 Pratt 1, 2, 5, 6 1141578 11/18/53 4 640.00 Clear Creek 2, 4 1142205 12/29/58 3 70.48 Velvet Shale 20 Adelaide 1-4 1142214 12/80/53 4 588.77 Bituminite 4 1142448 1/20/54 3 467.87 J.B. 7, 8 Massive 1-4, 6, 7 Shale King Shale King 1-9 Debeque 1148461 3/23/54 29 4,400.80 Debeque 1, 3, 4 Shale Mountain Fraction Shale Ranch Shale Mountain Shale Mountain 1-5, 8 [1837] Davy 1 1148855 4/ 7/54 1 80.84 Davy 3 1148856 4/ 7/54 1 40.00 Boulder 1-8, 5, 6 1144370 5/ 7/54 5 798.78 G.M. 1-16, 19-35 1145945 8/ 5/54 +33 4,683.29 Roosevelt 1-4, 6 1146469 9/ 3/54 7 915.12 Becky 5, 6 Victor 3, 7, 8 1146470 9/ 3/54 5 310.00 Woody 38, 4 Grand 8, 4, 7 1146471 9/ 3/54 3 57.50 Little Pete 1146472 9/ 3/54 1 120.00 Ransom 5, 6 1150854 8/17/55 2 819.74 Little Jim 1-8, 5-12 1151207 8/80/65 11 1,762.98 Adelaide 5-8 1151423 4/ 7/55 9 1,400.00 Big Pete 3-7 Le ee Patent Dateof Number Acreage Name of Claim Number Patenting of Claims of Claims Buffalo 1, 2 1151424 4/ 7/55 2 820.00 Lucile 1-7 1152425 4/ 7/55 7 1,120.00 Martin 1 1151426 4/ 7/55 1 160.00 Dere 5-8 1151427 4/ 7/55 4 600.00 Colorado 1-6 1151428 4/ 7/55 6 960.00 Dere 2-4 1151429 4/ 7/55 3 360.00 Denver 1-8 1151430 4/ 7/55 8 1,202.36 [1838] Marcedus 1-14 Ureca 1-16 Colorado Figure Four Oil Shale Co. 1-18, 20, 21, 23-27, 30-36 1151544 4/18/55 88 13,938.68 Black Eagle 1-6 Aspin 1-3 Coscoro 1-9, 11 War Eagle 1, 2, 5-9 Ute 1-12 1151868 4/26/55 29 4,640.00 Black Sulphur Falls 1-17 Buffalo 8, 4 1151870 4/26/55 2 323.79 Perfection 1-4, 9-12 1151914 4/24/55 9 1,360.80 Magnetic No. 1 Dry Land 1, 2 1151915 4/27/55 2 191.60 South Star 1-4 Snow Crest 1-4 1152194 5/10/55 9 1,440.00 North Star 5 Pratt 3, 4, 9, 10 1152512 6/ 7/55 4 640.00 Gold Oil 54 1156704 1/18/56 1 39.97 Denver 111, 112 1156994 2/ 2/56 2 320.00 Columbine 1-8 1157155 2/ 9/56 8 1,280.00 Champion 5 1160705 6/19/56 1 36.04 Gordon V. 1160966 6/25/56 1 80.01 Hydrocarbon 39-43, 46-48 1162967 8/ 8/56 8 1,291.41 Bernard R. 1164738 9/12/56 1 157.60 156 [1839] Patent Date of Number Acreage Name of Claim Number Patentingof Claims of ‘Claisns Pilot 1165289 10/ 4/56 1 161.20 Hydrocarbon 57-60, 61A, 62, 64, 66-72, 92,98, 121 1166825 11/ 9/56 17 2,448.41 G.J. 1-24 1168686 2/ 8/57 24 3,771.69 Joe T.1 Woodrow Wilson 12 1174074 8/18/57 2 $20.00 Roosevelt 8, 11 1174144 8/14/57 2 244.34 Denver 77, 78 1174145 8/14/57 2 219.44 January 4 New Year 4 1174146 8/14/57 3 360.00 Error Madden 1, 2 1175081 9/18/57 2 $20.26 New Year 8 1175082 9/18/57 1 80.00 Grand Valley 1, 2 1175467 10/ 2/57 2 75.42 Aspin 5, 6 1175468 10/ 2/57 2 320.82 Yankee 6 1176290 11/ 7/57 2 162.57 Grand 12 Coscoro 10, 12 Two Gems 1, 2 1176886 11/ 8/57 6 960.00 War Eagle 8, 4 Virginia 1-5 1176915 11/27/57 5 800.00 Pratt 7, 8 1180216 3/18/58 2 820.00 [1840] Idell 17, 18 11838631 6/26/58 2 192.56 Idell, 1, 2, 7, 20-24 11836382 6/26/58 8 1,178.73 Massive 1184014 7/ 1/58 1 160.00 Colorado Figure Four Oil Shale Co. 19, 22, 28, 29 1190477 1/ 9/59 4 640.00 Ta. 2 1191551 1/26/59 1 78.87 Lucky Strike Red Top Evergreen Carlyle Hardison 1192386 2/10/59 9 1,384.14 Black Eagle Winner Blue Bird Big Chief 157 Patent Dateof Number Name of Claim Number Patenting of Claims ot ‘Claims Big Pete 8, 9 1192960 2/19/59 2 280.00 Coal Tar 1195836 5/26/59 11 1,709.88 Mary L. 1196641 6/19/59 17 2,859.57 James H. James H. (2nd) Sulphur Spring Mount Blaine Mount Blaine 1, 8-5 Petroleum Idell 3-6 1198022 8/ 6/59 4 640.00 West Star 1-4 1204188 1/26/60 9 1,070.16 North Star 1-4, 6 G.M, 17, 18 1205139 2/17/60 2 320.00 General Haig 10, 11 1210612 7/ 6/60 2 307.45 Good Hope 47-52, 62-65, 69 Coral T. 71 12106138 7/ 6/60 14 1,812.69 Bitumen 24 General Pershing 12 Good Hope 1-16, 61, 79-82 1210614 7/ 6/60 21 3,325.70 Totals 768 118,249.67 LOT ITTY ee ra 158 * o o ° Clerk’s Note: Plaintiff's Exhibits No. 102 - Photocopy of a Page 91 Description of tract; No. 103 - Photocopy of a Page 96 Description of tract; No. 104 - Final Cert, of Mineral Entry 2/25/49-appear in separate exhibit book. * * * * [1874] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 114 Located 4-1-’18 Feb. 27, 1950. Oil shale mineral entries Denver 056601 and 056606. Triump Nos. 22 & 23 = M. E. 056601 F. D. No. 7; J. D. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 = M. E. 056606 May 23, 1916: Lands classified as mineral land val- uable as source of petroleum and nitro- gen. Feb. 2, 1918: Commissioner’s order that mineral reservations under th [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0213%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.