3. Should the charges, if not disputed, justify the rejection or cancellation of the entry or claim the local officers will be duly notified thereof and directed to issue notice of such charges in the manner and form hereinafter provided for, which notice must be served upon the entrymen and other parties in interest shown to be entitled to notice. 4. The notice must be written or printed and must refer to the letter from this office by initial and date, as authority for issuing the notice, and must state fully the charges as contained in said letter; also the number of the entry or claim, subdivision of land involved, name of entryman or claimant or other known parties in interest. 5. The notice must also state that the charges will be accepted as true, (a) unless the entryman or claimant files in the local office within thirty days from receipt of notice a written denial, under oath, of said charges, with an application for a hearing, (b) or submits a statement of facts rendering the charges immaterial, (c) or if he fails to appear at any hearing that may be ordered in the case. 6. Notice of the charges may in all cases be served personally upon the proper party by any officer or person or by registered letter mailed to the last address of the party to be notified, as shown by the record, and to the post office nearest to the land. When it is necessary to serve notice on the unknown heirs of a person in interest, the same must be addressed to that person at his address of record and also at the post office nearest the land. Proof of personal service shall be the written acknowledgement of the person served or the affidavit of the person who served the notice, attached thereto, stating the time, place, and manner of service. Proof of service of notice by registered letter shall consist of the report of the register and receiver who mailed the notices, accompanied by the post office registry return receipts, or the returned unclaimed registered letters. 7. If a hearing is asked for, the local officers will consider same and confer with the Chief of Field Division relative thereto and fix a date for the hearing, due notice of which must be given entryman or claimant. The above notice may be served by registered mail. By ordinary mail, a like notice will be sent to the Chief of Field Division. 8. The Chief of Field Division will duly submit, upon the form provided therefor, to this office, an estimate of the probable expense required on behalf of the Government. He will also cause to be served subpoenas upon the Government witnesses and take such other steps as are necessary to prepare the case for prosecution. 9. The Government must appear with its witnesses on the date and at the place fixed for said hearing, unless there is reason to believe that no appearance on behalf of the Government will be required. The officer in charge of hearings must, therefore, keep advised, as far as April 17, 1964 possible, as to whether the defendant intends to appear at the hearing. The Chief of Field Division may, when present, conduct the hearing on behalf of the Government. 10. If the entryman or claimant fails to deny the charges under oath and apply for a hearing, or to submit a statement of facts rendering the charges immaterial, or fails to appear at the hearing ordered without showing good cause therefor, such failure will be taken as an admission of the truth of the charges and will obviate the necessity for the Government submitting evidence in support thereof, and the register and receiver will forthwith forward the case with recommendation thereon to the General Land Office and notify the parties by registered mail of the action taken. In cases finally closed upon default of claimant if application to reopen any case is filed with the register and receiver they will forthwith forward same with recommendations to the General Land Office. 11. Upon the day set for the hearing and the day to which it may be continued the testimony of the witnesses for either party may be submitted, and both parties, if present, may examine and cross-examine the witnesses, under the rules, the Government to assume the burden of proving the charges, unless otherwise ordered. 12. If a hearing is had, as provided in paragraph 11, the local officers will render their decision upon the record, giving due notice thereof, in the usual manner. When decision is adverse to the Government, notice thereof must be sent to the Chief of Field Division. 13. Appeals or briefs, if filed, must be in accordance with the rules, but need not be served upon the Chief of Field Division or Government representative in charge of the hearing. 14. The above proceedings will be governed by the rules of practice. All notices served on claimants or entrymen must likewise be served upon transferees or mortgagees. Very respectfully, Approved: ANDRIEUS A. JONES, First Assistant Secretary. CLAY TALLMAN, Commissioner. REGISTER APPENDIX C-1 July 29, 1935 SIR: July 10, 1930, adverse proceedings were directed against the validity of the Liberty No. 1, Oil Shale Placer, SE., Sec. 22, T. 2 S., R. 95 W., 6th P.M. on the charge that annual assessment work was not performed on the claim for the year ending July 1, 1930, and that work has not been since resumed. After notice issued and answer denying the charges was duly filed, hearing was duly before a United States Commissioner at Glenwood Springs, Colorado, on June 11, 1932, at which the Government appeared by attorney and no other appearances were noted. April 12, 1933, you transmitted the record to this office without decision. On June 3, 1935, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Ickes vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, 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 application 042552, recalled and vacated its decision in the Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation case, and overruled its previous decisions in conflict with the Supreme Court's decision. From the foregoing it is clear that the adverse proceedings in this case are invalid for any purpose. Accordingly, 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 referred 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 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, 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, subject 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 regard. April 17, 1964 In your response hereto refer to this letter by date and number. (Sgd.) FRED W. JOHNSON, APPENDIX C-2 Box 477, GRAND VALLEY, COLORADO, COMMISSIONER GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Please advise the undersigned, Ida Dere, why Lucy Agness Oil Shale Claims Nos. 1 and 2 (being N2, N2 and S2N2, Sec. 4, Township 5 South. R 95 West) should not be clear listed from the charge of failure to do and perform annual assessment work. Being contest No. 11750, in keeping with and per tenor of your letter dated 7/29/35, which ordered the clear listing of Liberty Oil Shale Claim No. 1, being contest No. 11823 addressed to Register of Denver Land Office. These two claims were valid existing claims on 2/25/20, with several years assessment work having since been done. The field Division Inspectors convinced me on or about the year 1927 or 28, that it would be useless to go to the expense of answering the Government contest, but the Supreme Court Decision of 6/3/35, seemingly has set at naught all of these former challenges, where the only question was lack of assessment work. Please clear list my said claims or advise me what must be done to get them clear listed. Yours respectfully, Replying to your letter of April 22, 1936, you are advised the records of this office show that the Lucy Agnes Nos. 1 and 2 oil shale placers were declared null and void by this office on August 18, 1933, because of failure of the owners of the claims to file answer denying the charge that annual assessment work had not been performed on the claims for the year ending July 1, 1929, and that work had not been since resumed. On June 3, 1935, the Supreme Court of the United States held in the case of Ickes vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, that the oil shale placer claimant, a party in that case, lost no rights by failure to do annual assessment work on its claims and that such failure gave the Government no right to declare the claims null and void. It further held that proceedings brought by the Government based solely on such a charge went beyond the authority conferred by law and did not affect the validity of the claims. In view of this holding of the Supreme Court, this office considers that it would be unnecessary to revoke its previous decision holding the Lucy Agnes claims to be null and void. That decision being without authority of law is without any effect on the title arising from the location of the claims. Very respectfully, (Sgd.) FRED W. JOHNSON, Commissioner. APPENDIX C-4 July 4, 1944 Mr. W. PORTER NELSON, 607 California Building, Denver 2, Colorado. MY DEAR MR. NELSON: I have your letter of June 15 asking for the present status of the contest No. 12478 directed against the Sid Nos. 1 to 22 oil shale placer locations by our letter No. 1069641 of July 16, 1930. The letter referred to directed new adverse proceedings against the locations mentioned on the charge "That annual assessment work to the value of $100 was not performed upon each or any one of the Sid Nos. 1 to 22 inclusive, oil shale placers for the year ending July 1, 1930, and that work has not been since resumed." The letter also directed service of notice of the charge on E. B. McNair and George W. Habberset, the record title holders of the locations. On September 16, 1930, answer was filed in the Denver Land Office by E. B. McNair in which no denial is made of the allegations contained in the charge, but contestee contended that the Sid Nos. 1 to 22 claims having been located prior to the leasing act of February 25, 1920, constituted valid claims existent February 25, 1920, and maintained in compliance with the laws under which they were initiated, etc. By our letter of June 24, 1931, to the Register it was stated that as the answer merely objected to the charge without denying the allega |