The Glenwood post., 1924-05-01
General Land Office Reverses Register
aud Receiver Of Local Land Office
In the Summers Case
GO TO SECRETARY PROBABLE

What appears as decided victory
for the oil shale applicants as against
homestead entrymen was won this
week when G. w. Darrow, who repre-
sented the plaintiff in the contest
case of Freeman vs.. Summers, received
a telegram from Washington to the
effect that the decision of the register
and receiver of the local land office in
favor Of Summers had been reversed
IN decision of the commissioner Of
the general land office.
This is case wherein Geo. l.. Sum.
mers in 1920 filed Homestead ON
lard in the Parachute creek country,
near Grand Valley, at the, time or
shortly after the Free,,an interests did
some work on the sane land by way
Of developing tho same as oil shale
properties under the provisions Of the
U. S. mineral laws. Summers alleged
that the Freeman people had not done
real development work in compliance
with the law, and the testimony at the
local hearing was very clear.
The case was gone into in very
exhaustive way at the local trtely sNtoh'
the apparent intention of both sides
to make test case of it, inasmuch as
no similar case has as yet been decided.
]. B. Jensen of Salt Lake, consult
ing engineer and oil shale expert, ono
of the principal witnesses for the plain
tiffs in the local litigation, is quoted
as follows in the Salt Lake Tribune:
"News that the land office has up
held the Freeman interests in their
effort to have Summers restrained
from homesteading their shale land
will be extremely encouraging to shale
men," said Mr.. Jensen yesterday in
commenting upon the land office Ae
cision. ,"f the land office had up
held the defendant, Summers, in his
attitude it would have been an almost
disastrous blow to shale development.
1t would have been almost impossible
to get valid title to single acre of
shale land in Utah or Colorado" Z
1.-THE effect Of the Glenwood land
office decision" +" continued Mr.. Jensen,
was very bad. shale companies wAieA
had complied in every way with tAe
mineral laws Of the government wero
harassed by irresponsible parties who
filed on shale holdings in the hope Of
being able to get shale companies to
buy them out. It was even publicly
stated by some Of these homesteaasrs
that they didn't care for the land;
they were filing only in the hope of
getting $1,000 or 80 for their home
steads from sha1e companies. In prae-
tically all cases the land, because of
lts altitude and shortness Of the grow
ing season, was worthless for aaythina
but grazing.
"Shale companies, Of course, would
not 60 ahead until they could be sure
whether the government would sustain
the mineral rights to land ON which
they held legal filings and had expend-
ed large amounts Of money in doing
annual assessment work. Now that
the question has been decided, deveI-
opment Of intermountain shale 70
sources should be greatly stimulated. I"
On the other hand, summers says the
government was not averss to taking
his filing fees and encouraging him to
improve and develop the land upon
which he settled in good faith AMI
upon which he sought to make = home
for himself and family. he further
claims that false and fraudulent stste.
ments were made by those who sup
posedly did assessment work on the
shale claims, and instead Of one hun.
dred dollars' worth Of work on each
clsin a. the law provides, the real
cssh value 81 the labor put ON these
claimt was often not in excess Of ten
ltrsl|f ~ I|-.I