, 1872-12-20
A sEQUEL TO THE DIAMOND 8WINDltE

a 6EAuEL lU LIE u1AMUNu 3"4NU1E.
Our readers are by this time tolerably familiar
with the details OF the Arizona diamond swim
die, and will remember that one Philip Arnold
was the alleged discoverer Of the diamond fields,
and set the ball in motion by appearing in San
Francisco with numerous specimens Of gems,
which eventually led to the sale Of his discovery
tor large sum, amounting to over 5000, 600, to
some San Francisco capitalists, who organized
stock company, shortly after which it was found
that the whole affair was swindle- Recently,
ported to have purchased the discovery, with
Others sued out an attachment for 9350,00o
against Arnold, upon the ground that this
amount had been obtained from him by fraudu-
lent representation. Arnold, who re-
sides at Elizabethtown, Kentucky,
has recently published statement
in the Louisville Courier-Journal which is as
marvellous as the diamond discovery Was sup
posed to be-. He commences his statement by q
aat-footed denial that he ever sold q dollars
worth OF property to Lent, or ever had any con-
tract with him. He claims that he and Slack
we're prospecting in the Rocky Mountains for
Harpending and Roberts, Of San Francisco, who
furnished the means, and were full partners in
what was discovered. They discovered diamonds
in November, 1870, and reported to Roberts,
Harpending being in London. The matter WAS
kept 4 secret until second expedition could be
made, which resulted in finding more diamonds,
and second report was made to Roberts and
Harpending, the latter having meanwhile re-
turned. They we're anxious to buy out Roberts
and Slack, but Roberts refused to sell. Slack,
however, sold for 800, 900 cash in June, 1871,
which gave them q three-fourths or controlling
interest in the discoveries, Slack and Roberts
we're then employed to make g third trip, which
had such satisfactory result that Harpending
a1d Roberts wished to incorporate company,
which Arnold opposed. They then proposed to
give him 900 for one-fourth Of his one
fourth interest, to bo paid, 100000 cash and
5000 when his reports were verified by some
mining expert, which proposition Arnold accept
ed. Janin Vas the expert chosen, and, our
readers know, he went out, prospected the fields,
and made report which was favorable. Janin
was paid 50, 900 for his services, and the privi-
lege Of 1000 shares, which he sold for s4o, 900
cash, After this report, in July, 1872, Arnold
sold to Harpending 5000 shares for 100000,
leaving him 5000 shares, as divided up by them
in the contemplated company, The next
movement was an expedition made under the
direction Of Roberts and Lent, the mining OK
perts being friends Of the latter. On the
strength Of heirreport, Arnold claims that Lent
sold out 81, loo, 900 in stpck, To show that Lent
is not reliable, Arnold relates the following:
Lent and his friends bought worthless mine for .
few dollars, in Nevada, 80 miles from Pasade; On the
Central Pacific Railroad, called the Mineral Hill mines
built ten-stamp mill, and worked down to depth
Of forty feet, as fur as the pay ore extended The
mine capped oyer ut that depth, but the shaft was
continued down 400 feet without my success, They
then filed up the old shaft to where the mine
"capped," and made dump pills 80 IS to hide the
works, to deceive buyers with the idea that the mine
had not been prospected lower than forty feet. He
continued running his MILL working the surface ore,
and declaring dividends, and paying them out Of bis
pocket and not out Of the proceeds Of the uine and
thus secnred sale Of it to London company for
100000, he receiving s45oooo his share Of this
little fraud.
Arnold furthermore denies not only having
sold any property to Lent, but that he had any
connection with the sailing" Of the diamond
fields. He is, however, careful not to make
direct declaration that there are diamond mines
in Arizona, or to give any encouragement that
diamonds can be found there. He is very ret
icent concerning his personal connection with
the discovery, and, whenever he al1udos to it,
prefers to shift the responsibility Of it upon
others, rather than to speak authoritatlvely.
Taking all the statements which have been
made, those OF Harpending, Roberts, Lent, Ar
mold, and the recent report Of The Executive
Committee Of the Trustees OF the Diamond COM
nan1. aud comparing them tnoathar- it il diff