Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1873-01-02
A SEQUEL 10 the Diamond swindle.

A Sequel 10 the Diamond Swindle.
Our readers ere by this time tolersbly
familiar with the details of the Arizona
diamond swindle, 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 for large sum,
amounting to over 100000, to some
San Francisco capitalists, who organ
lied stock company, shortly after
which it was found that the whole affair
was swindle. Recently, William M.
Lent, of California, who was reported to
have purchased the discovery, with 9th
ers, sued out an attachment for $3.50, 600
against Arnold, upon the ground that
this amount had been obtained from
him by fraudulent representation. Ar
mold, who resides at EIizabethtown, Ky.,
has recently published statement in
the Louisville Courier. Journal, which is
as marvellous as the diamond discovery
was supposed to be. He commences
his statement by a hat-footed denial
that he ever sold dollars worth of
property to Lent, or ever had any con-
tract with him. He claims that he and
Slack were 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 dia-
monds in November, 1870, and reported
to Roberts,-Harpending being in Lon
don. The matter was kept secret un-
til second expedition could be made,
which resulted in finding more dia-
monds, and second report was made
to Roberts and Harpending, the latter
having meanwhile returned. They
were anxious to buy out Roberts and
Slack, but Roberts refused to sell.
Slack, however, sold for 100000 cash
in June, 1871, which gave them a three
fourths or controlling interest in the
discoveries. Slack and Roberts were
| then employed to make a third trip,
which had such satisfactory result
that Harpending and Roberts wished to
| incorporate company, which Arnold
opposed. They then proposed to give
HIM S250,000 for one-fourth of his one
fourth interest, to be paid 100000 cash
and $150,000 when his reports were veri-
fed by some mining expert, which
proposition Arnold accepted. Janin
was the expert chosen, and, as our
readers know, he went out, prospected
the fields and made a report which was
favorable. Janin was paid $4,000 for
his services, and the privilege of 1000
shares, which he sold for $4,000 cash.
After this report, in July, 1872, Arnold
sold to happening $4,000 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 experts
being friends of the latter. On the
strength of their report, Arnold claims
that Lent sold out 100000 in stock
To show that Lent is not reliable, Ar
mold relates the following:
Lent and his friends bought worth
less mine for few dollars, in Nevada
80 miles from Palisade, on the Contra
Pacific railroad, called the Mineral Hill
mineg-built a ten-stamp mill, ano
worked down to depth of forty feet
as far as the pay ore extended. The
mine "capped over" at that depth, bu
the shaft was continued down 400 fee
|
up the old shaft to where the min,
capped" and made dump pile so a
to hide the works, to deceive buyers
with the idea that the mine had no
been prospected lower than forty feet
He continued running his mill, workin,
the surface ore, and declaring dividends
and paying them out of his pocket, anc
not out of the proceeds of the mine
and thus secured a sale of it to Lon
don company for 100000. he receiv
ing $450,000 as his share of this littl,
fraud.
Arnold furthermore denies not only
having sold any property to Lent, bu
that he had any connection with tn,
''salting" eff the diamond fields. He is
however, careful not to make d1rec
declaration that there are diamond
mines in Arizona, or to give any encour
agement that diamonds can be founC
there. He is very reticent concernin,
his personal connection with the liscov
cry, and, whenever he alludes to it, pre-
fers to shift the responsibility of it upoI
others, rather than to speak authori
. tatiyely.-ChicGoo Tribune.