Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1878-11-27
RICHMOND CONSOLIDATE
ED MINING COMPANY MN.
PROBERT's REPLY 70 ~
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
nv INVESTIGATION.

REPORT OF TIE COMnafhG1
OF INVESTIGATION.
Yesterdays mail brought us the reply OF
M probert to the report Of the late Com
mittee of Investigation. 1t is a remarkably
completc and exhaustive document. issued
IN 8 quarto volume Of 1872 pages. Its more
salient featureS are touched upon by the
Inning Journal, whose comments and con-
illusions are herewith presented. 1t is not
10 thorough a review Of Mr.. Proberts
reply as we would wish to offer, but 1t Is
all that we have space for at this time. II
deserves to be stated in this connection
that Mr.. Probert was heartily Endorsed by
the shareholders at their meeting in Lon
don on the 9th instant. There will be no
change in the management OF the Com
pany's affairs at either end of the line. The
Investigation originated in malice, and
was conducted on that basis from begin
ming to end. The hidden motive of the
ruling spirit Of the Committee all through
was to get control Of the property for sell
fish and unworthy purposes. 1t was In
plain, unvarnishcd language, a conspiracy
to overthrow Mr.. Probert and those under
him. The shareholders have acted wisely
in retaining the old management. But now
to the reply:
"Mr. Probert states that he simply deals
now with a few of the salient points of the
report by way of installment, but he is
quite prepared to answer every allegation
in detail, and to prove that the conclusions
arrived at by the Committee Of Investiga-
tion sre as incorrect as the premises on
which they are founded First, the COM
mittee charge Mr.. Probert with not hav-
ing permitted any systematic explorations
in the quartzite, and of having carried out
his own views in direct opposition to the
opinions Of the able experts called in to
report and further that there was a CON
slant conflict Of opinion between Mr.. Rick
ard and Mr.. Probert or the subject OF the
exploration Of the mine. This larger ex-
tracts from the letters containing the state
ments, used without context by the COM
mittee, show not to have been the case.
Mr.. Probert appears always to have exer-
cised directive influence, but never to
have acted dictatorially. The correspond
ence between Messrs. Probert and Richard.
when the former was away from the mine,
appears to have been, without exception,
friendly and unusually long.
A. an example it may be mentioned that
when tho 70c-foot drift had just touched
the vein, Mr.. Probert wrote October IA,
1881 I have no belief in the probability
Of our ever having a large body in the
quartzite, and for several reasons. First,
the quartzite has never yet lin the district)
produced any quantity of ore, and the
Hoosac itself is no exception to this rule.
Secondly, the ore formerly found in the
quartzite in the hill above your honso
(Coy Hill) was mostly free Of chloride, in
dicating . formation ~uncongenial to such
ores Is those Of the Richmond and Ruby
Hill. Thirdly, quartzite resists the action
Of water laden with carbonic acid, the
agent which corrodes limestone so rapidly,
and produces large caverns and pipes; if,
therefore, no caverns can be formed by
carbonated waters, it is vain to expect to
9nd large ore bodies in the quartzite.' To
this Mr.. Richard replied tOcto Der 1Sth)
I I'm quite Of your opinion that it is not
probable We shall ever find large bodies Of
ore in the quartzite. alth ,ush the main ore
pipe or vein may get near, or even touch,
the quartzite in places. The bottom of tile
mine will be very interesting when we
have opened 1t a little more
The committee gave an extract from one
Of Mr.. Richards letters. dated November
10, 1875, making it appear that Mr.. Richard
was advocating a different mode Of pros
pecting to that which Mr.. Probert sug-
gested. The larger extract shows that SO
far from this Mr. Richard stated that
your ideas about the ore bodies quite
agree with nine and was evidently adopt
ing. Mr.. Probert's views. This set Of ex-
tracts (~September. October and November,
1879 shows beyond doubt that Mr.. Pro-
bert's opinions were fully expressed both
- regards prospecting towards the quartz
ite and Is to the importance Of pushing
explorations in the westerly ground. They
also show that Mr.. Richards ideas and his
own were in perfect harmony respecting
the formation Of Ruby Hill. and the prob
able position Of the ore bodies to be found
IN II. The conirmatory letters of Mr..
Richard. written in 1878, to the effect that
Nr. Probert has always been in the habit
Of comforting with him and the mining
foreman for the time being on the subject
Of the exploratory and other works of the
mine, and no special views or theories Of
his have, 50 far as Mr.. Richard Is aware,
been forced on him or anyone else, are IN
necessary, and, moreover, being written
after the questions have been raised, are
worthless as evidence. Mr.. Probert en-
phatically denies having ever told the Com
mites fCom. Rep, p. 8, par. 81 that the
prospecting towards the quartzite and the
compromise line was discontinued be-
cause he did not think that profitable ore
bodies would be found outside the lime
stone.' Such q statement would have been
untrue, and inconsistent with the reason
coEvsetly stated by the Committee, quoting
(p. 66, par. 81 from Mr.. Probert's letter.
The sole reason was that We did not want
70 precipitate . quarrel or invite our neigh
bors 10 prospect the Margaret ground
- to the prospecting towards the compro-
mise line. and Inconsistent with the rsa-
sons given on page 8 as to the quartzite
direction.
Al TO the smelling works, the Commit
tee condemned the hydrocycle furnaces,
charged Mr.. Probort with purchasing