Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1878-07-04
nrcHmoND CONSOLIDATED.


A Correspondents Views of the Re-
port ofthe Commission.
In the supplement to the Mining Joarnal
of the 18th we find another review of the
report Of the commission. We have al
ready given Mr.. Talliott's views, sustain
ing the commission. The correspondence
appended seems to adhere to the other
side of the case. The SENTINEL. in o
spirit of fairness, desires to give all parties
a hearing. Remarks the correspondent
1t is said that those who live in glass
houses must not throw stones: vet to
throw light upon the recent litigation be-
tween the richmond and the Eureka Com
panies the committee of investigation have
had a glass model Of the mine made, sim
liar to the one exhibited at the late trial,
giving an exact representation of the Rich
mond and Eureka mines from the surface
to the lowest levels, and showing why it is
impossible that the Richmond Company
can hope that the Supreme Court will re-
verse the decision already given against
them. Dissatisfaction is expressed by the
committee that only $50, 1854. out Of the
], 900, 0O0l. worth Of ore raised has been
given to the shareholders as dividends, but
surely III per cent. profit. which as the
committee declares this 1870, 1861. repre-
sents, is not SO very bad, especially as they
explain that other 80, 000i. have been trans
ferred from revenue to capital account
The committees report, which cost over
400l. to print, is made up chiefly of ex-
tracts from the business correspondence
between the London and Eureka offices,
which ordinary men of business would
have considered should never have beer
made public in the way it has-that is, in
such q way as to induce the opinion
| among the Richmond employees that the
managing director is an imbecile, and the
board in London rather worse than he. 1t
IL usually supposed in business that lex
| perience makes fools wise F" it is a pity,
therefore, the committee could not wait for
the result Of experience to have produced
effects. Mr.. Probert has been some time
at the mines, and it il not unreasonable to
suppose that he has been able to ascertain
when and how far recommendations made
in 1873 ought to be carried ont. OF course,
/ do not know the reason of one or other
steps which he has taken, but / know
enough OF mining to be able to say that
to rake up old reports and recommended
tons of itinerant inspectors and discharged
servants and dangle them, like a bull
fighters red cloak, before a servant, who,
for the time being, is working the mines
profitably and well. is not the best possible
way of getting the most hearty services out
Of him. AT the present time the opinions
Of Clarence King and Niece may or may
not be applicable. l am inclined to take
ProLert and dividends i'll preference to the
committee Of investigation, and / believe
the majority of the shareholders will be in
clined 10 so with me.
As to the h~ydrocycles, I am not surprised
that Mr.. Eilers, an imported German
American, should condemn them, since /
understand they are not German inven-
tons, and We all know that in obstinacy
and clanishness, the German miner and
metallurgist is surpassed only by the
Cornishman, though most Cornish and
German inventors are remarkable only for
their clumsiness and inefliciency. The
chapter in the committees report, taking
for example the twelfth and following
verses, clearly shows that Mr.. Probert has
been careful to let the full board of direc-
tors know every step he has taken. The
owners of the Rozan process declined to
treat with a public company, and that they
should so decline is only reasonable. To
have sold the whole of the United States
patent rights to the Richmond Company
would have rendered those rights abortive;
to have sold the Richmond Company the
bare right to use the process would have
rendered it impracticable to sell the
American rights to others, except subject
to the Richmond agreement, which would
have deprecated the salcable value. Let
us assume that Mr.. Probert has made an
arrangement, which, upon strictly legal
grounds, he should not have done, what
can it matter to the company? Messrs.
Roam would not deal with TIE
anl f,arcfOra Tho cnta Yrt1autinn ~ fla
company was whether such company
would deal with Mr.. Probert-a man they
know-or with some stranger, who would,
no doubt, have acquired the American
rights, and Of whom they would nave
known nothing. The Richmond Company
don't wan to fight" although they have
a colonel to direct the military operations
Of the committee of investigation, and a So
licitor to advise that amiable body whether
one of them may legally strike a head
blow whilst his antagonist has only his
left arm guard in readiness. The Rich
mond Company will surely be wise enough
to know that both the colonel's and the
lawyers advice may be neutralized by the
antagonist altering his guard. The Rich
mond Company only pay royalty of 'the
most favored user" on the Rozan patents,
SO that none but lawyers will be able to see
any possible ground for profitable litiga-
lion.
The main question for the shareholders
appears to me to be, whether the Luce and
Rozan process gives results satisfactory to
the company? At present I do not know
whether it does or not, for l do not know
what process they are using. If the re-
suits be satisfactory it need only be con-
sidered whether the company are paying a
higher royalty than any other user-if
there be but one user paying less, the roy
atty paid by the Richmond should be at
once reduced, and all excess refunded.
This Mr.. Probert would. no doubt. agree
to. The committee have prepared a state
ment of accounts, showing o loss of 49,
COOL, Is, 3D., ont he refinery but in order
to show this they have expunged 29,579t.
worth of bullion and Dresses, which prop
erly appears on the returns side OF the
account, and added 32,6S7t. on the sex
p~enditure" side, which has already been
otherwise charged, and which, therefore, is
by the committee charged twice over.
These two items araount to so, 206l., which
sufices to pay the committees alleged loss
of 46, 600l., and still leave 10. 666l. available
for increasing the dividend fund. In this
case, however, the actual cash profit on the
single item is of secondary consideration
the great question is whether refining at
the mines instead Of carrying raw products
thousands Of miles, with very poor means
of transit, is more profitable. The city
merchant who employs a commercial
traveller at 1,00fl. a year salary, and
thereby increases his profits 5,000t. per an
mum, does not argue that because nine
tenths of the orders Influenced by the
traveller come direct to the warehouse,
therefore the payment of the !, 000l. salary
represents a loss of 50ot. per annum. The
merchant considers it a gain of 4,000l.; but
this is a commercial detail far beyond the
comprehension of the Richmond Commit
tee. though it is well understood by the
majority Of the shareholders.