Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1878-08-10
RICHMOND CONSOLIDATED.
An Interesting Letter From Chair.
man Hopkins.

ORhAsh
Consolidated Mining Company. His re.
marks. which are sel~f-explanatory, arc
addressed to the shareholders Of the
Company. He says: "After agreeing
to q resolution acceptable to all parties,
and proposing it at the adjourned meet.
ing on the 22d inst, which was to place us
all in accord, it is to me a matter of sur
prise AMI regret that Mr.. Bayliss should
issue a circular, dated the day after the
meeting. the object of which is undoubt-
ely to disparage the management in the
estimation of shareholders. As a reason
for this unexpected proceeding, Mr.. Bay
liss alleges in his circular that l challenged
him, at a meeting held June 18th, to make
a comparison between the results of the
management Of the Richmond Company
and the Eureka Consolidated Company
and he goes on to say that it is now
necessary and imperative that sharehold-
ers should be enabled to judge Of the waste
and extravaganza which is the distinguish
ing feature Of the past and present man
agement Of the Richmond Company
On reference to the published reports OF
that meeting, it will be seen that / did not
refer to the question Of management, but
exclusively to the question Of alleged ex-
cessive consumption Of fuel by the Rich
mond Company. Such comparison hay-
ing, however, been attempted by Mr.. Bay
liss, l consider it to be my duty to the
shareholders to point out some of the in
stances in which his statement is incom-
plete and therefore misleading. must
for thtu nnrnnoa aaaprna that tho ffn,raS
referring to the Eureka Consolidated are
correct, whether they are so or not.
First, as to capital : The paid-up capital
Of the Eureka Company being f20,000 out
Of q nominal capital of FL 900 900 sterling
l may here point out that the future posi-
BILE liabilities Of the Eureka shareholders
involves no less q sum than f9S0, 900. l
am unable to explain how with SO small a
sum paid up the Eureka Company have OBJ
tanned their property. The capital of the
Richmond Company, which Is all paid up,
leaving no future liability on the sharehold-
ers, amounts to f270 900, and has been ex-
pended in purchasing and securing the
mines or the properties belonging to the
company. In the first instance the compan
paid f200, 900 for the mine, according to
the terms upon which the shares were
originally taken. and they have since pur-
chased the 1ip-Top property for fl6,3
and the lookout property for cit ,666,
making in all f23I, 062. If to this sun be
added the expenses of lawsuits in connec-
ton with these two properties and the cost
Of some minor claims, it will be found that
the whole capital is thus accounted for.
Tit capital Of the company having thus
been exhausted, the Directors have paid
for all the improvements effected during a
yrartEAI .f DIV xa.ra gttnk a . nAny main
shaft, steam engine. hoisting machinery,
six new furnaces. the refinery and appara-
tus, water supply, new buildings, etc., out
OF reveRue, a sum OF g 900, having been
taken from revenue for these purposes,
which other wise would have been available
for n dividend equal to 81 los. Cd. per
share. The past dividends have also been
reduced, from the fact that owing to no
provision being male for sufficient work
ing capital, the company have been COM
PEELED to pay heavy interest for the advance
necessary to enable them to carry on so
large a business.
II to the amount OF dividends paid by
the Richmond Company up to August 81,
1~ST7-fiS0, 7GS-this amount Of f3. 900 be
added, we have a total of f263 66S, net
profits made between August, 1871, and
August, IS77--or as nearly as possible the
whole amount OF the capital.
Mr.. Bayliss states the amount Of divid-
ends paid during the nine months from
August 80, 1877, TO May l, 1878, as follows:
4" Eureka. f270, 900 Richmond, eco, 749."
Now although it is true that the Richmond
Company has paid only this amount, it
must not be forgotten that we had in hand
on May 81, the sum OF Sl39, 900 undivided,
making a total Of f199, 74J, as against the
f270.0 900 said to have been divided by the
Eureka Company, a sun equal to GO IDS.
per share, instead OF 81 Is. Cd. The total
amount Of dividends from the starting Of
the company to May 81, 1878, should be
Including the amount undivided) f8 IS.
Cd. per share, and not "a lis. Cd. per rev.
enue for purposes Of capital, ii will be
found that a total OF 60 los. Sd. per share
has been earned, as against flo paid by
the Eureka Company.
1t will be obvious that, although the two
companies are working side by side under
similar conditions, and have ores of the
same character, unless the ores be of the
same value, any comparison Of profits is
practically worthless and does not prove
the management to be either good or bad I;
take, for instance. that which was removed
last year by the Richmond Company from
the Potts Characteristic assayed only $40
per ton, whereas the Eureka Company are
now removing ore from the immediate vi
cinity Of Potts Chamber assaying from so
to $50 per ton. 1t is from this principally
they are making their profits of ESQ, 900
per month and it will be observed that
out OF a total OF ESQ, 900, paid by them
during six years, f270, 900 have been paid
in the last nine months. THIS result must
he due to the quality of the ore, and not to
any superior management. One might as
well compare the management of the Eu-
reka Company during the first five years
Of its existence with its management dur
ing the last nine months-an say, because
they have paid f270 900 in dividends DUR
ing the last nine months and only f230, 100
during the previous five years, that their
management during the earlier period has
been characterized by waste and extrava-
gance.
The average smelling cost OF the Rich
mond Company from August, 1876, to
April, 1877, was f3 9s. Cd. per ton of ore,
not IS. 13d. as stated. and from April, 1877,
to February. 1878, e. 16s. Sd. The cost of
fuel per ton Of ore from August, 1876, to
April, 1877, was 81 So. 3D., not 60 lis,
and from April, 1877, TO February, 1878.
fl It's. Sd. SO far from it being an accu-
rate estimate Of our profits to say that the
Richmond Company have paid in dividends
only the small sum Of f241, SIT, the $780,
900, undivided OF May 81, and fS3 900
taken from revenue for capital must be
added, making a total Of f463, SIT, as
against the $500, 100 of the Eureka Com
pany. On these inaccurate statements Mr..
Bayliss asks lis it not time to effect
some reform in the administration, not
only in Nevada, but also in this country 2"
and proceeds 10 point ont a. that the Board
should be reconstructed by the election
thereto of one or two new Directors"
l will here remind the shareholders that
in August last Mr.. Pulbrook, who was said
to have an intimate knowledge Of mining
was elected at the instance OF the Commit
tee and, subsequently,, OF the same re-
...oaA Aha noa.I olaoAoI l.. Aha Hlaan Of NJ