Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1878-09-05
rmE TWO RrcuMoNps.


MIR. Elliott Replies to Mr.. Breretou.
We published last week the letter of Mr..
Brereton regarding the relative powers and
spheres of the " Richmond Companies.
Ex-Presideat John Elliott, in reply to Mr..
Brereton, writes as follows:
Mr.. Brereton's letter in reference to the
respective positions of the Richmond Con
solidated Mining Company and the Rich
mond Company OF Nevada contains serious
inaccuracies, which it is important to cor
rect, and erroneous conclusions il is essen
tial to refute. 81 far from the sharehold-
ers bsing kept in ignorance of any of the
facts connected with the transaction. each
one was informed by circular in November,
1873, Of what had been effected under the
advice Of five eminent lawyers in America.
sanctioned by the company's legal advisers
in England the number Of shares in the
Nevada Company was given, and the pro-
portion named OF those issued as a aualid-
cation for the President and other officials.
At the annual meeting ir November, 1873.
|, as Chairman, gave a full statement to
the reasons that led to the step being
taken, and the shareholders present unani-
mously endorsed the action taken bv the
Board. Mr.. Brefcton quotes part of that
statement, but Is wrong in a~ttributing to
me the remark that by the laws Of tie
States no alien can hold a patent nnder the
States | was too well acquainted with
the facts to have said that what | did say
was that mo alien could obtain a plsens
in America, but that he could hold psf
ented mining ground, conveyed to him
after the patent was gsanted.''
The Richmond board stipulated, before
accepting the vendors title, that it should
be examined, and the property surveyed
by agents Of their own selection. SIR.
Streeter, an English barrister, was deputed
to so out and make the requisite enquiries
and | impressed on him the absolute ne
cessity OF seeing that tie patent Was OBJ
tanned before completing the transfer. lie
took it on himself, unfortunately, to ac-
cept the title without a patent, and inform
ed the beard that he had ascertained in
America that a patent was Of no moment.
The consequence was that the property
had to be decided over TO Prof. Fisher, our
then manager, who obtained a pateat in
his own name, and then announced his in
tention 10 keep the property for himself, q
resolve he was only induced to forego by
the vigorous action OF Mr.. Clarence King
and Mr. Probert. and the payment of
2e90I. as compensation" The transfer
OF the property was then made to Dir.
C~larence King, as other mines were being
acquired, and for which other patents
would be needed. Mr.. King not being
able to remain as manager, 1t was dec;dad
to organize an American incorporation,
and to that institution Mr.. King assigned
the property, then vested solely in him.
Every step taken was done under the
highest advice, and no stipulations were
made that would have jeopardized the
arrangement. 1t IS thus quite true
that the Nevada Incorporation,
through its officers, had absolute control
over the property, irrespective Of the Eng
lish Richmond Company, considered AS a
company, which is simply in the position
Of a shareholder holding all the stock but
five shares, and is, therefore, endowed
with a power which for all practical par
poses is ample and absolute.
The validity OF the arrangement has been
tested and confirmed in the American
Court. Judge, then Professor, Price and
Mr.. probert constitute the Board Of the
Richmond Company OF Nevada. Mr. Pro
bert, who is also q director az the English
Richmond Company, holds or its behalf
proxies representing 10, 1915 shares out of
lt,0e0. The English board having i'm
plicit faith in Mr.. Probert's integrity con-
sidered such an arrangement entirely sat
io4A(tJ4N Al QDlAll4lSblc IA tue OhitC ioitl
before the committee must have informed
them OF all the facts, and in their report
tasy gave the annual cost OF the American
Incorporation. In February, 1876, the
properties for which patents had boon OBJ
tained were decided over u tho English
Company, and for reasons connected with
the suit subsequently instituted by tho
Eureka Consolidated Company, q recon
veyance was executed to the Richmond
Company Of Nevada. The Eureka Com
pany during the trial examined Mr. Pro
bert and Judge Wren, with the object OF
upsctting the legal status Of the American
Richmond Company, and the answers OBJ
tanned must be taken as tile technical legal
definitions Of its position.
The Queens Attornay-Genersl, if OK
amined would testify that she could do no
wrong, that she has the power OF making
war aud declaring peace; practically We
all know how that power-which it is es-
sential Should exist. which il is treason to
dispute, bat which may be abused-is eff
i~iciently controlled.
The Ricimnad shareholders haze re-
ceivod in dividends &c Is. OIL. for each IS
share, and, il the suicidal course taken by
the committee does not prevent it, have a
brilliant prospect for tAe future. II the
Richmond board in past ii mes hal sArank
from assuming responsibilities, most as
suredly mo- one pound OF the shareholders
capital would ever been returned to them.
Ii is still more certain that those respon-
sibilitics never would have been incurred
by the board had the possibility been fore
seen Of the production Of a report con-
tanning such an unfair attack on their mo-
tiyes, and suca . total ignoring of the
great measure Of success attained under
unexampled difficulties.