Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1895-11-23
A GUESSING CONTEST.
WITNESSES TRY TO NAME
FiNENESS OF BULLION BARS.
A Rather Lively Day for all
Hands in Court.

In the morning session an order
was made by the Court excusing out
side jurors until a week from Monday
which would be Dec. 2. Jones resum-
ed his testimony and described how
he weighed the melts and checked the
amounts. during the settlement. Wit
ness examined each melt separately.
At the '93 settlement Morgan the In
spector, Manning, Elrod, Zabriskie.
myself and several helpers were pre-
sent. The helpers handled the bars.
The spurious melt could not have been
present. The genuine melt was. In
1894 the same operation was repeated
in the settlement. The spurious melt
was no in the '94 settlement. Such
a melt could not have escaped detnc-
ton It was handled six or seven
times. The genuine molt was tprred
over to Harris. The original standard
melt 1913 fine was given by Ia
briskie II Hofer, by Hofer 70 Adams
and bv Adams to Harris and all held
receipts.
Witness WAS suspended shortly after
the shortage was discovered. Only
went in once since t. draw back sal
airy. Never saw the Mint books since,
until last Sunday. There were but
seven bars in the genuine melt and
ten and a fraction in the spurious
melt.
Cross-pxamined. Began work in
the Mint March 1st. 1890 and remained
until April, '95. E B. Zahriskie was
Meter and Refner up to May, 1894.
I performed the active duties under
his instruction, and I also performed
them under Mr.. Harris. Was absent
very little. When there ! performed
all the duties. Sometimes Harris did
not pay AS much attention to me- as he
should and sometimes he intarHered.
! told him to shut down in December
and make a cleanup and he refused.
The melt in Court IS a spurious
melt with silver substituted for gold.
Clark. How 90 you know the melt
was alright in 1898?
- li'|t0S. Iipil1 ltS Il ''@ctItC IJ" anu
the fact that I could not mistake a be
gus bar for a genuine one. I could
tell at once from it. appearance. [
have no other evidence. There would
be as much difference as between a
sack Of oats and q sack Of potatoes.
Clark. During the time you were
in office could that spurious melt have
been made?
Witness. Not if [ was present.
Clark. Could it have been made in
your absence,
Witness. II could. The spurious
melt was made during my term after
June /. 1894, and before April s, 1895
Clark. What period Of time was
covered by the consolidation melts
which do not appear in the books,
melts from s to - inclusive?
Witness. Can't say positively.
Clark. Don't you know those re-
cords were made Or should have been
in '93?
Witness. Can't say positively.
Clark. Assuming those melts to
have been made in 1893, you know
hat the spurious melt was not sent
to the Refinery in '95?
Witness. It was o
Clark. Then what object would
Harris have in destroying the record?
Witness. Didn't say he did.
Clark. What object would anyone
have?
Witness. Can't say. I looked over
the record to see if an error had not
been made. We are all liable to err.
Clark. Are shoe bars in the same
melt the same %fineness?
Witness. They may not be.
Clark. How do you know the genu-
inc melt was only seven bars?
Witness. Knew from a matter of
study. II the melt has ten bars in it,
the genuine melt should have but sew
en-.
Witness continued his testimony
| did not handle all the bars in the
settlement. ] never handled it. The
men who did it were not accustomed
TO handle it. 1t was not my business
to handle bars. 1t was rare for me to
handle melts. Can't say I handled
the melt in question, here.
Clark. II you can't swear that you
handled melt 164 how can you tell this
jury that it was genuine in 30 or "a:
Witnes. Can't imagine SUCH a melt
passing before my eyes without my
detecting it. / saw all the bars.
had TO.
Clark. Can you describe from
memory any melt of '93 or "a indie.