The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-10-15
by their structure and mode of &C.

| between the rocks you nave caileu
| quartz porphyry and indurated clay?
Yes; there is an entire difference.
will you please give an expana-
ton of the difference"
! Mr.. King read some chemical ana1y-
ses of quartz porphyry. taken from a
| United States geological survey oulle-
| tin. The analyses gave the relative
| percentages of silica, alumina ana
other metals in the rock. They were
| long and were read in detail. When
| the reading was finished the witness
| added an explanation.
1.-THE mean of these Il analyses may
| be taken as a fair expression of the
type rock of quartz porphyry,' said the
| witness.
| Mr.. King offered to make a compari-
son of the analyses read with those
made by him of the indurated clay.
Mr. Hughes thought this ought to nave
| been done in the examination in chief.
| Mr. Patterson said that it was mat
| ter that it was perfectly proper to bring
out at the moment The court eX-
pressed the belief that the matter
should have been brought in on the di-
rect examination, but said that so
much evidence had been admitted that
he would let it go. He overruled the
objection and the witness proceeded to
make the comparison. In the midst of
this Mr.. Hughes raised another objec
ton. which was also oVerruled.
The witness said there is more alum
ina, iron and other metals in the quartz
porphyry than in the indurated clay,
and more chlorides in the clay than in
the porphyry.
rs it, then, your opinion, from chem
ical tests alone. that the indurated
clay was not originally quartz por-
phyry?" asked Mr.. Patterson.
Yes" said the witness.
Are there any decided differences to
the eye?'
There are very great differences
The banded structure of the clay is
never repeated in the quartz porphyry.'
ITO what extent are cracks found in
the quartz porphyry?"
Nearly all quartz porphyries have
been subjected to strain and are more
or less assured"
Would the decomposition of quartz
porphyry eliminate these fissures?"
Not ordinarily. No; I should say
not"
What. evidences Of cracks do you
find in the indurated clay?'
Il find no assures that might not
very we'll have been made by the exca-
walton of the rocks. There are no evil
dences of strain
Mr.. Patterson asked a question about
the comparative porosity of the two
rocks under discussion. Mr.. Hughes
objected on the ground that the ques-
ton repeated the direct examination
and the objection was sustained. An
other objection to a question about the
decomposition of the porphyry, on the
same ground, a little later, was over
ruled
do you find in these mines any de-
composed quartz porphyry that closely
resembles the indurated clay?' asked
Mr.. Patterson
II do not" said the witness.
Nv inc n RI
the north and south lode and the apex
to it; also as to the suppositional cases
propounded to him by Mr.. Hughes in
his cross examination. Mr.. Hughes OBJ
iected to some of this examination on
the ground that it repeated the direct
examination.
The redirect examination ended. and
! Mr. Hughes opened the re-cross-exam-
| nation, being cautioned by the court
not to rehash any of the evidence.
II want to know if the analyses you
read. Mr.. King, indicate normal quartz
porphyry?" said Mr.. Hughes.
II think they do when taken all to-
gether," said Mr.. King. @ia
rDo not all the authorities give or
ses you read?"
There are extremes each way"
"These analyses represent particular
rocks in particular places, do they
not?"
Yes"
Would they enable you to tell
| whether the rocks here are quartz por-
| phyry or not?'
NO: but l accept them as represent
| ing normal quartz porphyry on account
of the authoritative character of the
| analysts who made them
Then. if we found a rock whose an
alysis agreed with those analyses
|
mo; l could not"
What range of analyses would you
expect of indurated clay?''
Every wide"
| Gould we by any analysis we could
| bring you prove difference in the
| character of the indurated clay?'
| No"
IF we brought you an analysis
showing potash in other quantities and
showing other differences, would that
change your opinion?'
1T would only convince me of a
greater varia biity."
A long discourse on the value of an
alyses in determining the nature OF
rocks followed, and then Mr.. Hughes
attacked the faults
Mr.. King, I'll ask you if it is not
| true that, where one of these veins
| comes up to the fault. there is a con.
tnuation of the ore in the vein without
| JUS DelIS cTtSHtl anu VI ohSi, sdiu wi
| Hughes.
II know of no such place." said Mr.
King.
Mr.. Hughes asked the witness to give
list of certain chemical principles II
quartz porphyry, and Mr. Patterson OBJ
jected on the ground that the subjec
| had been covered in the cross-eXami
nation. Mr. Hughes explained that HI
would keep the subject within certain
limits, and Mr.. Patterson withdrew his
| objection.
Mr. King then read a list of element!
| found in the rock, among which h
named pyrites and a number of acids
and acid compounds.
How about manganese?" asked Mr.
Hughes
ut is an extraneous or Academia
| substance" said the witness.
How many elements in the analy
SEES read this morning are not in thu
analyses which you had made?'
Mr.. King said he could not say as tt
| some, and named the others.
Mr.. Hughes next asked for thu
names of geological authorities that hi
,,,fJ 70 i've in,