The Harrison times. (Harrison, Boone Co., Ark) 1876-1938, 1900-04-14
Another joplin Critlc Heard From.

hitting the ceiling whenever the sub
lect is mentioned of a possible rivalry
this state is to put up in the produc-
ton of zinc ore.
The latest adventure of the kind is
a one and quarter column notice
in the Joplin News-Herald of April 8.
II is, this time. in the nature of an
interview with a citizen of Joplin
who had visited this country, but
who was 10th to relate his views
on the situation in Northern Arkan-
sas." And it is owing to this reluc-
tance that the TIMES is disposed to
handle the criticism with gloves,
rather than expose to the ridicule
OF the public both the wrong state
ment of the case and the conclusion
upon which the interview was built.
For instance: While it would have
been we'll enough to make a bald
statement, as against the Arkansas
field, and to have let it go at that,
some one had Numbered into giving
the reasoning of the case, or the citi-
izen of Joplin must have been little
mixed in his ideas at the time to
have exposed himself to the suspicion
of haying been prejudiced in favor of
his Joplin investments, For, if not,
why is it that the interview hits the
ceiling by reason of the very nonsense
carried into the reasoning OF the
case.
Our miners and prospeetors, at all
events, will be glad to learn from the
interview, which is written in the
vein of an authority, that they have,
near the surface, both a granite
foundation" to their mineral bearing
magnesian-lime rock, and that the
ore formations of their country are
the percolation of mineral impreg-
mated water from higher strata. y
For it is a collective proposition
which establishes two theories IN the
same breath That of an underlying
igneous rock as necessary condition
to the presence of mineral, which is
the theory OF Humboldt: and that
of a water origin OF their zinc forma-
ton, which is the Belgic theory.
But which double source of mineral
in the Arkansas zine field, is admit
tedly not the case in the Joplin field.
A second bad break, in the inter
view, was the question of altitude
raised in a comparison Of the Ionlin
and arkansas fields, when, instead.
the question to have been raised was
that of relative position in the geo.
logical column Of the Ozark uplift.
For it happens that, being of silurian
origin, If no ore is present in the Ar
kansas field, there is no ore present
in the Joplin held below depth of
$50 to 200 feet, the present opera
tions in the Joplin field being princi-
pally confined to the lower sub-ear-
boniferous formation, or the mem
Der of the geological column imme-
diately above the silurian.
This however, is letting off the in
terview too easy, and it is therefore
to be added, that if anything of the
situation depends upon the theory of
the ores Of either field getting their
head" from attitudes greater than
their own-(which absurdity was
never heard of before)-the advan-
tage would be on the side of Arkan-
sas. For it follows, when geodetic
map OF the state is consulted, that
beginning less than ten miles from
Buffalo City, mountain ranges, not
isolated peaks, set in, carrying ore,
that double and triple in height any
point in the state of Missouri.
A third bad break, which is clearly
a confusion of ideas and not a mat
ter of design, is the visit made to "all
so-called mines of Marion and Bax-
ter counties upon which the reason
ing of the interview is depended.
For though the item of Baxter coun-
ty is left out, such an exploration of
Marion county, as would warrant
the dictum laid down by the citizen
of Joplin, could not be accomplished
short of three months time, and
which fact also closes that part Of
the interview as credible testimony.
There are other impossible things
stated in the course of the interview
that vitiate the reliability of its
statements, but they are only of
passing moment and they are dis