The Kalispell bee. [volume] (Kalispell, Mont.) 1900-192?, 1903-10-30
MINE MIDDLE
Continued from Page l.,

submit to arbitration any controversy
which might be the subject of civil
action between them, except a uues-
ton OF title to real property in fee or
Tor life. This qualification does not
include questions relating merely to
the partition or boundaries of real
property. The supreme court of
Montana. in the recent Pennsylvania
case decisions, has held in deciding
in favor of Mr.. Heinze that these
underground controversies between
these parties involves questions of
title to real estate and not merely
to questions of boundaries, and their
title is one in fee. 1t thus appears
that Mr.. Heinze proposes a method
of settlement which the law does not
recognize, and if the decision was
against him. he could snap his fin
gers at the arbitrators and the Anal
gamated company and keep right
along.
The Amalgamated people are not
indispOsed to settle these controver-
sizes. and any effective method of do
ing so would receive consideration:
and | would suggest that the best
way to settle any difficulty is for both
parties to try to be fair. If Mr..
Heinze would try to be fair, doubtless
reasonable settlement would be
reached.
Mr.. Heinze states that the Boston
& Montana stock held by Mr.. Mac
Ginniss cost 5000 a share and that
the Parrot stock $35 a share. This
would make $4,000 for the Boston &
Montana stock. and $4,000 for the
Parrot stock. total $22.S00. He now
asks as the representative of Mr..
MacGinniss, costs as stated and in
terest at s per cent. The interest
would amount to $11,421. making a
grand total of $34.421. Good enough
SO far. But, in addition to that he
makes it a condition and says: PRO
vided that the judgments and orders
now entered in the case of Forester
and MacGinniss against the Boston
& Montana and the costs in the vari-
Gus actions with reference to this
stock, are paid and the whole con-
troversy with reference to this stock
and their rights as stockholders, shall
be forever settled"
That clearly would require the pay
ment of all the costs and fees and
allowance entered by Judge Clancy
in the case of Forester and Mac
Ginniss against the Boston & Mon
tana company. which are as follows:
Tom Kinds, as receiver, eX-
elusive of expenses 100000
Assistants to him ........ $1,000
Attorneys fees .......... $4,000
Total .......... ..... S2Sl 900
Besides the ordinary costs of suit.
According to Mr. Heinze's PROPOSE
ton, these enormous sums would
have to be paid for the MacGnniss
stock. and that is not all:
1t will be seen at glance what a
haul he would make on the PROPOSE
ton - 1921 900 to be distributed
among the parties to this nice little
wrecking arrangement. HeinZe,
Kinds, MacGinniss and their consorts
and that is not all yet. 1t is also
conditioned. and Mr.. Henze states in
so many words: provided further,
that the five undivided thirty-sixths
of the Nipper lode claim owned by
the Anaconda Copper Mining COM
pany shall be sold and conveyed to
me for the price paid therefor by the
the time it purchased the same and
5 per cent interest thereon from the
date when the same was purchased,
and the Anaconda Copper Mining
company and the Parrot Silver and
Copper company shall give me a
deed of conveyance assuring title to
all the veins and ore bodies contain
ed within the said Nipper lode claim,
and that the whole controversy with
reference to the Nipper lode claim
shall ibe forever settled, so as to en-
able me to operate the Nipper prop
erty."
In a hearing held before the clerk
of the supreme court in 1900, Mr..
Heinze, upon his oath, testified that
his thirty-one thirty-sixths interest
in the Nfpper was worth $4,000, 900.
This was in the Pennsylvania case
when he was required to justify as
bondsman. If his statement under
oath was anywhere near true it
would follow that according to Mr..
Heinze's sworn testimony he would
get in addition to the enormous sums
above mentioned an interest worth
according to him $806,450.
Assuming that MIR. Heinze's sworn
testimony was one-tenth part truth
and the property was worth say $780,
900, this five thirty-sixths interest
would amount to $SO,645. He would
only allow the Anaconda company for
this interest the price paid therefor
at the time it purchased the same
with interest. The property was or
iginally acquired bv the Anaconda
people as far back as 81. when it was
transferred from the old company to
the present one, to-wit, the Anaconda
Copper Mining company. do not
know that any separate valuation
was put upon it. If there was it was
necessarily comparatively small
sum. Mr.. Heinze does not as will be
seen, propose to allow for any in
crease. He NAV claim that he de-
veloped the property. but inasmuch
as he through the people who work
ed it for him got all he took out, he
developed it as much at the expense
IF Tho Anaconda onponopv h}c ~1uy,