The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1905-02-17
OLD QUESTION.
or No, Biologist Win.
chell said the Mssabi was N. G.

The much Ulokbel question of
whether biologists, sand particularly
Messrs. N. II. and II. V, Winchell of
the state survey, previous to the ex.
ploration of the Mesaba range, passed
unfavorabie opinions of the POSSIBLE
ity of finding iron ore on the Mesaba
range has been touched upon by
Dwight E. Woodbridge in the En-
gineering and Mining Journal.
Below are given two letters, the
first from Mr.. Woodbridge and the
other from G, Kenneth Leith of the
University of Wisconsin. Both
writer's speak only from their own
knowledge. Mr.. Woodbridge saws:
"The state survey, conducted by N,
II. and II. V. W:nchsll, from 1872 to
recently, in its latter years referred
frequently to the Mesabi. As early az
the 1lth annual report, in 1884, there
was some mentior 2t the district.
1t has been common report among
prOspectors that the Survey in early
years denounced the probability of
the discovery of mefchantable ores
upon the Mesabi, Out the Messrs
Winchell deny this, $ld 1 have never
been able to find ana statement to
that effect. Certainly in 1891. soon
after the original discoveries of eco
nomic Importance. bgt prior to the
beginning Of mine Operations, the
survey gave full credst to the prob.
abilities of this new Elnge, it stated
Ihat although there E at present no
mining of these ores in Minnesota
Ihey are we'll known many places.
lhey were. indeed. TIE first to attract
attention, and werA surveyed and
analyzed by Professor A. H. Chester
in 1875 [ffofessor kIesLer's reporr
was upon the magneEies OF the far
eastern Mesabi, and ws unfayorable \
they are destined to8lay very inn
portant part in the yelopmeut of
the iron Industry olsr state"
~ isass. ssg y, ftfJn or per-.
sonal letter written b. Prof. Leith in
reply 80 letter calling attention 10
what Mr. Woodbridge had SAID:
"Rep.ying to yours OF the Goth T
would iay tIat Professor Wincltell
positively denies that he has made
statements such as are attributed to
him. 1t is charged that he turned
down the range in an article publish
ed in one of the Superior or Duluth
papers. So far as know his writ
lngs, the only approach to an adverse
opinion on the Meabsi range appears in
his record of field observations in 1888
published in the 18th Annual Report
of the Minnesota Survey, where he
describes the explorations of John
Mailman, 2 miles south Of HinSdale,
near the Duluth and Iron Range
track, calls attention to the similar
lty or the iron formation here with
that Ut Guntiint Lake, and suggests
that there is little likelihood OF ore
being found here similar to that at
Tower. There is given also a brief
account of study OF Pokegama Falls
and of the country TO the eastward
for l6 miles to Gritfin's camp 1.-THE
Diamond mine), accompanied by a
sketch map of this area. The simil-
arity of the iron formation to that of
Gunfint Lake, and on the Penokee
range, and the difference between
this iron formation and that on the
Vermilion range are emphasized.
Especial emphasis ! think should
be place on the 1891 report of N. H.
and H. V. Winchel This was writ
ten in considerable part before the
discovery of ore in the Mesabi, but it
contains brief note Of the discovery
Of ore there the same year. He says
here. "The Mesabi ores are destined
to play very important part in the
future development of the iron indus
TRIP of the state" Up. 1l2). Later in
the same report, just after intimat-
ion had been received of the first dis
covery of ore on the range, it is said.
There can be no reasonable doubt
there will yet be mined in the Mesabi
range even greater quantities OF hem
attic than have been taken from that
marvel Of mining districts, the Pen
okee-Gogebic range" Up. 1907.
81 have already made these state
ments in the Monograph and would
not feel like criticising Mr.. Wood
BRIDGES statement. lie has gone in
TO the matter thoroughly and the
statement as he makes it is practical
ly correct. 1t is a common report
that Winchell turned down the