The Julesburg grit-advocate., 1908-11-27
ne Other Me Of TIE
Na1n6 PnoolHl
the GENERAL MANAGER OF YHG
sMELTiMe COMPANY AM-
sWGRs RECENT eRiTicisAs.

During the recent political campaign
the Denver Post made the American
Smelling 4 Refining Company its par
amount ISSUE" That publication has
been criticizing the company since the
election and on Nov. sth published =
long statement against the conduct Of
that company toward Colorado's min
ing industry. Franklin Guiterman, gen
eral superintendent of the company for
Colorado. has written the following
answer. which We reproduce in order
that our readers may understand both
sides OF this controversy:
Denver. Colo, Nov. 3, 19OS.-(To
the Denver Post)-In the article OF
Gen. Frank Hall in the Post of Nov. s,
We have at last something tangible to
deal with. to which such brief answer
can be made as may be Of interest to
the public. For the first time we have
an admission that tho statements made
by the Post during the recent political
campaign were not true.
Gen. Hall prefaces his article by
the declaration that an attempt should
be made to bring about more satisfac-
tory relations between the smelling
company and its patrons. The smelt-
ing company is not and has not been
aware Of the existence of any such
friction as is claimed by the Post. II
1t were SO. would the CALCULATED dis,
seminaiion Of untruths by that paper
tend to bring about better feeling!
Gen. Hall says that the financial
convulsion beginning in October, 1907,
well nigh paralyzed the mining dis
tricts. This is true statement, but
was the American Smelling G. Refining
Company responsible for such unfortu.
nate conditions?
"Why should the discomfort q?
which followed the panic have found
expression in furious diatribes against
the smelter If such state OF feeling
were not fostered by those who had
their own private ends to serve In Gre
attng such unjust sentiments?
"If Gen. Hall does not know It, he
the dire situation which confronted the
Colorado ore producers, the smelling
company stepped right into the breach
by modifying the existing contracts in
favor OF the producers as it had done
time and again previously, and still
further reduced treatment charges on
such other ores as could not be pro-
duced under previous terms, whether
under contract or not.
Gen. Hall correctly states some un-
just things were said and DONE He
might. in truth, have said a great
many, but where have we found any
correction of the unjust and SANDER
GUS statements?
Gen. Hall says that ii the capital
stock of the company were reduced,
the producer OF ore would receive bet
ter rates and conveys the impression
that these charges are extortionate be-
cause Of the necessity for the continua-
tion of dividends on closed plants. Can
Gen. Hall point to a single instance
where treatment charges have been
raised on account Of the closure of any
plant in Colorado, which Is practically
the only field where smelters have
been closed by the development of un-
fortunate mining conditions?
Does not Gen. Hall know full we'll
that Notwithstanding the closure of a
number Of plants of the American
Smelling & Refining Company in Colo.
RADIO. smelling rates have been unin-
terruptedly reduced on all classes of
those ores whose value, by reason of
falling metal prices, became 80 low as
to necessitate such assistance? If he
does not, let him make inquiry OF the
representative mining men Of Colorado
in all mining districts. The policy of
the American Smelling & Refining
Company has been open, consistent
and helpful, and can stand the most
searching investigation and criticism
Of all fair minded men.
I'm the matter of contracts, the ore
producers are and have been free
agents to make them or not. The sched-
ules are no different than they were
when the smelters were in open conf
petition. Can single instance be
given where q producer has been
forced to sign contract! Tit is true,
As has been repeatedly stated by Gen.