The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-10-19
SHALL UTAH CON. BE
TAIL TO AMERICAN KITE?

One who voices the BrOughton side OF
the Utah Consolidated controversy, and
who is familiar with the history of the
company. is quoted in Boston as say
ing the whole question to be DECIDED is
whether it is best for the Utah company
/ 10 build a smelter and go on doing bust
! ness along lines that have proved so sue
eessful in the past or 20 become the tan
/ OF kite of another company In re-
viewing the situation he said:
The old SmelteT was closed Oy Ihe
mandate OF the courts The land own
| ers in the Salt Lake valley claimed the
smoke from the works damaged their
crops In 1906. in view Of rhe danger OF
adverse action on the part of the courts.
/ the directors of Utah authorized the pur-
chase of a site for and the preparation
of plans for new smelter on that site.
| This was promptly done Nhen tne
courts made an adverse decision and the
| farmers refused to give thelr conseh~'
which had been expected. 70 an eXteD-
sion of the time in which ! IS decisio >
should become effective there Was
nothing to do but to close TIC company $
smelter This left the Utah m The posi-
ton of either accepting the best contrac =
obtainable from the American Smeitii'5
q Refining company or allowing the
mines to remain idle until new smeiter
would be built.
In January 1905 a contract was made
with the American Smelling & Refining
company To treat the ores OF the ce!i-
panv at the Garfield smelter. This cor
tract was for one wear. with the rlsht
for the Utah Consolidated to extend Ior
another year. Ii provided that at lhe
end of six months the parties in contract
should take up the provisions OF the con-
tract and see if any modification of the
charges could be made on the basis OF
extending it for five years additional AT
the end of this six months the Utah COM
pany notified the American Smelling q.
Refining company that IL awaited Itself
of the extension of the contract for the
additional year and would take up the
question of a lOng-term contract.
1.-THE American Smelling & Refining
company was not prepared to confer IN
this for ninety days. but upon notice from
the Utah company that II must decide
by at least Sept "A. as its options on land
surrounding the new smelter site expired
on Oct l. the American Smelling K Re
filming company consented TO take up the
negotiations on Sept. "a. On that date
the smelling company served notice on
the Utah that il would do nothing eX-
cept 70 extend the contract on the same
terms then existing. The options on the
! land surrounding the Smelter site were
then exercised and this action approved
by the board of directors. This action
| was necessary, for, taking the average
cost of smelling at the company works
! for a long term of years as a OASIS II
showed that the cost to the company by
the treatment of its ores at the Garfield
works of the American Smelling * Re
filming company was between 2i2 and 5
cents A pound of copper in excess of the
company's average cost
without taking any credit for the
probable profits Of a custom business,
| the difference in cost would. in from four
TO five years. pay for building a new
smelter What position would the man
agement have been in if 1t had allowed
these options to expire ana left itself 10
| the mercy of the smelling company? The
| financial copdition of the Utah Consoli-
| dated company is fully known to its
! stockholders. The last annual report was
| issued to the shareholders in April, 1903. .