The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-12-24
EMINENT ENGINEER
TALKS ON MERGER
John Hays Hammond Satisfied
With Basis of Boston
Utah Deal.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
OF CONSOLIDATION
Nevada Consolidated Takes an
Interesting Part in Big
Transactions.

After having been beseeched by all the
parties In conflict in regard to the cquit-
ableness of the terms OF the proposed
Guggenheim copper merger. John Hays
Hammond, Americas foremost mining
engineer, has ruled IN favor of the deal
as at present constituted
In an Interview TO the editor of the
New York Mining Age, Mr.. Hammond
admitted yesterday that the matter had
been put up to him by all sides to the
controversy In order to secure peace
ful settlement TO the differences which
had cropped out between those nesotiat-
Ing for the formation of what is believed
10 be the beginning OF "A mammoth copper
combine.
"I have gone over the question care
fully said Mr. Hammond TO the Mining
Age, and weighed each factor by itself,
and finally recommended that the mer-
ger OF u shares % Nevada CONSOLIDATED
md u shares of Boston Consolidated for
one share OF Utah Copper be accented,
''While it may be that the Nevada
Consolidated Copper company is at pres
Copper company, stu the directors of
the Utah Copper company will soon take
steps TO increase the mammoth capacity
OF their plant near Bingham, Utah In
addition the longer life OF the Utah Cop
per company property shown by re-
serves figured largely ahead OF the Ne
splendid properties and taken with the
properly OF the Boston Consolidated Cop
per company very important merger
has been put together"
Differences of Opinion,
:, There was. bound to be lot OF wrang-
ling in putting togthcr a merger OF any
consequential size. When there are many
interests to consult In regard to the de-
tails under which the copper properties
To be taken in arc to be brought to-
cether. there is bound 10 develop con-
Siderable amount Of difference OF opin
ion. lnasmuch, however. as the Gusgen,
OF the copper mines which they hoped
To merge, representing the uniting oi
their own properties, IL had not been
expected that any such rumruS would would
the proposition. With the exception OF
the Boston Consolidated company prop
erty, which is owned by outside interests,
and the further possibility OF the Ohio
Copper company property on which only
tentative plans have been made to alb
sorb IT. all of the other properties are
strictly Guggenheim mines
Source of Trouble.
One faction at the. meeting where the
trouble started believed no difficulty
would be encountered in effectlng the
merger on basis OF y shares Of Ne,
Vada Consolidated for one of Utah, and
2k shares OF Boston Consolidated for one
OF Utah. They We're unprepared for the
strenuous opposition on the part of Ne
vada shareholders who expressed the
opinion that Nevada was worth a great
deal more than the ratio of 2i TO one,
They claimed that as a result OF the ex-
change they would receive only $4,000
shares OF Utah stock and the dividend
prospects on the shares OF the Nevada
in its present form were considerably
brighter than would be the case IL they
turned in their stock In exchange for
Utah.
Further information by the Nevada
Consolidated interests Of the claims made
by the Ctath Copper company indicate
that recent statements TO relative val
ues and earnings cannot be sustained by
the facts, These interests In Nevada
Consolida ted now assert that the Nevada
company can pay for al least three years
70 come as much more per share on
! It's 10000 shares as the Utah Copper
Boston Consolidated combination can on
its combined capitalization OF 100000
shares. as now planned. They further
state emphatically that the Nevada Con-
solidated can earn on about l3-ccnt cop
per from $4,000 600 TO s.. 600 net an
nuaily applicable to dividends. whereas
the net applicable Ia dividends of the
Utah Boston Consolidated combination
will not be over 600 when deferred
charges are considered. almost all OF
which has heretofore been carried as an
asset.