Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1910-04-12

Ni. DiouSuCl duoWcI " IHt
formal reply of the Tonopah-Bel
mont company's management to his
circular letter, sent to all of the
stockholders of the Tonopah-Be.
mont Development company:
notice in the issue of the Min
ing Financial News, dated Thurs
day. March 31st, copy of the for
NAL reply to my circular letter
which has been sent to as many ol
the stockholders of the Tonopah
Belmont Development company a.
l could reach, with stockholders
list made up to March 10th.
They say:
1T is pointed out that the boarC
of directors of the Belmont is com
posed of nine members-three ct
| whom are directors of the railroad
To say that these three members
could, even if they desired, contro
| the actions of the other six, in any
direction inimical to the welfare o.
the Belmont company, is absurd
To prove my statement, I poin
out the following facts: The ac
tive members of the board, in Phila
delphia, at the time referred tt
were Mr. Richard G.. Park, presi
| dent of the onopah-Belmont De
velopment company and director in
Tonopah & Goldfield railroad; Mr.
William M. Potts, vice presiden
Tonopah-Belmont Development com
pany and director in Tonopah {
Goldfield Railroad company; Mr.. NJ
B. Cutter, director in Tonopah-Bel
mont Development company an,
president of the Tonopah & Gold
field Railroad company; Mr. CLYDE
A. Heller, secretary and treasura
of the Tonopah-Belmont Develop
ment company and personal EN-
ployee of Mr.. Richard G.. Park, look
after his private interests, for
salary; Mr.. Maskell w. Ewing
holding stock of record, sixt,
shares, and doing the insurance bus
iness for the Tonopah-Belmont De
velopment company. Whether u
not the first three mentioned geu
tlemen can control the votes of tn
last two might be a question il
some peoples minds, but is not il
mine. This | leave to be judge,
by the stockholders themselves. Thi
represents five of the nine director
mentioned
In the reply of the management
they say: THE statement tina
the Belmont mill costs from 25 t
so per cent more to operate tha1
other mills in the same district doe
not agree with the facts
Ny statement was that the mi
was completed at an excessive cost
and owing to it's poor design it ha
cost from 25 to so per cent pc
ton more to operate than othe
mills in the same district. To prov
this, will say that the average cos
per ton of ore milled for the iis
cal year ending February 20, 100,
was 1854; mill costs for the yea
ending February %, 1909, $4.37
per ton; mill costs March 1st, 1905
to and including October, 1905
when the mill closed down, $40
per ton and the average mill cost
from the time the mill was frs
started, to and including October
1909, having been $5.14 per tor
These figures, | think, compare
with the milling costs of other mill
in the district, will prove my state
ment to be correct. In making tn
statement that it has cost frol
25 to SO per cent more per ton t
operate, | do not take any on
month, but the history of the plan
since it was started, and would lik
to impress upon the stockholder
that up to the month of Januar.
1908, the lowest milling costs OF
tanned in this wonderful plant wee
$7.01 per ton, and the highe'
$11.75, and also make the stat
ment that. were it not for the ell
/ ergy displayed at this end of tn
line in the purchase of custom ore