Gilpin observer., 1913-03-20
TUNNEL COMPANY
IS CRITICISED
Editor OF the Gilpin Observer,
City.

Dear SIR
The publication of Mr.. Schirmer's
articles condemning my company's
work ON the Kansas Burroughs, re-
leases me from obligation, fancied
or otherwise to withhold information
which may lead to general en1ighten-
ment concerning the true state of
affairs at the Newhouse tunnel.
Mr.. Schirmer concludes one of his
entirely unwarranted attacks by beg
ging us all to get together and boost.
The heavy sarcasm of this injunc-
tion must be apparent to anyone, but
have few words to say about the
Tunnel Company's idea of "Coopera-
| tion."
My own experience warrants me in
the statement that it amounts to a.
desperate resolve to make good, by
any means, an enormous and iniudi.
cious investment 1t means not only
the payment of drainage and excess
sive transportation charges, but the
practical acquisition of the mines by
the Tunnel Company, leaving the
owner with the privilege of working
his mine as they dictate and pay
ing the costs.
| Let me explain how this is brought
about. Mine is only one case of many
but / am sure that it will convince
the most sceptical Of my assertions.
J My company was prepared to go to
the heavy cost of draining their mine,
an end which, by the way, is the
avowed reason for being of the New
house tunnel, and which end they had
failed to accomplish. In the first
place We we refused to sign a one
sided transportation contract We
were allowed to go to work with the
understanding that if that contract
were presented at any time, we would
have to sign it or cease operations
Immediately. The result of this ar
rangement in another case is exem-
pGfied by the Erontenac and -AduddelS
refused many other outrageous de-
mands, among them even one for
drainage royalty on small lot Of
ore mined in the course of the nee
essary development attendan. on the
drainage work. / will be glad to en-
umerate these more fully in case Mr..
Schirmer decides to carry this cor
respondence further / refused to
work along the lines dictated by Mr..
Schirmer, by methods which were uEi-
economical, unsafe, prohibiuvely ex-
pensive, and which would result only
i'm pecuniary gain to the Tunnel Com
pany. Accession to these demands
meant giving away the mime out
night. We refused and what is the
result?
Mr.. Schirmer enters my lateral,
makes an examination, publishes
abroad his so-called results, and
states that the operations have been
unsuccessful and the management un-
wise. Supposing our object had been
ore and not water, he would have
accomplished the same results by TAX
ing samples (you can get as low an
assay as you want from the richest
mines) and publishing the most
damning results. When you realize
that all mining is more or less de-
pendent on outside capital, you begin
to see how the Tunnel Company, by
these and similar tactics. can and
does force the mines to do their bid
| ding or quit
1t comes down to this in my opin-
ion. We must unwater our mines
from the surface in the old way or
leave them idle subject to taxes, or
else make an outright deed to the
Argo Tunnel Company, and be done
with 1t. 50
Do not think that l am alone or
prejudiced in my opinions on this
question. Ask any of the mining men
who have had dealings with the Tunr
mel. How many of the mines so en-
Enthusiastically started through the tun-
mel are working now? There is only
one of consequence, the Gem; and I
understand on good authority. that
the latter mine In spite of the Tunnel
company's "holier-than-thou" pose aa
q common carrier. has rates far be-
tow the published and rigidly en-
forced rates for all the rest Of us.
Whether this condition is the re-
suit Of the Tunnel Company's set
tied policy or whether 1t is due to
that old mistake Of sending the young
son of the principal stakeholder QUE
here to run mine in the Wild and
: Woody West, l do not know.
. I'm esther case to be frank and en-
! tirely above-board. they should SUR
mount the portal of the tunnel with