The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-12-20

pitC uiiiuees ~ " iSuSa' L. +Ne"ho"se
vice president of the American Smelt
ing 4 Refining company, which forms
the blasts OF the complaint in the &C
ttidn broiIghh by the smelling com
pany. 10 enforct compliance with thu
contract as construed by plaintiff fcl
.the purchase of Bunker, Hill ores
Last week the reply of f. w. Brad.
Icy. spfeshient. of5the Bunker Hill &
Sullivan company, was published II
which he defined in detail the position
rof his company in the controversy
Anotherg chapter is here added to this
most interesting litigation in the form
of replies to the original affidavits by
the spokesmerf for the contending par
ties. rsrNf 4R-a 81
Reply by e. L. Newhouse.
The Bunker Hin company knew, as
Mr.. Bradleys affidavit shows, that in
1905 when the acontract was made, the
splaintiff company did have a majority
of the Coeltr dAlene ores. This is al
so indicated by the contract itself.
This implied to them, and to all other
mining men, that other smelters need
ing lead ore for fluxing might be com
PEELED to bid for the smaller tonnage a
smelling rate out of which they would
expect to make little or no profit. or
even an actual loss, in order to obtain
the lead necessary as collector in
their own smelling operations d 1t was
not contemplated that these fluxing
termine the Price of the Bunker Hill.
hut that the Bunker Hill was to he
governed by a rate applicable to a
majorityLof the tonnage of the Coeur
id'Alene district, az fixed by plaintiff
company, so long as it had majority
of the tonnage and as fixed by other
companies whenever the event arose
that plaintiff did not receive ma
jority of that tonnage. This latter
contingency has never arisen.
The understanding has always been
that, prior to the year 1905, the Bun
ker Hill company did not ship any
material proportion of its mine output
to smelters below the grade of 80 per
cent in lead, or above the grade of rs
per cent in lead. 81 alre4 4ta tr
~ My understanding at the time of
the contract was that they shipped
none Of their product within these
grades, except negligible quantities
We have not the figures of their actu-
al shipments between those dates, and
j notice that the Bunker Hill has not
produced them Schedule No. 2 of our
complaint shows our information up
on this subject believe that an ac-
tual production of the figures will
show that, prior to 1905. the Bunker
Hill company did not ship more than
10 per cent of its entire shipping pro-
duct in the form of product below
80 per cent and over rs per cent %
lead. taking the aggregate of those two
grades. Schedule No. 2 shows accur-
ately what has been shipped since
1905, within the limitations of cut offs.
1t isnprobable that gthe Bunker Hill
books show ore in transit but so far
as average shipments were concerned,
our schedule is .eorrect since 1905.
l do not agree with Mr.. Bradley's
statement that the low grade products.
rs such, are desired by nearby smelt-
ers. 4a MuH aHH "a.
The books of the Tacoma plant show
rs indicated in Mr., Rust's affidavit,
hat the Bunker Hill company shipped
% Tacoma, in the 10-year period from
1874 to 1904, substantially 1900 tons of
! product of 80 per cent lead or less.
n an average of 10 tons a year Dur
ng the same period, according to our
ecords, 1t did not ship to East
Helena (which was the smelter at all
lines nearer the Bunker Hill mine
han any smelter in the United States
o which they shipped) any product
80 per cent lead or less.
The clause in the first para graph |
II the contract, providing that the av-
rage product delivered shall he of APP |
'roximately the same yearly avera ge
nalysis and lead assay as the ship
nents made from the mines of the
Bunker Hill company during any of
he II years Immediately preceding |
vas put Inf entirely for our benefit, and /
OF at all for the benefit of the Bunker
I'LL. The defendant company was
rejected under the immediately pre-
eding clause. providing that the pro-
uct should be of lead assay be-
Heen 80 per cent and 70 per cent. and
lerefore did not need the average
roduct clause in order to enable it to
oliver ore containing any percentage
lead content between those two ex-
'emes. From our standpoint, how
yer, it was very important that the
fodpct should be of the average an
ysis that had heretofore prevailed. h
would be decided disadvantage to
smelter to have the ores run with Il
very dow average or with very
gh average, even though ii were be- l
veen the limits of the two figures I
lmed. 7n -i -rs ..l t-s ....r Ia
While / have not been able to in I
rm myself of the exact percentage +
hich the defendants product averag- {
during the IL years referred to, my e
is that during those years Q