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

|
lraiuction como from orea whioh car
Iohly be minsa-ya md treatsd prddtably
5*itb very high priced lead. So
Referring to mat portion of Mt
fBraAieys afadavft in%wlsich Ne men.
toned as other minerals In the Bun
ker Hill ore, salts of silver. copper
zinc. anthony, iron. tin. nickel, CO.
balt cadmium, uarsenfc,m titanibni
!. Shoshhorus, .--A aluminuna, manganese
and magnesium, etc." l will say that
while some of these minerals are
fond: Gieotstiea ~ hi TIE la soratofJ
BY the ntost minute ehemical analysfs
they ass .hots Jfonnas sm which az
known as commercial quantities and
are not FOUND IA qpan titles now Sexg-
ceedip thes QUANTITIES existfns at ths
tine. .of making the contra OF. w ~
Referring to the lead smelters
standing ready until June, 1915, To buy
ore When II was prepared for ship
ment, 4 know OF no fact or icircumc-
stance whereby the situation on or
since June 1918, is different In this
regard TO the situation prior to that
date, excepting only that owing TO che
war risks above described these sfiielt-
ers nov are asking higher rates than
they did before hl lea4 s,iSE pm aiD9
Mr. Bradley mentions a number of
smelling plants and states that plain
tiff is now in control Of ali but two of
said smelling plants The two plants
there listed not controlled by plaintiff
are those OF the Pennsyivania Smelling
company at Carnegie, Pa and the
Ohio & Colorado Smelling & Refining
company at Salida, Colo. The other
plants there listed were ACQUIRED BY
plaintiff at or before the time Of the
execution Of the contract and there
has'been no change In that respect
since that date, so far as concerns the
control OF those companies. Since the
making Of that contract additional
lead smelters have been constructed by
other companies as already pointed
out All Of the plants con trolled by
plaintiff have, during all said times,
been managed with equal honesty and
fair dealing. SO far as I have ever been
Informed, without discrimination eth
err as between ourselves or as to min
ing companies. ad tot pifio7 9s'9 "a
Mr.. Bradley intimates that the art
Iof concentrating can be developed to
the extent OF producing high con-
|centrate and thus avoiding metal
losses. 1t is not true that high con-
Eeentration1 reduces lossess9 Mr. Larson
carries this q step further ana pro
poses BY a Observation-Disclosures chem
ico- electrical process, to abolish smelt-
inc altogethere The; problems .sug-
gestedi BY these contentious have Hot
as yet arisen; such commercial meth
DDS have not as yet been developed,
and they do not now constitute a any
point at controversy between these
parties a4elAN aHT or VI
At the time the contract was made
I by no means considered that defend
ant had less than five years ore in
such period. My knowledge of the
Occur td'Alene district and my inyesti.
cations led me to believe that 25-
year contract for defendants output
would be valuable and that ore would
be delivered under 1t for that full term
assuming, of course that defendant
should continue mining at the rate
heretofore and since prevailing. s.
Referring to Mr. Bradley's state
ment as to the understanding reached
in the negotiations early In March.
1905, do not deem 1t important to set
out here the different conclusions
reached at different times in those me-
gotiations, consider that the contract
speaks for itself and that nothing
would be gained by stating the con-
illusions or views of the parties other
than the language finally embodied in
1t.
IN connection with Mr.. Bradleys
reference to the purchase of the Ever
EFT smelter by the Federal Mining &
company. one of the subsid-
larry companies of plaintiff, 1t should
De remembered that the plaintiff pur-
chased the Everett ,smelter from, the
Federal company in 1908, and the
ownership Of that smelter by plaintiff
wa" was well known to defendant prior to
and during the year, 1905. The Fed
eral company in 1903 made an ar
rangement with plaintiff similar to
that which defendant made with the
plaintiff IN 1906, namely. to sell its
'melter ana received from plaintiff at
. ne same time an ore purchase or
smelling contract b., I have already
stated that the only effect of inserting
n the contract a clause referring to
ne shipment of from 81 to, 81 tons
u metallic lead per day to Tacoma
vas to give defendant special price
ma treatment charge on, that GUAM
ny OF product. there being cores
'"onading provisions to that extent in
ne thnen existing contract between de.
e efdanit and the Tacoma company
nat fun advantage has been receiy-
q by the defendant from the making
the contract to theapresent day.
The, suggestion as to the idea of
roviding for the same yearly analy-
Is and lead assay as to ore previously |
hipped is not at all in aocora.oa. 4