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

4 year 1917 acquireu an auutt7ouai "
pei cent of said company from til,
\ FEDERAL Mining a smelting company
Which latter company d controlled b.
plaintiff. The purchase of said Sierrs
Nevada stock was made with TN
knowledge and consent of the plain.
tiffs officers, who had also knowledge
at that time of the ownership by de-
PENDANT of an additional 10 per cent
In-ISl2 while plaintiff was negotiating
for the purchase of the Sierra Nevada
ores plaintiff made the point that such
ores should be shipped under the Bun
llter Hill contract with Tacoma be-
cause defendant owned the control Of
said Sierra Nevada company Defend
ant. through its manager, Mr.. Easton
resisted this contention, whereupon
Iplaintiff yielded and entered into a
contract for Sierra Nevada ores So
that there was no Legitimate contro-
|versy concerning said ores subsequent
to that time. Subsequent to 1910 de-
PENDANT has acquired from time to tlae
Certain shares of the Sierra Nevada
company, but it has never owned the
entire capital stock of said company
and it would be an obvious fraud upon
the independent owners Of stock of tie
Sierra Nevada company (who do not
desire to sell their stock) to dispose If
the ores of said company under Ie-
fendants contract with Tacoma wien
more favorable rates prevail,
The form of resolution of the board
of trustees of the Tacoma company
passed in 1906 did not purport TO ex-
ercise and was not treated by the par
ties as exercising an option for either
the high or low grade products Of the
defendant company except for a lin
itedatime The. resolution was adbse-
auently sdisregarded by the officers t,f
the Tacoma company. y 1t was never
understood by the Bunker Hill COM
pany that it should continue to treat
| its product a substantially as it had
treated it's ores for IL years prior to
making said contarct. On the con-
trary, it was at all times understood
! in all the dealings that the Bunker
Hill company should have the right to
make such grade of product as it saw
fit. 1@fl4s 1i Je b"t{a if-a f
~ Iron middlings are not disting rsil-
able from other low grade eonccn-
trates. t55ba#& &t14ttA.t at85t44 tl
My understanding has always been
that the stock Of the Tacoma Smelling
company and of the Selby Smelling
company was owned by the American
Shelters Securities company and tht
a majority of the common stock of the
latter company was owned by the
PLAINTIFF company From the publish
ed facts I have known that the pre-
ferred stock of the American Shelters
Securities company exceeded the COM
mon stock and was not owned by the
American Smelling e. Refining COM
pany. The common stock of the Sc
curities company carried a voting pow
er, so that the American Smelling &
Refining company might elect the Of
ficers of the Securities company, but
it has always been my understanding
that the larger portion of the money
invested in the Securities company
was invested by the public This is
still my understanding.
1t is not true that the Bunker Hill
company owns practically all of the
stock of the Sierra Nevada company
1t is not true that it owns practically
all of the stock of the Caledonia COM
pany either directly or otherwise, and
1t is not true that the Bunker Hill
company either directly or Indirectly
has ever held lease on the Ontario.
Replying to the reply affidavit of w.
r. Rust: 3Is af a..h ng3+ ele.f afnaf
1t is not true that the stockholders
of the Bunker Hill company ever con-
trolled the. three Alaska companies de-
scribed i'm the affidavit Of said Rust
or that they ever owned majority of
the stock of either of said companies
said w. r. Rust in letter to me dat |
ed February L. 1905, reported .'since
May last We (Tacoma Smelting) have
been earning at the rate of s553,3344o
per year, anfad -aw@ 9dl eqs4au |
The statement contained in said af- |
hdaNit to the effect that a contract
was drawn up between Baruch and |
the, stockholders of the Tacoma Smelt-
ing company and signed by all indi-
Vidual stockholders of the Tacoma
company prior to the meeting in San I
Francisco is not true. The above re-
ferred to contract was solicited In New
YORK Cityewitfout my presence and
without my knowledge and was drawn
up in New York City on January 0.
1908, between b. M. Baruch and W,R
6ust; and 1t was made condition of
This Baruch deal that 25-year con.
tracts be made for the entire OUTPUT
'f the Douglas Island and Bunker
Hill Il Sullivan mines. On January {
~, l905, Mr.. Rust presented his said i
contract with Mr.. Baruch to William {
A. aCrocker director and treasurer of !
ne ID defendanD and myself, In San
Francisco, and asked us to consent to
ne deal on behalf of the Bunker Hill *
company. We refused to do so unless o
he deal be modified so as to guarantee
he Bunker Hill its then existing