The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-08-16

Interstate Callahan Minin g
company, Northwest Mining
Truth is not maintaining the high
standard of veracity implied by its
suggestive name and which Is a fav-
orite theme for effulgent boast in it's
editorial columns. Mr.. Percival states
that Mining Truth made "misstate-
ments of fact" in connection with the
Amazon Manhattan decision and
makes a general denial of the COM
ments of that paper in so far as they
concern his company He has written
letter to the editor calling attention
to the injustice he has done to the In
terstate- Callahan company and its
stockholders and asked that it be given
the same publicity that was given the
original story. Evidently being in
doubt that his request would be COM
piled with, Mr.. Percival sent copy
of his letter to the Miner with re-
quest to publish. The letter follows:
Mr.. PercivaIs Letter.
New York, August 10, 1917.
"Mr. Sidney Norman, managing
editor, Northwest Mining Truth, 612
Mohawk Building, Spokane, Washing
ton. Dear sir: Ny attention has been
called to an article in the July IS, 1917,
issue of your paper entitled Wins
Amazon Appeal This article relates
to the case of Davenport VS.. Burke and
others pending in the Idaho courts
and involving the Amazon Manhattan
group of claims, legal title to which
is now in the Consolidated Interstate
Callahan Mining company, of which
am the president. This company
was in no way involved in this litiga-
tion until shortly more than year
ago, when for the first time it was ad-
vised by an amended complaint filed
by Burke in the suit that he claimed
John H. Wourms. of Wallace, was his
attorney at the time when the claims
We're purchased by this company
through Wourms as its attorney This
company never, until so advised by
the filing of this amended complaint,
had the slightest intimation or know
ledge that Wourms represented anyone
| at all interested in the property at
the time he purchased the same for
this company. The purchase by this
company of the property was made by
! it in the utmost good faith and the
courts have so found.
"At this moment petition for re-
hearing is pending in the Idaho su-
preme court and it would not be proper
or in good taste for me to comment
upon the supreme court decision or to
refer to any Of the legal or equitable
matters affecting the case.
However, in the article published
by your paper, there are certain mis-
statements of fact and it Is apparent
that your informant or reporter has
been misled in many particulars.
desire solely 'by this communication to
correct several of the misstatements
OF fact in said article.
"The decision is not severe blow to
Il
in the loss of the Amazon Manhattan
claims. We did drive tunnel through
the Amazon Manhattan property and
!, in doing so, as well as in other devel-
opment work. the company expended
slightly in excess of $4,000. and no
more However, there are not 1000
1 feet of development work on the prop
erty. Not a pound of ore has been
shipped from the property, nor did we
open up a new ore body. So far as
now known. there is a short, small
shoot of ore on the property which,
however, would not pay any mining
ing other ore bodies in conjunction
Herewith. Our tunnel and develop
ment work was prosecuted during the
years 1913. 1914. 1915 and 1916, and
small tunnel and extending small tun-
mel which had heretofore been driv-
en- short distance upon the property
and In doing cross tunneling. All
SuCH Woih was uoHC loi tiiC uIpoSc
of developing the property and show
ing up a mine is possible. In the pro-
gress of this development work, an
ore shoot of small value was uncov-
cred and small quantity Of ore was
taken out. None of this ore has been
disposed Of or shipped and all that
was excavated Is now on the dump on
the property. The Amazon -Manhat-
tan is not mine and does not pro-
vide immediate or any reseryes for any