The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-12-13

of lettering and adding to the plant
1898 in New York City by W. r. Rust
: the then principal owner of the Ia.
| coma smelter. securing the genera
approval of H. c. Perkins. for tn,
Alaska companies. and the general ap.
proval of d. o. Mills for the defend.
; ant, these two men agreed To loan al
| working capital that might be needed
. in case the respective management
, OF the mining companies approved OF
the general arrangement. The details
were then worked out on behalf of the
Alaska companies by Thomas Mein
! their then consulting engineer: on be-
half Of the defendant by myself; and
on behalf of the individuals by w. r
Rust. many of whom had no interest
whatever in the mining companies.
The Alaska companies and the de-
PENDANT in purchasing the Tacoma
smelter in this way, provided that
they would not only secure honest
treatment for their respective ores and
"a fair share of the profits In smelling,
but also funds for charging the smelt
ing plant to enable it to do a large
general custom business; as it was ex-
lpected that the partnership of the mi
ming companies with the Tacoma
smeter would create such a prestige
for the smelter as to enable it to Sc
cure many other ore contracts This
prestige was especially successful in
the case of the Alaska companies, as
the Tacoma smelter virtually had from
this start a monopoly on much of the
copper ore shipped from Alaska. In
fact, the tonnage of these shipments
became so great that the resources of
the Tacoma smelter were taxed in in
creasing its capacity fast enough to
care for it, the expenditures on plant
by January. 1905, having totaled some
$SO0.OO0 This constantly growing and
profitable copper tonnage eventually
resulted in the building by the Ia
coma smelter of the first and only
copper refinery on the American shore
OF the Pacific ocean
With the prestige of this dividend :
paying mining-smeter partnership,
the Tacoma smelter not only secured
an inside track on all Alaska smelling
ore shipments, but also South Ameri-
can, Mexican, and oriental smelling
ores gravitated to it, In addition the
Tacoma smelter was securing the
shipment of silicious and other smelt-
ing ores from Nevada, Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, Montana and British
Columbia All this outside business
had become so profitable that by jan
uary l, 1905, the smelter was estimated
as earning profit of s55O.00O per year
with nearly 100000 profitable annual
earning capacity in sight
Adjustments had been made from
time to time in the Bunker Hill con-
tract with the Tacoma smelter, so as
to continue the equity between the
Bunker Hill and Alaska companies be-
cause of their respective interests in
/
was made after one of the individual
stockholders in the smelter threatened
! to bring suit on the ground that the
! smelter was not making as much pro-
ut per ton from defendants ore as II
was making per ton from the Alaska
companies ore.
The negotiations that eliminated in
the sale of the Tacoma smelter were
begun in January, 1905, with w. r.
Rust in New York City, by the officers
of the plaintiff. Rust secured the sig
nature of d. o. Mills Gone of the large
stockholders of the Tacoma company
to document providing for the sale
of his shares in the Tacoma Smelling
company. w, R. Rust then proceeded
to San Francisco in the effort to Sc
cure the signature of myself and of
Fl. II. Taylor, the then president of the
Alaska companies, to the same docu-
ments. We would not sign the docu-
ment presented, but afterward did
sign an amended document, because
d. o. Mills had committed himself to
the sale and also because we learned
that the controllers OF the plaintiff
were also buying into the Selby refin-
cry, and could thus embarrass the Ia
coma smelter in the refining of its lead
bullion. The sale of the stock held by
the Alaska companies and by the de-
PENDANT in the Tacoma Smelling COM
pany was neither sought nor recon-
mended by Mr.. Taylor or myself, but
for the reasons stated we acluiesced |
in making the 25-year contracts for I
the mining companies but uron the |
basis that the mining companies after
fixed fve-year period would be Civ
en- the benefit of competition. TIE |,
purchasers refused at first to consent l
t" any clause providing for competi-
ton, contending that they were taxi
Ing the risks that the mines might |,
play out; that silicious ores might be-
come unavailable and that lead orc.
might become more plentiful. The last
preceding annual report of defendant I,
showed less than FIVE years ore in re-
serve, and plaintiffs agents made no i,
examination whatever of defendants :
nine.
Early in March, 1905, the negotia- 6
ions had reached point where. the $