[D0014AAS], Letter from John Vincent Miller, Cloyd Mason Chapman to Thomas Alva Edison, October 9th, 1900
https://edisondigital.rutgers.edu/document/D0014AAS
→ View document with UniversalViewer
→ View document on Archive.org
→ Re-use this digital object via a IIIF manifest
Title
[D0014AAS], Letter from John Vincent Miller, Cloyd Mason Chapman to Thomas Alva Edison, October 9th, 1900
Recipient
Mentioned
Date
1900-10-09
Type
Subject
Folder/Volume ID
D0014-F
Microfilm ID
186:904
Document ID
D0014AAS
Publisher
Thomas A. Edison Papers, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University
Has Version
Item sets
Transcription
Dolores, N. M.
Oct. 9, 1900.
Mr. T. A. Edison,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Mr. Edison :-
We answer your letter of Oct. 2 as follows :-
The two rows of shafts on the map which we sent you were all sunk by Mr. Burn before our arrival. His explanation for sinking them so close is that he thought that only a small area at the head of the mesa was to be examined. As the shafts were already sunk we have worked or partly worked several of those, more than we otherwise would have done in this locality. We are now sinking two shafts, one near the N. W. corner of Lot No. 50, which we mentioned in our last report and which is down about forty feet, and one near N. W. corner of Lot No. 80, which is down some thirty feet. We have no idea now of how these two new shafts are running but will take samples of them and let you know the results of them as soon as possible.
This afternoon we have spent with Mr. Burn driving over the mesa to determine the limit of workable ground within which to locate the twelve shafts as you suggest. We expected after this trip to be able to send you the outline of this area and proposed location of the shafts on the large map of Grand, made by Raymond and Anderson, and enlargement of which you have made by Mr. Burn. But as we find that the map is so incomplete and the lower part of the mesa so broken by arroyos, not shown on the map and between which there is probably good ground, it is impossible to do this. The small contour map which we sent covers only a small area at the top of the meca and therefore only a few of these shafts will come within it, the remaining shafts of the twelve we propose to locate on the mesa and then by survey locate them on the large large map.
The status of the work at present is as follows :-
Shaft #9 has been run through the mill and the results are now being assayed.
Shaft #13 has been run through the mill and is about ready for assay
Shaft #10 has been sized and is ready for separation.
Shafts #15 and #16 are being sunk.
Shaft #9 seems to be much higher in value than the previous shafts. #13 will undoubtedly be very low owing to the fact that it is located on the summit of a ridge of bed-rock. The other shafts we shall sample and send you the results.
As Mr. Burn intends to have an assayer for his work in prospecting the Grant and as he will have ample time to do our work also we think it best to continue the method of assaying as already followed, as this will give us the results of the whole shaft and of each separator run. The latter we desire as we are still experimenting with and improving the separation. This will not delay our work at the mill at all.
In your letter of Oct. 3 you request us to take samples of the shafts you request us to take take samples of the shafts same as with #2. We would like to know whether you want samples as two foot intervals separately assayed, or one sample of the entire shaft.
Take samples [says?] at one foot intervals measure out [Gybuck?] Each sample say one grant, then mix [illegible overstruck text] all together
Oct. 9, 1900.
Mr. T. A. Edison,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Mr. Edison :-
We answer your letter of Oct. 2 as follows :-
The two rows of shafts on the map which we sent you were all sunk by Mr. Burn before our arrival. His explanation for sinking them so close is that he thought that only a small area at the head of the mesa was to be examined. As the shafts were already sunk we have worked or partly worked several of those, more than we otherwise would have done in this locality. We are now sinking two shafts, one near the N. W. corner of Lot No. 50, which we mentioned in our last report and which is down about forty feet, and one near N. W. corner of Lot No. 80, which is down some thirty feet. We have no idea now of how these two new shafts are running but will take samples of them and let you know the results of them as soon as possible.
This afternoon we have spent with Mr. Burn driving over the mesa to determine the limit of workable ground within which to locate the twelve shafts as you suggest. We expected after this trip to be able to send you the outline of this area and proposed location of the shafts on the large map of Grand, made by Raymond and Anderson, and enlargement of which you have made by Mr. Burn. But as we find that the map is so incomplete and the lower part of the mesa so broken by arroyos, not shown on the map and between which there is probably good ground, it is impossible to do this. The small contour map which we sent covers only a small area at the top of the meca and therefore only a few of these shafts will come within it, the remaining shafts of the twelve we propose to locate on the mesa and then by survey locate them on the large large map.
The status of the work at present is as follows :-
Shaft #9 has been run through the mill and the results are now being assayed.
Shaft #13 has been run through the mill and is about ready for assay
Shaft #10 has been sized and is ready for separation.
Shafts #15 and #16 are being sunk.
Shaft #9 seems to be much higher in value than the previous shafts. #13 will undoubtedly be very low owing to the fact that it is located on the summit of a ridge of bed-rock. The other shafts we shall sample and send you the results.
As Mr. Burn intends to have an assayer for his work in prospecting the Grant and as he will have ample time to do our work also we think it best to continue the method of assaying as already followed, as this will give us the results of the whole shaft and of each separator run. The latter we desire as we are still experimenting with and improving the separation. This will not delay our work at the mill at all.
In your letter of Oct. 3 you request us to take samples of the shafts you request us to take take samples of the shafts same as with #2. We would like to know whether you want samples as two foot intervals separately assayed, or one sample of the entire shaft.
Take samples [says?] at one foot intervals measure out [Gybuck?] Each sample say one grant, then mix [illegible overstruck text] all together