[D0014AAX], Letter from John Vincent Miller, Cloyd Mason Chapman to Thomas Alva Edison, October 24th, 1900
https://edisondigital.rutgers.edu/document/D0014AAX
→ View document with UniversalViewer
→ View document on Archive.org
→ Re-use this digital object via a IIIF manifest
Title
[D0014AAX], Letter from John Vincent Miller, Cloyd Mason Chapman to Thomas Alva Edison, October 24th, 1900
Recipient
Mentioned
Date
1900-10-24
Type
Subject
Folder/Volume ID
D0014-F
Microfilm ID
186:912
Document ID
D0014AAX
Publisher
Thomas A. Edison Papers, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University
Has Version
Item sets
Transcription
Dolores, N. M.
Oct. 24th, 1900.
Mr. T. A. Edison,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Mr. Edison:-
Since our last report _
Shaft 13 Has been assayed and report we send you today.
" 10 Has been assayed and report we will send you tomorrow.
" 15 Sinking has been discontinued for the present. Sample has been taken
as far as worked. Total depth 521/2 ft. Part of this
shaft has been swiped and separated.
" 16 Sunk twelve and a half feet. Total depth 60 ft. 71/2 inch.
Sampled as far as sunk.
" 17 Sunk thirty six and a half feet. Total depth 57 ft.
Sampled as far as sunk.
We are now sinking the shafts entirely by contract work paying $1.55 per foot of depth, which includes the taking of the samples. Shaft #15 was sunk to its present depth by day labor. As this was so slow and expensive and material was coming in sufficiently fast from the two contract shafts, we decided to discontinue working 15 for the present.
The method of taking samples as suggested in your letter of recent date is the one which have been using in taking samples of 15, 16, 17, the results of which we send you today.
There seems to be considerable dissatisfaction on the part of Mr. Burn, and according to him, also Mr. Hoyt in regard to the condition and manner of carrying on the work, principally the locations and working of shafts. We definitely located the limit of the workable area with the advice of Mr. Burn, as previously reported, and we sank #17 well within this limit. Mr. Burn now claims that it is not within the limit he advised. Mr. Burn has been making complaints about the location of the shafts right along and in consequence we are very uncertain as to the course we should follow in locating the other shafts. He thinks that the prospecting should be confined to the upper part of the mesa which he has examined and feels confident is sufficiently rich. We understand that Mr. Hoyt is to come out here shortly. Can you not come with him and settle up all questions in regard to the work?
Would it not be well, owing to the results so far obtained, to save the expense of running the mill sinking new shafts and confine ourselves to prospecting until we find workable gravel? In this prospecting we could sample the old workings or shifts which are scattered over the entire area. We would probably have to do some further sinking as many of these shafts are not down to bedrock and have been more or less washed in. This however would be much less expensive than sinking new shafts. We would like to have your idea as to the minimum value for workable ground.
Hoping to see you out here very soon, we remain,
Yours truly,
Cloyd M. Chapman.
John V. Miller
Oct. 24th, 1900.
Mr. T. A. Edison,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Mr. Edison:-
Since our last report _
Shaft 13 Has been assayed and report we send you today.
" 10 Has been assayed and report we will send you tomorrow.
" 15 Sinking has been discontinued for the present. Sample has been taken
as far as worked. Total depth 521/2 ft. Part of this
shaft has been swiped and separated.
" 16 Sunk twelve and a half feet. Total depth 60 ft. 71/2 inch.
Sampled as far as sunk.
" 17 Sunk thirty six and a half feet. Total depth 57 ft.
Sampled as far as sunk.
We are now sinking the shafts entirely by contract work paying $1.55 per foot of depth, which includes the taking of the samples. Shaft #15 was sunk to its present depth by day labor. As this was so slow and expensive and material was coming in sufficiently fast from the two contract shafts, we decided to discontinue working 15 for the present.
The method of taking samples as suggested in your letter of recent date is the one which have been using in taking samples of 15, 16, 17, the results of which we send you today.
There seems to be considerable dissatisfaction on the part of Mr. Burn, and according to him, also Mr. Hoyt in regard to the condition and manner of carrying on the work, principally the locations and working of shafts. We definitely located the limit of the workable area with the advice of Mr. Burn, as previously reported, and we sank #17 well within this limit. Mr. Burn now claims that it is not within the limit he advised. Mr. Burn has been making complaints about the location of the shafts right along and in consequence we are very uncertain as to the course we should follow in locating the other shafts. He thinks that the prospecting should be confined to the upper part of the mesa which he has examined and feels confident is sufficiently rich. We understand that Mr. Hoyt is to come out here shortly. Can you not come with him and settle up all questions in regard to the work?
Would it not be well, owing to the results so far obtained, to save the expense of running the mill sinking new shafts and confine ourselves to prospecting until we find workable gravel? In this prospecting we could sample the old workings or shifts which are scattered over the entire area. We would probably have to do some further sinking as many of these shafts are not down to bedrock and have been more or less washed in. This however would be much less expensive than sinking new shafts. We would like to have your idea as to the minimum value for workable ground.
Hoping to see you out here very soon, we remain,
Yours truly,
Cloyd M. Chapman.
John V. Miller