Bliss v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1909 |
| Docket Number | 280. |
| Citation | 167 F. 1024 |
| Parties | BLISS v. ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
R. L Clinton and C. M. Sawyer, for complainant.
A. J Shores, C. F. Kelly, Forbis & Evans, and D. Gay Stivers, for defendants.
Pursuant to the order of the court heretofore made on January 25 1909, hearing was had on February 15th, in order that the court might listen to the testimony of the superintendent of the Washoe Smelting Company, and such testimony as the parties chose to present upon the subject of possible means of so treating the flue dust at defendants' smelting works as to reduce the quantities of arsenic passing out of its stack, and thereafter making any such specific order as might seem equitable and right. Bliss v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co. et al. (C.C.) 167 F. 342.
In obedience to a subpoena issued, Mr. Mathewson, superintendent of the Washoe smelter, appeared and testified at considerable length. Reduced to the briefest statement, the substance of the evidence given by Mr. Mathewson was that there are several principal means known to science for the extraction of arsenic from fumes, and that none of them could be made applicable to the conditions existing at the Anaconda smelter, owing to the size of the works and attendant difficulties to be overcome. He said the process of cooling by water spray could not be used, for the reason, among others, that the product would be a mixture of acid water and mud, the quantity of which would be so enormous at Anaconda that it could not be disposed of in safety to the community and that the drainage from this mixture would find its way to the streams, and make the waters dangerous to all animal life.
He testified regarding a method of cooling by the admission of air into bag houses, but said that it is an impracticable way, because the gas in the smoke would destroy the bags as fast as they could be supplied. The 'bag-house method,' as it is called, is successful in lead and zinc smelters; but, owing to the quantities of acid in the fumes from copper smelters, it is impossible to prevent the immediate destruction of the bags.
He also explained a radiation process, saying, however, that as by the methods now employed in the Washoe smelter all the particles are caught, except the very finest, so far as known the radiation process would not be effective to catch the particles that are not now being recovered.
The witness also said that there is a freezing process, but that that could only be used by counting upon a very large product of poison mud, which, as heretofore explained, could not be left exposed without great danger to animal life. Where the quantity of mud produced by this process is small, it can be buried; but at the Washoe smelter, owing to the enormous amount that would be produced, burial would be impossible.
The so-called electrical discharge method was explained by Mr. Mathewson, and it was made quite clear that, owing to the mechanical difficulties encountered thus far, practical application of this process, as attempted in California, has not been a success, and could not be made effective at the Washoe, where the velocity of the gases is approximately, at the slowest, 20 times greater than at Selby, Cal. Prof. Cottrell, the inventor of this process, visited the Washoe smelter, and, after study of conditions there, was not willing to assure defendants of its success, without first making further experimentation, which he said he would conduct in California.
Mr. Mathewson also detailed the friction or wire process, now being constructed at the Boston & Montana copper smelter at Great Falls, Mont. The process consists of suspending thousands of wires from the ceiling of large chambers in a way to cause friction of the gases, and thus bring about a settling of the dust. Mr. Mathewson himself doubts the success of this experiment, but says that if demonstration of its efficiency is had, it will be used by the Washoe Smelting Company. He expects final tests to be made during this year.
Another system testified to is the filtering of the gases through finely pulverized slag moistened with water. This, the witness said, would also result in the production of immense quantities of poison mud, and, moreover, has not been successful in Utah, where it has been tried.
The feasibility of decreasing the velocity of the gases was explained. This method, the witness said, would require the construction of a flue 20 times as great as the present Washoe flue, to decrease the velocity to 60 feet per minute. By this device the product recovered would be dust; but, comparatively speaking, the excess over that now saved would be so slight as not to make the process worth very serious consideration.
The use of centrifugal gas cleaners was mentioned; but that process would also mean the accumulation of great masses of acid mud, and thus involve the same problem of how to dispose of the poisoned mud and liquids therefrom without the utmost peril to life.
Mr. Mathewson closed his testimony by saying that the result of his own study, and of the extensive investigations and experiments made by engineers and scientists in Europe and America in behalf of the defendants, is that the Washoe Company has a system nearer perfection than any other yet devised for the purpose of treating arsenic fumes. He added, however, that he knew the system was not perfect, and that the defendants were still experimenting, and would continue to study the question in the hope 'that some day some improvement of practical value will be devised which we will promptly adopt.'
Mr. Falding, a distinguished chemical engineer, also testified at the request of the court. He said that he was then under employment by defendants to make examination into methods for treating the fumes at the Washoe smelter, particularly with a view to possible manufacture of sulphuric acid, and that, although he had been in Anaconda only three weeks, yet he could say that, from such examination as he had made, the Washoe Company was employing the most modern and successful methods for the treatment of the fumes, but that he could not tell, at the time he testified, whether it would be feasible to manufacture sulphuric acid. He dwelt upon the problem of treating the fumes at Anaconda as of much greater magnitude and difficulty than that presented by the smelting operations at Ducktown, Tenn., or at other places, where he had made examinations. He stated that he was given directions to proceed with his investigations at Anaconda without limitation, to the end that his report might cover every problem presented within the special range of his qualifications.
After hearing these witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gold Dust Corporation v. Hoffenberg
...of costs, their apportionment and division, is a matter of discretion. Stallo v. Wagner, 245 F. 636 (C.C.A.2); Bliss v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 167 F. 1024 (C.C. Mont.); Kell v. Trenchard, 146 F. 245 (C. C.A.4). But the allowance of costs has with practical uniformity been restricted to......
-
Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co.
...may in its discretion require each party to bear its own costs although the decision is adverse to plaintiff. See Bliss v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., C.C., 167 F. 1024, 1028. In our case, since the judgment was not for each party to bear its own costs, but rather to pay half of the fees an......
-
Popeil Bros., Inc. v. Schick Elec., Inc.
...may in its discretion require each party to bear its own costs although the decision is adverse to plaintiff. See Bliss v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., C.C., 167 F. 1024, 1028. In our case, since the judgment was not for each party to bear its own costs, but rather to pay half of the fees an......
-
Associated Almond Growers v. Wymond, 7250.
...except for manifest abuse. 15 C. J., p. 32, § 22; Canter v. American Ins. Co., 3 Pet. (28 U. S.) 307, 7 L. Ed. 688; Bliss v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co. (C. C.) 167 F. 1024. Compensation to the master and auditor were properly awarded as expenses incident to the litigation. Ex parte Peterson......