| 
: 
3) a ee a a Pe 
ECONOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 371 
gravel which could by any possibility be handled by the hydraulic process 
without loss ; and in this case it must be remembered that, in all probability, 
there was no account had of interest of capital invested in the dams and 
ditches. It is by no means to be understood that a company having no 
gravel richer than 2.6 cents per cubic yard could carry on their work with- 
out loss. 
The average yield per cubic yard of the gravel washed by the North 
Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company from Jan. 1 to Oct. 14, 1875, was four 
cents ; that of old washings of surface gravel near Malakoff, from 1870 to 
1874, was approximately 2.9 cents. That in these instances the expense 
was met by the yield of gold is not likely. At least, Mr. Hamilton Smith, 
Jr., engineer of the Company, states the cost of working the gravel by that 
Company to have been, in 1877, 5.5 cents per cubic yard.* 
The statistics relating to the yield per cubic yard of the gravel at Gold 
Run, obtained with so much labor by Professor Pettee,f are of great interest, 
but they do not throw the desired light on the question whether the opera- 
tions were, on the whole, profitable. It is likely, however, that there may 
have been in this case some profit, if not a large one. Since the statistics 
extend over a period of five years and include so large an amount of gravel 
moved (43,000,000 cubic yards), it seems proper to assume that the work 
was done on the whole, with at least a small profit. If this be so, we should 
be able to say that, under the most favorable circumstances, gravel may be 
washed by the hydraulic method when it contains only 4.75 cents worth of 
gold to the cubic yard.t 
Here some more special definition of the term “ favorable circumstances ” 
is desirable. In the first place, abundance and cheapness of water are all- 
important. To show this, it will only be necessary to refer to a few facts 
illustrating the amount of water consumed in washing by the hydraulic 
method. 
* This statement occurs in a printed report of the evidence given in the case of ‘‘ James H. Keyes vs. Little 
York Gold Washing and Water Company,” San Francisco, 1878. 
T See ante, p. 152. 
¢ When water has to be purchased, other parties owning the ditches, the exact cost of this item is, of course, 
well known to the miners ; but the ratio of this cost to the yield has been but rarely ascertained, and still more 
rarely made known to the public. It is certain that gravel as poor as that indicated at Gold Run and some other 
places could not be worked without loss, if the water had to be bought at anything like the price ordinarily paid 
by private individuals to companies selling water. At Pond’s Claim, for instance (see ante, p. 118), where the 
water was paid for at a moderate rate, namely ten cents per 10-hour inch, the cost of the water per cubic yard of 
gravel moved was 11.232 cents. The character of the gravel is not particularly given in Mr. Goodyear’s notes, 
but, so far as the writer remembers, it might be called moderately easy to be hydraulicked. 
