# Transcript of Record — Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386003_0236%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1916 - **Citation:** 242 U.S. 261 ## Text (24,396) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1915. No. 259. MINERALS SEPARATION, LIMITED, AND MINERALS SEP- _ARATION AMERICAN SYNDICATE, LIMITED, PETI- TIONERS, v8. JAMES M. HYDE. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. INDEX Original. Print ER SET Pee Tee EET eT Tee eee Toe CTT ee a 1 dresses SA rer es ae eee oe ee er ee pee 1 1 “Transcript of record from the district court of the United Siates = for the district of Montana................ceseeseeeeeeess 1 1 NE EE EET CEL OTe Te Te TE ee ree 2 2 ee Lien aks ee ee Wee K Uad NOs US bs haie OOS ES Owe 12 7 DLL Es so.0o 4.65 ba ss OG SSERLECR Ge we OOKSS Ge Reann 25 14 OS Sa ee ey et eee ee ree 26 15 i CD, oa c:0) sobs awh sin dod, sd p ed Kaetbesbicus 33 18 = 46 25 = Writ of injunction and return...............cccceceeeees 50 28 I EON ss 5'6-04-66.0 o0 04 bo bbe ges ene dewee keene 5 28 Petition for and allowance of an appeal.................. 69 36 ETP EL SCT TOC POT ETP CE SP re a 70 37 Citation on appeal with service............. cc cece eens 73 38 % Condensed statement of eridence................ee cece es 75 39 DU & Derwetter (INc.), PRINTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C., SEPTEMBER 8, 1915. a INDEX. Original. Print Testimony of Edward H. Nutter................2.¢6. 75 39 Cates. FW. COMMENT, «5.0.05 ecicivcccccs 96 49 RE i Tigo Feb co daecbus cousescens 144 74 Ee enn as ake dora csveswenees 150 7 WOM B. TAMU. once cc ccccceccccccces 190 96 Order as to taking depositions, &c..... Sie eh hnnaes 249 125 Testimony of Henry Livingstone Sulman.............. 253 127 Hugh Fitzaiis Kirkpatrick-Picard....... 295 148 EY Se ee ee ee 314 157 eemeee COG TROOWOL. 6 oc cn cc ccccscces 342 171 Arthur Howard Higgins. ............... 349 174 George Albert Chapman................ 364 181 Allen Crawford Howard................ 415 206 William Henry Ballantyne.............. 426 212 George Lockwood Morris................ 492 243 SD RE SE io cc.nus aenddecdcunnwee 493 244 SE, Th, GE. co icceaveeweweetae 495 245 Se rere rr 496 245 Arthur Weaver Wincey........0.-..00. 497 246 Jobe Ballet (reeniled)... ....c.ccescsccce. 501 248 Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard (re- WE Beant crcneesanweasa oan ae 250 A. Howard Higgins (recalled) .......... 506 251 ET I a's nancusediseanseeeee 507 251 Charles F. Chandler (recalled)......... 726 357 A. Howard Higgins (recalled).......... 784 386 George A. Chapman (recalled)......... 788 387 Gelpabations We te facts, 0c... ... 26sec nccevss cee. 801 395 Judge's certificate to statement of evidence........... 803 396 Complainants’ Exhibit Assignment, Sulman and Kirkpat- rick-Picard to Minerals Separation, Limited............ 804 396 Complainants’ Exhibit License Agreement, Minerals Sep- aration, Ltd., to Minerals Separation American Syndi- ES a aah eck tenet We Renew eestor ensneeneeenn se 805 397 Complainants’ Exhibit Abstract of Title.................. 813 402 Complainants’ Exhibit Chapman Report, August 16, 1907, Bie ee TO, GAB. nc onc cane wndeccisecassecesass 813 403 Complainants’ Exhibit Higgins Report, January 4, 1911, Re sn cas na bnws ecieeS eeenceneeee sen 817 405 Complainants’ Exhibit Froment Description.............. 818 406 Complainants’ Exhibit Translation of Froment Description and Descriptive Matter on Froment Drawings.......... 825 409 Complainants’ Exhibit Fryer Hill Publication—The “Daily Herald Democrat,” Leadville, October 30, 1889......... 834 414 Complainants’ Exhibit Criley & Everson Publication (The Engineering and Mining Journal) ...............eece00- 837 416 Complainants’ Exhibit Statement of Profit, Lazard Ven- NN chee hhh ree ehe de cceihdesd BAe OO6 Kk 0002400 cerenee 838 416 Complainants’ Exhibit Table of Material and Results, EE aS chs ss tanks Hone tawes seks seseteeussens 838 416 Complainants’ Exhibit Statement of Expenditures in Agita- tion-Froth Process.............. eminucals nich ebcwndiese ve 839 INDEX, Complainants’ American Syndicate in Agitation-Froth Process......... Complainants’ Exhibit Statement of Tonnage Treated by Agitation-Froth Process at Broken Hill, Australia...... Complainants’ Exhibit Statement of Profits and Royalties om Agitation-Broth Process. .......cccccccsccsscccccves Complainants’ Exhibit Table of Sulphide Corporation Op- erations with Agitation-Froth Process.............ee86. Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Reports, March 25, 1903—The Cattermole process.............eeceeeees Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, May 5, IIIS TIPOCION iia netic cabs sacdoseenbeeciase Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report. September 24, 1903—Re Cattermole process..........ceseecceceees Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, November ee Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & DPicard Report, March 4, AN EEEE ESR OR REE Rae, oe On Pe tee er ey Bre aren Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, April 19 EEE Stee a eee ee ee ee Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, May 2, PE CAGE SaaSEh eis eS SORE oA cieSA eae oe ereene ees Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, May 18, SE stunweeus bain tine Obed Lae Twi as «aed seek wees Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, February ah GR babes nEcmebin ee das a Weweb meshed you takes y's Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, February aaah wee yds bse Rs nhc Dewan mses eed omnes Complainants’ Exhibit Higgins Report, March 2. 1905..... Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, March 3, SE ARAN Ra ordnns edesCeteu phi ined eee ete sed vi Complainants’ Exhibit Higgins Report. March 16, 1905.... Complainants’ Exkibit Sulman & Picard Report, May 3, DP SidwithitthstbwaneneechikistpuedaeekencudseGhs bon ees Complainants’ Exhibit Cable, Hyde to Hoover, January 20, NT inc behih iiCas ttsi ote eh 8 Cigig hee inl bi ieeiNh nie hh eri baked ws Complainants’ Exhibit Cable, Hoover to Hyde, January 21 aati thera inka bei ioe NK les o Re dhd wah eb ladip Wig tibow ost} owed Complainants’ Exhibit Cable, Hyde to Hoover, January 24 ah aah Eoks Snakes dala ses al aen baboon. coe Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, February 24, 1910 ee Complainants’ Exhibit Letter, Minerals Separation to Hyde, March 2, 1910 SHOOTS HEHEHE EH HERE EEE OHH FORESEES Complainants’ Exhibit Letter, Hyde to Minerals Separation, dite a ti tnsica ni inicio haatian Ab Wanna Sli erties & So wid Complainants’ Exhfbit Nutter Report, December 3, 1910... Complainants’ Exhibit Cable, Minerals Separation to Hyde, December 8, 1910 ee ee ee ee a ee ee rs Complainants’ Exhibit Hyde Report, January Pe Exhibit Statement of Expenditures by- ill Original. Print 840 = 417 841 418 841 418 842 419 g42 «419 851 423 854 425 858 427 860 429 867 438 874 487 876 438 880 440 885 442 &8s 444 891 446 895 448 899 450 912 457 912 457 913 457 913 458 914 458 918 460 919 461 923 468 lv INDEX. Complainants’ Exhibit Memorandum Re Managership of Minerals Separation American Syndicate, Limited...... Complainants’ Exhibit Letter, Hyde to Minerals Separa- SERS ATINEN, Eis Re eh iea a ese O ES Sea ee eS te tes Complainants’ Exhibit Letter, Minerals Separation to Hyde, PUES: RAMEE 0% e trate, and, in my opinion, the agitation boxes marked 1, 2 and 39h were for the purpose of beating air into the ore pulp, such as i usually done in Minerals Separation process plants, and of agitating the ore pulp for the purpose of forming the concentrate froth, which first appears in the initial spitzkasten a; and, in my opinion, the ore pulp, after having the initial froth removed, flows through the JAMES M. HYDE. 43 pipe to the mixing-box 4, where it is again agitated and aerated for the purpose of forming a concentrate froth in the second frothing- box 6, and so on through the mixing-box 5, frothing-box c, 82 the mixing-box 6, the frothing-box d and the mixing-box 7; end, im my orinion, in the smaller unit, the ore pulp, which I believe to be the concentrate from the first set of frothing-boxes, was fed into the mixer 8 and flowed from thence into the mixer 9, thence into the frothing-box f where a froth concentrate was taken off, the H remainder of the pulp flowing thence into mixing-box 10, where it WB was again agitated, and thence into the frothing-box g, where a froth Hi was taken off. (79—6) Cross-examination : ) The steps of complainants’ flotation process, which is the Agita- tion Froth process, are not always the same nor always taken in the same order on all ores, but in the application of that process to the .@ Butte & Superior ore the steps would consist of agitating an ore pulp, ,e which had been acidulated with sulphuric acid and to which had been added less than one per cent of an oily reagent; the agitation would take place with considerable vigor, after which the pulp would be conducted into a separating chamber where the sulphide mineral would rise as a froth, which could be flowed off and collected and q which would form the valuable concentrate. These steps would be ted until the required extraction of the valuable constituents from the ore pulp had been obtained. If it were necessary for me to test an ore for the purpose of de- 4g mining whether complainants’ process was applicable to it, and I ‘ found it necessary to make this test without apparatus, I og% would take the finely ground ore, mix it with water and ‘ reagents in a bottle, and shake the bottle vigorously. If the | gore was amenable to flotation concentration, some indications of the {formation of a froth would be made. If I had a testing machine, of which there are more than one type, I would perform the operation inthe machine and would vary the conditions in different tests on an to see which set of conditions gave the best results. The varia- tions I would try would consist of agitation with or without sulphuric wid, with different oily reagents, with agitating the pulp before acid it 4 should be added, with agitating the water, sulphuric acid and oily (98—7) reagent before adding the ore, with agitating the pulp to th @*™me extent with the acidified water before adding the oil, with using ode” of different temperatures, and, in fact, almost any combina- nd em OF Variation of these conditions that the indications given as I oj rent along seemed to warrant. . The testing plant at London consisted of eight mixers, I think, in 9 gernat we call the standard plant unit, connected with five spitzkasten, js nk the number is, entirely similar in appearance and apparent ng eration to the larger apparatus unit in the plant at Basin, Mon- ‘ch ema, together with means for feeding the pulverized ore, which at the eudon was fed dry to the first and second mixers. and tanks for themeening and collecting the products of any test. In these mixers 44 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. were agitators, and the ore, water, sulphuric acid, if used andi 84 oily reagent, were fed into the first or second mixer or perhaps! later in some tests, and the ore pulp was vigorously agitatedi: and then flowed into the initial spitzkasten, where a flotation froth! was removed. From near the bottom of this spitzkasten a pipe led! to the next mixer, where the ore pulp was again agitated and flowed§ | into the second spitzkasten; and so on. If it was necessary to useff! heated solutions in testing any particular ore, the solutions weref heated by adding steam to the pulp in one or more of the mixers, @' When in Australia T saw the operations of two of the large plantel at Broken Hill, New South Wales, wherein the Minerals Separation! process was employed on a practical scale. These plants were work ing on material, in one case coming directly from an ordinary welf™é concentration mill, and, in the other case, the material was zine! bearing tailings which resulted from former operations of ordinary wet concentration mills. In the first plant the material (81—8)MF coming from the wet concentration mill was dewatered and then fell? to the flotation plant, where it was mixed with sulphuric acid and@§ whatever frothing reagent happened to be in use at the time. Theg® ore pulp was heated by adding steam, azitated in mixers similar tof’ the ones already described, only larger, ‘owed into spitzkasten where flotation froths were removed, and so on until the operation w finished. The solution circuit was a closed one. The operation in the other plant was similar as to the flotation part, except that dm material was fed in regrinding pans, where the coarser par 85 ticles were reground to the requisite fineness and the whokm™m® pulp was then passed through a classifier which in part deg® watered it, and the thickened pulp went to the flotation apparatus? The agitators were rotated at a speed of about 200 to 225 revolutions §* per minute. . \ It is believed that the froth is produced in Minerals Separation’ t process by beating the ore pulp with sufficient violence to aerate solution, and that the resulting bubbles hecame attached to the mineral particles and when these have a chance to rise w a quid surface they do so, forming the concentrate froth. This explanation seems reasonable, but from the nature of the phenomena it is a thee retical explanation and open to the doubt which theoretical explaneii® tions usually are open to. 7 At the time of my visit to the Minerals Separation testing plant@® at Wales, the ore was being tested under one set of conditions, but L® understood that it had been tested under other conditions previous? and it is rather difficult to say whether such tests were successful a all results obtained are indicative and important, (82—9) In the Cattermole process it was usual to provide an upcast 6 water which washes the gangue mineral of the ore up and away from the granules which have been formed, the granules being heavy enough to sink through the upeast, and T understand that the ch difference in the results brought about by Minerals Separation 86 flotation process and the Cattermole process is due to the dif ference in the quantity of oil used. If in attempting to carry out Minerals Separation’s flotation pm Tessa z= JAMES M. HYDE. \dgcess I found that some of the metalliferous mineral agglomerated and sank to the bottom, I would alter the adjustment of operations step by step until I found a condition wherein sunken granules were not discharged with the tailings. I would try the following adjust- ments in my attempt to find proper conditions to produce flotation : (1) I would alter the rate of flow of pulp through the plant; (2) I would alter the speed of agitation; (8) IT would alter the quantity, or (4) the kind of oil used on the particular ore being treated; (5) T swould alter the dilution of the solution circuit with reference to salts dissolved therein; (6) I would alter the temperature of the solu- tion circuit; and (7) I would vary the internal arrangement of baffles or other diverting devices so as to affect the direction of flow of the ore pulp. All of there adiustments might have some effect or any of them might have an effect upon the formation of the agglom- errtions that T have described. It is likely that an inspection of a plant by one skilled, like myself, in the art would indicate to me the probable adjustment called for. T cannot say whether, if the oil supply needed readjustment, I would increase or diminish the supply gwhen the process was operating imperfectly. The effects are so various with different (88—10) oils under different conditions that it is hard to sav in advance what I would do without studving 87 a particular case of ore treatment where sinking agglomera- tions were being formed. I could in particular cases lay down a definite rule as to the course to be pursned to produce the flotation effect without that effect being accompanied by the settling of agglomerated masses of sulphide. If an ore were being treated and it was found that the readjustments previously mentioned by me did not diminish the agglomerating and sinking effect, and if the quantity of oleic acid used was in excess of the usual amount found necessary, T would lay down a rule Bthat the quantity of oleic acid should be diminished. When oleic acid is used, better results are obtained in a heated circuit than in a cold circuit. I have never experimented with solid oleic acid and do not know whether it would be impossible to produce flotation with lid oleic acid or not. It would be an advantage to liquefy oleic acid by heat in order to regulate the amount being added, but whether or not solidified oleic acid would be an advantage or a disadvantage I do not know. I would expect that when an oil was used that was viscid iat the temperature of the ore pulp and good results were not being obtained, better results would be obtained if the temperature of the pulp were raised. The use of the minimum quantity of oi] which can be used with- mt unfavorably affecting the recovery is important from the stand- Wpoint of economy. _ T have not had sufficient information about the Cattermole process to enable me to state in figures the exact point where Cattermole’s precipitation results in (84—11) contradistine- ion to the frothing of Minerals Senaration frothing process, and T resume that. with different ores, some experimentation would be essary to determine the point in question. 149 X Q. Referring to the operations which you saw at Basin, miana, you stated that the froth flowing into the launders was the 46 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. typical appearing agitation froth as made in plants using the Min. erals Separation flotation froth process. What are the characteris ties of this typical froth? A, It would be a bit hard to describe these characteristics in such a way that another could recognize the froth as being typical, but] have come to know this froth when J see it as I know my wife when I see her, though I doubt if I could describe her with sufficient acen racy so that she would be recognized if seen on the street by the per- son to whom I described her. 150 X Q. Perhaps you can describe some of the characteristic features of this froth, even if you cannot enable the Court to recog nize it when it sees it. Will you attempt to do so? A. It is usually a froth similar in some wavs to a sudsy froth and would be not unlike, I think, such a sudsy froth if it were imagine full of finely divided mineral matter.’ It floats on the surface: of water. its color depends on the color of the mineral contained in jf and forming a part of it, the bubbles are of various sizes and &9 there is frequently what micht be called a pitted condition t the upper or air surface of the froth due to the breaking off some of the bubbles. When oleic acid is beine used as the frothing agent, there is what might be called a toughness or persistency to the froth that can usually be noticed. (85—12) The Elmore vacuum process is a process in which oil and acid ar agitated with the ore pulp and the air is exhausted from the ves containing the pulp, the reduction in pressure causing air which was previously in solution in the water of the pulp to change ta hubbles of free air, and the sulphurie acid reacting with limestone in the ore to produce carbonic acid gas. I have heard, and it is my w- derstanding, that the carbonic acid’ gas and air both perform the same function in the Elmore vacuum process, one supplementin the other and each contributing to the same result. 158 X Q. Assuming that in a series of operations gases produce in different ways are introduced under precisely similar condition into a pulp containing ore to which insufficient oi] has been added to produce flotation by the effect of the oil itself, is it your judgmen us an expert in this art that these gases introduced into the pul under similar conditions would have anv different effect or function srowing out of the fact that they had been produced or generated in different ways? A. As flotation concentration is an experimental art, I am unable’ to give an intelligent judgment on this point, as TI have not 90 witnessed any experiments which would enlighten me in the matter. Putting aside the question of profit of the operation, 1 believe from the tests which I have made that salable concentrates eould be pm duced by the Minerals Separation flotation process from ores of th Butte & Superior mine containing as little as one per cent of zinc it the form of zine sulphide. Selected samples of zine ore may consi of practically pure zine sulphide, but an ore carrying twenty p cent of metallic zine is a good grade ore for (86—13) treatment br such process under the normal working conditions in establishedj* mining camps. ha te ae ek lee Oe ee ee pt ew maximum quantity of oleic acid mentioned would be used on pur per cent or eight per cent ores. On the (115—42) contrary, itis especially stated, beginning at line 96 on page 1 of the specifi- tation, | “The minimum amount of oleic acid which can be used to effect Hike flotation of the mineral in the form of froth may be under 1% of - ore, but this proportion has been found suitable and economical.” 43 X Q. We will refer again to lines 28-30, page 1, of the specifi- ation of the patent in suit, and in connection therewith I would like you to state whether 9/10 of one per cent is not “a fraction of ime per cent”? : § A. It certainly is, but the paragraph does not indicate that that isthe fraction that the inventors refer to. We have to seek further information in the specification to ascertain what particular fraction they are referring to by the expression “a fraction of one per cent.” 44 X Q. In treating an ore containing eight per cent of zinc as Bblende and the remainder consisting of nonmetalliferous gangue, ‘Bor, for that matter, containing any other amount of zinc as blende, amount of oil in pounds per ton would result from computing Mite same as .9 of one per cent on the ore? "BA. .9 of one per cent on 2,000 pounds would be 18 pounds. 45 X Q. Taking thé proportion of oil as .5 of one per cent, please @mpute the amount of oil to be used upon the ore referred to in ihe last preceding question. ‘B A. It would be 10 pounds per ton. 4% X Q. You have stated in discussing lines 28-30, page 1, of the lent in suit that it is necessary to seek further information in the ‘Mueification of that patent to ascertain what particular fraction of me per cent of oil is referred to. Will you kindly point out in ‘quis patent any passage definitely setting forth any particular frac- Gon (116—43) of one per cent that is applicable to the treatment of ms generally? A. I will examine the specification in its entirety and see what I find. The first reference to any proportion of oily substance found in the lines which you have referred to on page 1, lines $30. That paragraph, however, is not a statement of any par- lar quantity which the patentees recommend. It is simply a ment of a discovery which the patentees have made. The first definite statement which I find as to quantity of oily matter is given on page 1, line 81, after the patentees have stated the desirability of simple preliminary tests. At line 81, the nvees say: “To this is added a very small proportion of oleic acid (say, from 2 per cent to 0.5 per cent on the weight of the ore).” hese extremes represent from .4 of a pound per ton of ore to 10 ads per ton of ore. The patentees do not state on what par- ilar condition of the ore this variation of quantity depends, the it depends upon the percentage of zinc in the ore or some 6259 JAMES M. HYDE. 65 etna enalalh a een AL a 66 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. other quantity, but they do indicate that the selection of quantity between these extremes must rest with the person familiar with the art who practices the process and it is fair to assume that such per- son would decide how much oleic acid to use by the results of the simple preliminary tests suggested by the patentees. The next place in the specification where I find a reference to the proportion of oleic acid or oily matter is at line 99 on page 1, where I find the following statement: “The minimum amount of oleic acid which can be used to effect the flotation of the mineral in the form of froth may be under 0.1 per cent of the ore; but this proportion has been found suitable and economical.” (117-44) 0.1 per cent of the ore is two pounds to the ton. And further I notice that in all of the claims in suit the amount of oily liquid is specified either as a fraction of one per cent, as in claims 1, 2, 3 and 12, or as a small quantity in claims 9, 128 10 and 11, or in a percentage in the case of oleic acid .02 tof .50 per cent in claims 5, 6 and 7. 47 X Q. Please state how you would proceed in conducting a pre liminary test as referred to in the passage extending from line 61 to line 59, page 1, of patent 835,120 in suit. A. In the same way that I conducted my experiments which I have described in my previous testimony. I should take a weighed quantity of finely pulverized ore and a suitable quantity of water to make a fluid to mix it up; I should put them into a suitable vessel provided with an agitator; I should add a weighed quantity of acid and put in a small quantity of oily matter, noting, of course, the exact proportion of each material. In making my first experiment, assuming, of course, that I am a person skiiled in the art, I should use about the proportions that I had previously found to give satis factory results with other similar ores. If my first selection of pro portions of water, acid and oil gave satisfactory results, I should know that I had put in enough of each. I might then, for the pur jg poses. of economy, reduce the proportions of oil or water until I found the minimum quantity that would give satisfactory results with this particular ore. If, on the other hand, I did not obtain satisfactory results with the quantities of oily matter and acid which I employed, I should think one or the other of these substances had been used either in deficient or excessive (118—45) quantities, and I should use 129 my experience or judgment in changing the proportions for one or more further tests. 48 X Q. The teaching of the patent, as T understand you, consist in directions to perform experiments with different amounts of oil and acid until that amount is hit upon which produces a froth, and then adopting that amount, and that the determination of what is intended to be included within this patent is defined by a result as distinguished from any definition of means to secure such result Is this correct? ; A. As I understand it, the object of this invention as described - 2. a take te! ek JAMES M. HYDE. 67 jn the specifiation and claims is to extract as completely as practicable ‘the valuable metallic minerals from the ore. This result is to be accomplished in a certain way, which is de- geribed and claimed in the patent, that i is by agitating the ore in extremely fine powder in water which is sl lightl acidutated and to which a minute quantity of oily matter is added, these additions and the character of the agitation being such as to cause the metal- liferous particles to come to the surface as a froth, while the worthless gangue minerals remain at the bottom of the vessel. Now it is self- evident that no two ores are exactly alike, either in the nature of their metallic minerals or in the percentage, and it is equally self- ident that, that being the case, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down for all cases as to the quantities of acid or oily matter to be employed. All that the inventors can say in their specification and claims is the statement as to about how much, in general, 130 acid and oil they have found to accomplish the desired results on ores containing metalliferous minerals. I don’t think your question correctly expresses the (119—46) B teaching of the patent. It is not merely necessary to “produce a froth.’ One might produce a froth and not get out half the valuable material in the ore. Anyone skilled in the art would understand that he must conduct his preliminary tests until he has ascertained the amount of oil and acid which this particular ore requires for its successful working by the process of this patent. This process does not merely consist in adding oil and acid to the water containing the pulverized ore, but it consists in agitating, agitating it briskly, as the specification says, and agitating it so as to produce a froth vhich shall contain the valuable metallic minerals of the ore. 49 X Q. In following out the directions of the patent in suit, do you find anything in that patent to define the amount of oil to be wed other than the results secured by using different amounts of oil. sich results taking into account not only the production of a froth but the amount of valuable mineral carried by the froth, as you have suggested ? A. I find on page 1 of the patent, beginning at line 96, the follow- ng statement; which I have already quoted: “The minimum amount of oleic acid which can be used to effect the flotation of the mineral in the form of froth may be under 0.1 per cent of the ore; but this proportion has been found suitable and economical.” This paragraph certainly contains a direction defining the amount ) Sos which the patentees find to be suitable and economical. In ther place they have intimated that the quantity is not neces- il fixed for all ores and that the person skilled in the art prac- the process should make preliminary tests or, at least, may ke them, with his particular ore, to discover, if possible, a more itable proportion than 0.1 per cent or under. T am trying to 7) see what else your question calls for in the way of an wer. You ask me “do you find anything in that patent to define ‘amount of oil to be used other than the results secured by using ent amounts of oil”? I think the last three words in my quota- | ) | ¢ : d d r I ts 68 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. tion from the patent cover everything that is possible, where, in speaking of the proportions to be used, he uses the words “suitable and economical.” Necessarily the proportion suitable is the propor- tion that will cause the largest possible percentage of the valuable metallic minerals to rise in the form of froth, while the largest possible percentage of worthless gangue remains at the bottom of the vessel. And “economical” naturally refers to costs, which would mean the oil or its equivalent and the proportion thereof which accom- plished the desired result at the least expense. I don’t mean to say that I find in the specification that it is anywhere stated that one must select the oily matter and determine the proportion 132 thereof which will be most efficient and least expensive. Any- one skilled in the art would read them into any patent. The object of every patented process is to accomplish a result for com. mercial purposes and such considerations are always understood. 50 X Q. Following your argument, then, the proportion of oil suitable is the proportion indicated by the results, is it not? A. The best proportion, certainly. That, however, might vary in different localities, according to cost of materials. 51 X Q. By the expression “best proportion” I take it that you mean the proportion of oil which will make the process a success? A. Yes, a commercial success. The oil that might be (121—48) most successful as to minimum quantity might be too expensive for practical use. So, in considering the economical phase of the que tion, the cost of the oil necessary to accomplish the result has to be taken into consideration. That is indicated by the use in the speci- fication, at line 101, page 1, of the words “suitable and economical.” 52 X Q. In treating the ore mentioned in the passage beginning at line 72, page 1, of the patent in suit, said ore consisting of fer ruginous blends, galena and gangue consisting of quartz, rhodonite and garnet, and assuming that oleic acid costs 514 cents per pound, “black oil” 17% cts. per gallon, red oil (Standard Oil Comp..ny’s lubricant) 23 ets. per gallon, and Standard Oil Company’ 133 paraffin oil 22 cts. per gallon, said prices being in effect at the plant, which of these oils would you use and how much of each in carrying out the process of the patent in suit? ; A. I should use the one that would give the best results at the least cost. Of course, I can’t decide which one it would be sitting here in a lawyer’s office. I should have to go into the laboratory and try them in a preliminary test, and, as the patentees say, they have found 0.1 per cent of the ore to be a suitable quantity in case of oleie acid, I should probably begin with that proportion of each of the oils which you have mentioned. Of course, I should not be able t avoid thinking that the oil which cost the least per gallon would be most inviting for trial, but on making my preliminary test I might find that the process could be carried out successfully by using so much less of the most expensive oily material, which is the ole acid, that that would be the most economical. The choice, therefor. of oily material and the quantity which T should use would have wa be determined (122—49) by my preliminary tests. You have state JAMES M. HYDE. 69 in your question the price of oleic acid per pound and the prices of ‘the other materials per gallon. I think 51% cts. per pound would be about 41 cts. a gallon for the oleic acid. 53 X Q. Assuming that, from your viewpoint, oleic acid proves io be the cheapest and most efficient, what amount of it would you we in treating the ore previously referred to and described in the patent beginning at line 72, page 1, of the patent in suit? 134 A. I should use the smallest quantity that would accom- plish the result sought. I should probably begin with 0.1 of one per cent, because the inventors have stated that they have found that quantity to be suitable and economical, but, as they say the quantity required may be under that amount, I should naturally nduce the quantity until, for my particular ore, I found the mini- mum quantity that would accomplish the result of the process of the patent, suitably and economically. I have not mentioned all the considerations that would come in. It is not necessary for the access of the process that every particle of metallic mineral should le taken out of the ore. It often increases the expense of a process aormously to extract the last percentage of valuable mineral which itcontains, and it is, therefore, often very much cheaper to arrange aprocess of extraction so that one, or even several, per cent of valu- ible metallic mineral may be left behind in the gangue. That is one of the considerations that is covered by the expression “eonomical.” From the very nature of the case, it would be impossible to give in the specification of the patent in suit exact figures or to limit the process to exact figures as to oil, acid, etc., because no two ores are like in their (128—50) composition and consequently no two ores wuld behave exactly alike and the proportion of materials would varied with the variations in composition of the ore; even the ore fom the same mines would not be uniform and any person operating a process at a mine would be obliged, in order to obtain 3) economical results, to vary the proportion of materials. The patentees, it seems to me, have been as explicit as the nature the case permits in mentioning proportions. They have even lected, in their example, an actual ore, that of Broken Hill, New South Wales, and they have stated the proportions of acid and oleic id which they found by experience to be suitable for this ore. Variations in the ore interfere with the possibility of prescribing uct proportions of oil and acid for the treatment, and as great feision as is possible from the nature of the case is to be found ected in the example given in the patent in suit. the itis easy to determine the rate of flow of pulp and it is easy to mlate the rate of flow of oil by simple mechanical devices. If toil is contained in a suitable receptacle and has leading from it discharge pipe provided with an adjustable cock, this cock will be adjusted as to deliver any desired quantity of oil within a given ieee to match the flow of the pulp. ovis > X Q. Assuming that the constantly flowing pulp contains mgeantities of ore which vary from time to time, ore which neces- Mly varies in composition as you state, and assuming that it is 70 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. V8. necessary to maintain some relation between the quantity of oil and the quantity of ore, such relation varying with the composition of the ore, can you describe any means whereby oily matter could be added to the constantly flowing stream of pulp in the amounts necessary (124—51) to fulfill the conditions stated? A. The patentees have stated in their specification that, 1386 ~=in working that ore which they described, they found one tenth of one per cent of the weight of the ore to be suitable and economical. Now assuming that this ore varies from time t time in composition, that quantity was evidently sufficient with this ore, notwithstanding the variations. When the ore had one com position, it may have been more than was necessary. It would he pretty difficult and hardly pay for the trouble to vary the quantity of oil for such moderate variations in the composition of the om’ as would be likely to occur within short intervals with a finely pul verized ore which had been through the stamps or crushers and the mills, and any intelligent person skilled in the art, in charge of the operations at a mine, could hardly fail to make preliminary tes from time to time on his ore, as suggested in the patent, to see what if any, variations he should make in the proportion of oil employed. 76 X Q. I think vou have failed to answer the preceding question, which inquires whether vou can describe any means whereby oily matter could be added to the constantly flowing stream of pulp in the amounts necessary to fulfill the conditions stated, said conditions being the maintaining of some specified relation between the quan tity of oil and ore, said relation varying with the composition of the ore, and the quantity of ore carried by the water also varying from time to time. A. If I were running such a plant, I should test the tailings from time to time and, if I found they contained more than 137 minimum amount of valuable metallic mineral, I shoul increase the quantity of oil or the quantity of acid or both by opening the stop-cock a little wider in the (125—52) suppl pipe so as to discharge a little more oil and a little more acid in given time. That would be the easiest way to adjust proportions or I might discharge continuously the maximum quantity of oil an acid which I had found necessary to accomplish satisfactory resu and, when less than the average was required, permit the excess t go to waste. I might mention another thing that occurs to mem The water may be used over and over again in the system and, by maintaining a proper degree of acidity in this water, satisfactory results could be obtained. 77 X Q. After adjusting the oil supply from time to time as yo have stated you would do, you would not know, would you, whethe the amount of oil you were using came within the proportions sug gested in the patent in suit or not? A. I don’t think it is necessary that you should know whethe they come within the proportions mentioned in the patent. Son of the claims do not specify the quantity of oil. The specification having stated exactly what is to be accomplished and how it is tol accomplished does not limit the exact quantity of oil to be usa on os ee ale i a JAMES M. HYDE. 71 It gives hints in several places as to quantities which have been found suitable, has explained that it is a small quantity and | ee figures to show how small, but has nowhere undertaken to fix definitely the exact quantity of oil to be employed. 138 The person in charge of the plant, if he understood his business, could judge by the appearance of the froth and the tailings whether the process was going on satisfactorily. If he found it had been going on satisfactorily, he would know that he was using enough of the oil and acid for the purpose. If he feared that he might be using too (126—53) much, he could cut down the supply little by little until he discovered by examining tine froth and the tailings that the process was not working satisfactorily. The object in employing oily matter in the process of the patent is suit is clearly set forth in the specification. It is further clearly stated that, while a great variety of oils and oily substances may be employed successfully, there is a choice among these oily materials @ which depends upon the character of the ore, and the inventors ™ direct that a simple preliminary test should be made to determine which oily substance is suitable to carry out the process with any > particular ore. When the patentees specify, either in the specifica- ‘® tion or claims 1, 2, 3 and 12, a fraction of one per cent of oily matter, @ they speak of it in the first three of those claims as oily liquid, and '® in the twelfth claim as oil, thus providing for a sufficient quantity of any oily substance suitable for carrying out the process of the tent. J in claims 9, 10 and 11 no maximum figure is given for the amount @ of oil to be employed. The expression is simply “a small quantity n of oil,” which, as I understand the language of patent litera- 139 ture, would mean a quantity small enough to accomplish mM the result described and claimed in the patent, the specifica- tion of which clearly indicates that, although the quantity may be “variable, it is somewhere about one per cent or under. f The patentees have selected as the oil to be used in their example 1% oleic acid, and claims 5, 6 and 7 mention this particular oily sub- | stance and also mention a proportion which may vary from 0,02 to ia 0.50 per cent, having evidently found that this is a sufficient margin i of variation in quantity and, referring to the specification, I note MM that (127—54) they state, in speaking of the particular ore which “they select for their example, line 96, page 1, ‘“— “The minimum amount of oleic acid which can be used to effect YM the flotation of the minerals in the form of froth may be under im 9.1 per cent of the ore; but this proportion has been found suitable and economical.” Claim 1 limits the amount of oil to a fraction of one per cent, While claim 9 limits the quantity of oil only to such a small quan- ‘tity as will produce the desired froth, which quantity is necessarily variable with different oils and different ores and may in some cases ‘exceed one per cent. SE I certainly think it would be desirable, and I think very possibly ORF absolutely necessary, for the proper conduct of the process described M the patent in suit, that the oily body should be in a liquid form, 72 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. and if anyone undertook to use a solid oily substance, I think it would be perhaps absolutely necessary that the same should 140 be melted either before or after it is mixed with the ore and water, so that when the mixture is agitated, it will become so finely divided that it may attach itself to the metalliferous mineral to cause the same to produce a froth. I cannot see how it would be possible for a piece of solid fat, like pure stearic acid, for instance, to float about in a tank of water and succeed in producing a film on the minute particles of metalliferous mineral, and, in my opinion, nobody skilled in the art would be likely to select a high melting solid fat to carry out the process of the patent, although he might possibly be able to do it if he tried hard. Of course, I do not mean to say that a piece of solid fat, like stearic acid, a candle end, for example, might not contribute its part to the production of a froth if it has first been ground up with the ore, and thus thoroughly (128—55) diffused mechanically among the particles. When an ore carrying a small quantity of stearic acid introduced in this way is put through the process of the patent in suit along with a suitable quantity of oleic acid, the heat of the warm water would undoubtedly cause the oleic acid to assimilate the stearic acid. The mixture would then correspond to a cheap commercial oleic acid, and would accom. plish the result described and claimed in the patent. Comparing the process set forth in the patent in suit with that set forth in the Cattermole patents, which are referred to in the patent in suit, I should be decidedly of the opinion that the 141 process of the patent in suit would require the most violent agitation, because in that process it is necessary to entrain air into the mixture of ore and water in order to produce a froth, whereas in the Cattermole process no froth is to be produced, the metalliferous minerals are not to be carried to the top of the liquid; on the con- trary, it is the gangue minerals which are to be varried to the top, and this is accomplished by an upcurrent of water and not by the introduction of air. I should think that the agitation in the Catter- mole process would be likely to be more prolonged. 95 X Q. You have referred to certain preliminary tests recom mended in the specification of the patent in suit. Now, assuming that one skilled in the metallurgic art is informed of the fact that, when, under proper conditions, sulphide ores are pulverized and mixed with water, oil and acid, and then agitated, a froth carrying a sulphide is formed, I understand it to be your opinion that a simple preliminary test is all that is necessary to determine the proper proportions of oily matter and acid to produce a froth com taining the maximum amount of the sulphides; (129—56) that is the maximum amount within the commercial requirements. I this correct? A. It is. Of course, a person skilled in the art, in attempting to practice the process of the patent in suit, would have the benefit of all the information which is given in the specification of the patent; therefore, he would not be obliged to make random 142 experiments. He would probably start on a new ore br following the directions of the example. If the results ar OP OE Pe? ee "2s. sees wo —~a-. = oF mt Br8 FSR JAMES M. HYDE. 73 not satisfactory, he might modify the proportions according to his ‘best knowledge and see if he could improve the results, by varying the proportions of oil or acid or by selecting a different soil from the one with which he first experimented. I do not know whether the process of patent 835,120 in suit could be used successfully in treating an ore consisting of approximately twelve per cent chalcopyrite, fifteen per cent pyrite, sixteen per cent carbonate of iron, sixteen per cent dolomite and calcite and thirty- seven per cent of other gangue minerals. In operating with such an ore and using the amount of acid sug- ted in the patent in suit, the calcite and dolomite present would be likely to neutralize the acid, but, inasmuch as the acid is added simply to facilitate the process and diminish the probability of the gangue mineral appropriating some of the oil, it is not impossible that such an ore might be successfully operated by the process of the patent in suit. 106 X Q. If you found, as a result of experiment in treating the ore last referred to by us, that you succeeded in obtaining a froth, foam or scum containing a large enough percentage of the valuable components of the ore to be commercial, would the operation so performed come within (130—57) the description set forth in the patent in suit? A. I think it would. 143 No carbon dioxide of any consequence would be generated by the action of sulphuric acid npon the dolomite and calcite contained in this ore, because the quantity of acid recommended by the patent in suit is so small and carbonic acid gas is soluble in water. If a minute quantity of carbonic acid gas should escape, it would not modify the character of the process. The process would still be substantially the process of the patent, because the amount of carbonic acid gas which could possibly be liberated would be practically insignificant as compared with the amount of air which would be forced into the froth. 108 X Q. Is it your opinion as an expert in this art that, if the test referred to by Mr. Nutter were carried out in a bottle, as he describes it, with an ore containing substantial amounts of a car- bonate, oleic acid or other oily matters, and a mineral acid such as sulphuric acid being used, the resulting froth, in case a froth ap- peared, would be caused by the air introduced by shaking the bottle and agitating its contents, rather than by reason of the carbonic acid gas evolved by the action of the mineral acid upon the car- bonate? . A. I should infer that, if that experiment were made on the lines of the specification of this patent, that the resulting froth would be caused by the air introduced by shaking the bottle. Mr. Nutter has himself stated that he would make the experiment with or without mineral acid in order to see which set of conditions 144 gave the best result and that he would vary the tempera- ture. (131—58) 109 X Q. Do you consider that the conditions set forth by Mr. 74 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS, Nutter are within the terms of the specification of the patent i suit? A. I do; especially considering the fact that this is only a field experiment, made for the purpose of getting preliminary information with regard to the nature of the ore and not for the purpose of regulating the process to be employed in metallurgical works. It is stipulated that the defendant in the practice of a process of separating the constituents of ores by flotation at Basin, Montana, prior to the commencement of this suit, added sulphuric acid and commercial oleic acid, commonly known as candlemaker’s red oil, to the pulp containing the material operated on, but no stipulation nor admission is made as to the quantities of sulphuric acid ani commercial oleic acid so used. Complainants close their prima facie testimony. (132—59) TESTIMONY TAKEN ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT. Testimony for Defendant of Jesse C. Gibson. Burts, Montana, April 1, 1912. Direct examination : I am twenty-five years of age, and a resident of Butte, Montana My occupation is storekeeper for the Butte & Superior Copper Com- pany. Previous to becoming storekeeper, I had been for two and 4 half years a millman for the Butte & Superior Copper Com 145 pany and was employed by the Butte & Superior Coppe Company as an operator at the flotation plant at Basin, Montana, under the direction of Mr. Hyde, the defendant. Q. 7. State what was used in connection with the operation of the flotation plant. : A. Oil, acid and heat; that was all. I had charge of the operation of this flotation plant on one shift of eight hours per day from the latter part of July, 1911, unti about February 7, 1912. The Basin flotation plant consisted of a series of agitating boxe and spitzkasten ; there were six agitating boxes and three spitzkaste on the iurst machine; I am not certain as to the number of boxe on the cleaner machine. The pulp entered the first agitator-bor, flowed from there to the second agitator-box, from the second to th third and thence into the first spitzkasten. The tailings from the first spitzkasten went to the first agitator-box of the second cell, hene to the second agitator-box, and then to the second spitzkaste The tailings from the second spitzkasten went to the third cell whe there was (133—60) but one agitator-box. The tailings resulting from the last agitation went to the demp. The concentrates fm the three spitzkasten described above went to the first agitator-bot on the cleaner, thence into the first spitzkasten on the cleaner, # concentrate going to the concentrate-bin. The tailings from t first sptizkasten went to the agitator-boxes on the second cell of JAMES M. HYDE. 75 cleaner, and thence to the second spitzkasten. The con- 146 centrate made on that spitzkasten went to the concentrate- foe bin. The tailings from the cleaner were returned to the second cell of the rougher to be retreated, the rougher being the first three spitzkasten referred to by me. The acid was fed to the pulp in a launder approximately one hundred feet from the plant previous to entering the settling tanks and the oil was added in the first agitator-box in the first cell. The agitators were propeller- like blades mounted on vertical shafts driven by a belt. 1 have used the term “cell” as indicating an agitator-box or boxes and the spitzkasten to which the pulp flowed from the agitator-box or boxes. These are commonly referred to as units. I knew nothing about the so-called flotation process where oil and acids are used before starting to work at the basin plant. I was instructed by Mr. Hyde as to the regulation of the supply of oil and acid, to use oil and acid in such quantity as to produce the best result. I was told that the use of too much oil is indicated by a flat film on the surface of the water, the mineral forming globules and sinking; that too much acid is indicated also by the mineral not floating ; that when too little oil is used, there is no separation of the minerals and waste, and that too little acid makes a lower grade concentrate. The amounts of oil and acid to be used were left entirely to my own judgment. I used oleic oil and sulphuric (134—61) acid, and in operating the plant I did not weigh or measure the quan- 147 ‘tity of oil or acid with a view to using any proportion thereof relative to the amount of ore; and when I operated the flota- tion plant I had no knowledge of the amount of acid or oil by weight or measure which I was using or the proportion of the same to the amount of ore being treated. I was guided as to quantity by the results obtained and added more or less oil and acid as the need was indicated by the result of the operation. The frequency with which I made changes in the rate of supply of oil and acid varied with conditions, the change being made as often as needed to pro- duce the best results, to wit, high-grade concentrates and clean tailings. It varied greatly, sometimes changes being made so often asevery four or five minutes and sometimes not for half an hour. Heat was supplied to the oil in the oil tank which supplied the machine and in the first agitator-box on the first unit or cell. The ail which I used was a solid mass when received at the plant. (Mr. Gibson gave substantially the same account of Mr. Nutter’s visit to the Basin plant as was given by Mr. Nutter.) At the time of Nutter’s visit, the plant was not operating under normal conditions as to the character of feed. The mill was shut down and the flotation plant was being used to treat concentrates on vanners, the same being fed into the flotation machine by buckets. The vanners were machines in the mill which treated the slimes. The concentrates procured by Mr. Nutter upon his M8 visit to the Basin plant was not an average grade of con- _. centrate. I could not say at this time whether it was a higher or lower grade. I don’t remember what the concentrate run 76 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. at that time. It was not a representative sample of the concen- trate (185—62) produced by the machine, During the direct examination, counsel for complainants ob jected to the description of defendant’s apparatus and its operation as secondary and incompetent, with notice that this objection would be withdrawn if opportunity were given to complainants’ counsel and expert to inspect the apparatus, and the cross-examination was pro- ceeded with de bene esse, without waiving these objections, Cross-examination : The oil was fed to the flotation plant from an oil tank by means of a short pipe having a valve for regulating the supply. 1 should judge that the capacity of this tank was about twenty gallons. The acid was fed to the pulp before it entered the settling-tank and approximately one hundred feet from the flotation plant, from a small iron pot or kettle, through a pipe, with a valve. The ca pacity of this acid pot or kettle was about three gallons. A portion of the water into which this sulphuric acid was fed was wasted or flowed off before the pulp entered the flotation plant in the operation of the settling tank or dewaterer. The dewaterer was under my charge and there was a man stationed there to adjust it under my directions. I do not know what proportion of the water was 149 flowed off or separated in the dewaterer and I do not know what was the proportion of water to ore in the pulp that entered the flotation plant. Before the pulp entered the dewaterer, it had been treated over jigs and tables, where it had been separated and the slimes sent to the dewaterer and settled. (136—63) When I was instructed by Mr. Hyde as to the operation of the flotation plant, I was shown the appearancé of the machine when too much oil was applied and when too little oil was applied, and the appearance when the proper amount was applied, and this was shown to me by the actual operation of the machine. So also a to the amount of acid used, I was shown the conditions which | have described in the operation of the machine. Redirect examination: There was a large amount of water in the concentrate coming through the rougher and no water in the concentrate from the cleaner, that is, no free-flowing water. Recross-examination : In the rougher machine the level of water was kept at the level of the overflow lip, and in the cleaner machine the level of the water was kept slightly below the level of the overflow lip. (137—64) Seo = = "SES ASPaose>> = JAMES M. HYDE. Testimony of Defendant James M. Hyde. WasuineTon, D. C., April 24-29, 1912. Direct examination : I am thirty-eight years of age, a resident of Palo Alto, California, and a mining engineer and metallurgist by profession. I am the defendant in this suit. I am a graduate of the Department of Geology and Mining of Leland Stanford, Jr., University, in which institution I was instructor for one year in assaying. I was for one year curator of the museum of the California State Mining Bureau, and for three years professor of mining and metallurgy in the Uni- versity of Oregon. I have worked as a common miner and as a CB mill-hand in all parts of amalgamating, concentrating, cyaniding 0 ® and chlorination of mills. I have worked as an assayer and chemist, ’ B assuperintendent of mines and mills, and as consulting engineer and 0% valuer of mines. I have been a student of processes for the treatment it of different ores for the past fifteen years, and am the inventor of the improved process for flotation concentration of ores covered by United States patent No. 1,022,085. On January 18, 1910, I received the following telegram: “Can you come London, all expenses allowed in order to see process working and directors. If the directors are satisfied your appearance will offer one thousand pounds sterling and ex- 151 penses for a year in Mexico or elsewhere examination of properties. “HOOVER, “Care Mineration.” This cable was sent to me by Mr. T. J. Hoover, who was general manager for Minerals Separation, Limited, one of the complainants. Thad not heard from him for some two years’ time, but was familiar, ina general way, with the business with which he was concerned, and cabled a reply, stating that IT would leave for London as re- quested, upon (1838—65) receipt of an advance sufficient to cover expenses of the trip. The advance was forwarded aad T left Cali- fornia about the 28th or 29th of January, 1910, and went directly to London. The directors of Minerals Separation, Limited, seemed to be satis- fed that I was the proper person to undertake an investigation in varch of mining business in Mexico, and the directors endeavored to persuade me to make a contract for two years of my time. I declined to make a contract for more than one year, because T did not desire to be separated from my family for long periods; for the mason also that the Assistant Secretary of Education for the Re- public of Mexico had requested me to hold myself in readiness to undertake, as soon as opportunity could be arranged, the outlining and development of a system of industrial education for the people if Mexico, and I desired to avail myself of this opportunity. I did lot wish to contract for more than a year because a year’s employ- re 78 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. ment might indicate to both parties that it was not wise to 152 ~— continue our relations, and also because during the year [ would come into possession of an inheritance which would permit me to operate independently. While the contract matter was under discussion, I visited the test works of Minerals Separation in London and was shown the methods by which small and larger lots of ore were tested by the processes practiced by the company, and I also made a trip to Wales to witness tests upon the ore of the San Francisco del Oro mine of Mexico which had been shipped to England. The tests were not very instructive, as Mr. Hoover and the attendant in charge informed me that the results being obtained were very unsatisfactory, Upon my return to London I came to an agreement (139—66) with the board of directors to enter their employment for one year’s time The chairman, Mr. John Ballot, addressed a letter to me dated March 2, 1910, which reads in part as follows: “James M. Hyde, Esq., 62 London Wall, E. C. Dear Sir: As explained to you a private syndicate has been § formed in connection with my company for the special purpose of exploring the Republic of Mexico, with a view to finding mines, ores, dumps or tailings, preferably amenable to profitable treatment by the Minerals Separation processes, and to endeavor w 153 acquire such mines, ores, dumps or tailings, wholly or in part, if such can be done on sufficiently advantageous terms, or to secure the adoption of Minerals Separation processes by mine owners, under royalty. in cases where a direct interest cannot be acquired—and if successful, to form a larger company to handle the interests so acquired. To give effect to this, and after fully discussing the policy with your goodself, it has been agreed to retain you to give your services exclusively, to make the necessary investigation in Mexico, and to carry out the object and intention of the syndicate to the best of ”? your ability on the following terms and conditions: Then follow the terms and conditions as shown by the letter which I now produce. To quote further from the letter: “For the purpose of this understanding and to enable you to test ores on the spot, Minerals Separation will disclose to you its various processes, and give you all information in connection therewith, you undertaking to keep all such information confidential, and not to make use of any of it for any purpose except that of the syndicate, and further you undertake a agree to communicate to that com fig pany any ideas for improvement, modification or addition to the iM processes, mechanical or otherwise. which may occur to you, 0m which you may make, and such shall be the sole property of the Minerals Separation, and you will immediately, or whenevet 154 called upon, sign all documents necessary to protect the same by patent, if so desired, and to convey the title to that com pany by assignment or otherwise.” JAMES M. HYDE. 79 (The documents referred to produced by the witness were marked for identification, respectively “Cable, lLioover to Hyde, January 18, 1910,” (140—67) and “Letters, Minerals Separation to Hyde, March 9? 1910,” and they were later offered in evidence by the complainants with the same titles.) At the testing works of Minerals Separation in London, I was shown the bottle test referred to by Mr. Nutter in his testimony, and I recognized the bottle test to be the exact test given by Alcide Froment in his British patent No. 12,778. I also was shown certain tests which were conducted by agitating finely pulverized ore, water, sulphuric acid, and some oily substance in a rectangular wooden box having two glass sides, the agitator consisting of a vertical shaft suspended from above and within the vessel. When the agitation was completed, the mass was allowed to come to a rest, whereupon a considerable amount of froth could be seen upon the surface. The material was then reagitated while the contents of the vessel were drawn out through an aperture at the bottom and spread out upon the apron-plate of an overflow ‘settling-box, the oiled mineral matter floating off as a surface film, while the gangue and some of the metalliferous mineral sank to the bottom and was drawn off and retreated upon a device similar to the one from which it was drawn. 155 Mr. T. J. Hoover, general manager of the company, told me that this test did not represent the processes as actually operated by the Company, but was the closest approach to it which they had been able to devise on a small scale, and asked me to co- with him in devising a form of apparatus which would give , Fresults duplicating those obtained in the frothing process as devel- oped in Australia, so that I might have a machine with me by which sould be duplicated the results to be expected of the frothing (141—68) process, as developed in Australia. Together we designed machine similar to, and probably the same as, the machine referred pas the slide test machine by Dr. Chandler and Mr. Nutter in their imony. I had several of these machines built in London and mained in the city long enough to develop a system of tests by the eof this apparatus and to instruct Mr. Wilkinson, an attache of Minerals Separation, in’ the use of this apparatus. In connection with the designing of the slide machine, after Mr. Hoover and I had discussed many possible modes of introducing a beet of metal or hard rubber or something of that sort through a opening in a vertical agitating box in such a way as to divide ¢machine into an a and a lower part, after pulp had been filated in it, so as to allow the top water and float concentrates to be awn off through an opening in the side of the machine above he inserted horizontal partition, Mr. Hoover suggested that it should be possible to divide a machine into an upper and a lower por- tion and slide off the upper portion over a proper guide, as was finally done in the machine which we evolved. We dis- med the matter together, making several sketches, details of each contributed by each of us, and finally decided upon the form — = BREaBHrRaAeETP Seas 80 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. which was finally constructed. Such computations as to size as were necessary were made by me. The machine as originally designed was constructed under my supervision, was tested by me and was modified under my super- vision in a number of minor features after the first tests were made, The machine was constructed by Mr. Dearden, a model-maker and machinist, in London. I had several of these machines built in London and remained in the city long enough to develop a system: of tests by the use of this apparatus and to instruct Mr. Wilkinson, an attache of Minerals Separation, Limited, in the use of this appa ratus. I proceeded to the United States and thence to Mexico and devoted the year to a search for such (142—69) properties as might be worked to a profit by the Mexican Syndicate. The apparatus designed by Mr. Hoover and myself was so arranged that when a material had been sufficiently agitated to oil the metallif- erous matter, agitation ceased, and the oiled mineral matter with gas bubbles attached floated and was removed as a floating froth by sliding off the top half of the machine and discharging its content into some receptacle. I completed my year’s employment with Minerals Separs- 157 tion, Limited, and immediately after leaving the employ of Minerals Separation, Limited, I accepted an appointment as consulting engineer for the Oroya Exploration Company with offices at No. 1 London Wall Bldgs., London. The health of my only child prevented my wife and child from coming to London and therefore I planned to come to the United States at the earliest opportunity. For years prior to entering the employ of Minerals Separation, Limited, I had made a close study of the technical press upon or treatment. Q. 9. At the time you entered the employ of Minerals Separation, Limited, or while so employed, did you make any study of the patent situation from the legal point of view? A. As my time was devoted to the search for material which could be acquired by purchase, lease or otherwise, I gave very little study to the legal phases of the situation. I remember having read some part of the record of the suit filed against Minerals Separation, Lim ited, by the Elmores. Q. 10. Did your duties while employed by the Minerals (143—70) Separation, Limited, require you to be conversant with the patent protection which they might have or were going to have? A. They did not. They made very broad claims to me as posses ing monopolistic rights for the use of all flotation processes which involved the use of small amounts of oil, but, as I was specifically warned by them against seeking royalty business, except as a las resort, I never had occasion to prepare myself to defend their 158 _ rights in matters involving infringement of patents, ete. After leaving the employ of Minerals Separation, Limited, in order to assure myself of the actual status of the patent situation in regard to flotation processes, I read over all of the patents relating to this subject which I could get access to, and made as careful study as possible of the subject matter covered by them, and arrived at the JAMES M. HYDE. 81 conclusion that the only significant patents were the Everson United States patent 348,157, Fromer* British patent 12,778 and the Elmore yacuum process United States patent 826,411. To my mind the whole basis of flotation concentration was disclosed in the Everson and Froment patents. The only definite instructions given me by those connected with Minerals Separation, Limited, regarding the practice of the oil flota- tion process was that a preliminary idea could be obtained by making the bottle test and by carrying out a series of tests in the slide ma- chine. I was not instructed in detail with regard to the use of large testing machines further than that in all cases it is necessary to run varying the conditions as to amount of oil and acid used until such quantities were determined upon as gave the best results. I was informed by the (144—71) engineer of the company that apparatus of the type shown in the illustration of the patent in suit had proven unsatisfactory and had been abandoned. While in the employ of Minerals Separation, I did not see any commercial operations 159 carried on in which any process owned by that company was used. Toward the end of my year’s employment by Minerals Separation, Limited, I received a communication from the chairman of the com- pany asking me to undertake work outside of Mexico. I declined this work because it would require more time than the remainder of the year contracted for. I was thereupon requested to go to London and did so, arriving there a day or two before Christmas, 1910. There were negotiations between me and the company in London which, however, resulted in my concluding to sever my connection with the company. I was asked to outline a plan upon which we could work together for a greater length of time, being told that an American Syndicate had been formed to carry out such a search for business upon the whole American continent, as had been under- taken in Mexico by the Mexican Syidicate. I submitted a memo- madum outlining such plan which was considered by the members j@l the board of directors and discussed with me in particular by Mr. Francis Gibbs, Jr., one of the directors. A discussion of this matter a going on, with all probability that I should enter into another ontract with the firm, when I determined that it was not wise for )fme to continue longer with them, withdrew the memorandum re- te i paaang handed in a letter formally severing my connection th the firm. (The witness here produced the correspondence referred to and the | several documents were marked for identification, respectively, "60 “Letter, (145—72) Minerals Separation to Hyde, November S 23, 1910”; “Cable, Minerals Separation to Hyde, December 8, um; “Cable, Hyde to Minerals Separation, December 9, 1910”; “py Memorandum re the Managership of Minerals Separation rican Syndicate, Limited”; “Letter, Minerals Separation to mvde, February 1, 1911”; and were later offered in evidence by com- ng nts with the same titles.) hel / Was influenced in my determination to leave the employment of . 6—259 7 4 Firat wee 82 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. Minerals Separation, Limited, by a misunderstanding between that company and their consulting engineer and manager, Mr. T. J Hoover. I never told Mr. Edward H. Nutter that I accepted employment by Minerals Separation, Limited, for a year only in order to be free at the end of that period to make a more favorable contract with the company or else to make use of my knowledge of flotation concentra. tion for my own purposes. About the first of March, 1911, I accompanied Mr. H. C. Hoover, with whom I was associated in the Oroya Exploration Company, to the United States. Mr. H. C. Hoover was offered a participation in a bond issue which was being considered by Hayden, Stone « Com pany for the Butte & Superior Copper Company, and at Mr. Hoover's request I accompanied a Mr. Kuehn to Butte, Montana, to examine the property and to make tests of the ore to determine the best method of treatment. Mr. H. C. Hoover asked me to determine whether the Butte & Superior ore was amenable to a flotation proces, I had a slide machine made at Butte and reported the result 161 of my tests to Mr. H. C. Hoover. The manager of the Butte & Superior Copper Company asked for a report of my tests but I replied to the effect that I could report only to (146—73) Mr. H. C. Hoover. Later Mr. Hoover informed me that he was not goi to participate in taking up the bonds to be issued by the Butte { Superior Copper Company and I made a report to the Butte & Supe rior Copper Company and was requested to and did install an experi mental machine for that company at Basin, Montana. This m chine was first operated about the first of August, 1911. After this test machine had proven that the new process which I had worked out could be successfully employed, a larger machine was built am: this one was abandoned. The machine is not now in existence The machine was operated intermittently for between one and tw months. The machine was destroyed for the reason that the spae was needed for other purposes. I produce a sketch of the experimental machine at Basin. (Th sketch is in evidence as “Defendant’s Exhibit, Hyde Sketch of Expe imental Machine.’’) The plant consisted of two parts, a machine known to the operator as a rougher machine, and generally designated on the sketch R. M., and a se-ondary or cleaning machine designated on the sketel as ©. M. The rougher machine consisted of six agitating compa ments and three overflow settling-boxes. Five of these agitating com partments were built together in the form of a rectangul 162 box divided by partitions into compartments. To this b were attached two of the overflow settling-boxes. The remai ing portion of the rougher machine consisted of one rectangular ag tating compartment, connected with an overflow settling-hox. each of the agitating compartments an impeller suspended and tached to a vertical shaft was provided to act as an agitator. cleaner machine consisted of four agitating compartments and ¢ overflow settling-boxes. Three of the agitating compartments we built together in the form of a rectangular box, divided into th a A ea aes, JAMES M. HYDE. 83 =» ‘sections by partitions. (147—74) To this box was attached one of the overflow settling-boxes. The remaining portion of the cleaning machine consisted of one rectangular agitating compartment con- nected with an overflow settling-box. In connection with the con- centration machine proper, two pulp thickening tanks were used, in which the pulp to be treated was separated from as much clear or nearly clear water as possible, in order to prepare it for flotation treatment. Referring to the sketch, I will trace the passage of the ore through the pulp thickeners and machine. The material to be treated, which consisted of fine portions of the ore removed by classifiers from that portion of the ore which was treated by other devices, flowed to the pulp-thickeners through the thin pulp launder marked T. P. L. to the plup-thickener designated as P. T. A small amount of sulfuric acid was added to the pulp as it flowed to the pulp-thickener from the acid-pot, A. De by means of a pipe, the flow being regu- 163 lated by the acid-valve A. V. The thickened portion of the pulp, which was to serve as feed for the flotation machine, was drawn off from the bottom of the pulp-thickeners by the feed- valves F’. V. and F. V.’, and flowed to the flotation machine through the feed launder F. L. The clear, or nearly clear, water flowed off to waste over the end of the pulp thickener marked C. W. O. The feed launder F’. L. discharged the ore to be treated into the agitation compartment A’. Into this compartment live steam was discharged through the steam-pipe S. P., and red oil was fed from the oil-pipe 0.P. The pulp, after being agitated in A’, flowed through an aper- ture into A*, in which it was further agitated, and from which it flowed through an aperture into A*, in which it was further agitated. From A* the pulp flowed through a practically square (148—75) opening into the settling-box designated as S. B.1. This settling-box @was so attached to the box containing the agitating compartments that the partition dividing A* from A‘ was opposite the center of the wtiling-box. Over the discharge lip of the settling-box S. B., float- ing metalliferous minerals with considerable free-flowing water con- ining gangue minerals overflowed continuously into the launder marked R. C. L. That portion of the pulp which was not drawn over the di-charge lip into the concentrates launder flowed from the werflow settling-box through the valve V to a pipe leading to a pump marked Pump 1, by which it was elevated and discharged into 164 the agitating compartment A‘, in which it was agitated fur- mm ther, and from which it flowed into the agitating compart- ment A° for further agitation. From A‘ it flowed through the square M@opening into the settling-box S. B.?, from the overflow lip of which the floating metalliferous matter with considerable free-flowing water Montaining gangue minerals was continuously discharged into the ugh concentrates launder. Through the valve V’ that portion of he pulp which was to be further treated was discharged into a pipe, rough which, by means of an hydraulic elevator and by force of avity, it flowed into the agitating compartment A®*, from which, agitation, it was discharged through a practically square aper- ee 84 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. ture into the overflow settling-box 8. B.*, from the discharge lip of which was discharged the last portion of the concentrate recovered from the ore, together with a considerable amount of free-flowing water carrying gangue minerals in suspension. By means of the valve V”, the tailings were discharged to waste. The concentrates drawn off over the discharge lips of the settling-boxes of the rougher machine flowed to a pipe, through which (149—76) they were forced into the first agitator compartment A’ of the cleaner machine by an hydraulic elevator. After agitation in A’ they passed through a opening into A’, and thence on to A®, being agitated in each of thes compartments, and flowed through a aeititeally square opening inte the settling-box S. B.*.. Upon the surface of the water in this over flow settling-box, the concentrates piled up as a tenacious froth 165 3 or 4 inches thick. The water in this settling-box wa maintained at such a level by the manipulation of the valve V’” that no free-flowing water overflowed from it, but the concen trates piled up and flowed over the discharge lip as a thick mass into the clean concentrate’s launder C. C. L. A portion of the material which was not drawn over the discharge lip was passed on to the agitating compartment A’ through the valve V’””, and a pipe through which it was forced by an hydraulic elevator. After being r agitated in A’, the material passed through a practically square opening into the settling-box S. B.6 When the amount of concer trates forming upon the surface of the water in S. B.° was sufficient to allow the semi-dry concentrates to be drawn off over the discharg lip without any free-flowing water, they were so drawn off as from S. B.*. When the amount forming was too small to allow this, no concentrates were drawn off over the discharge lip, the whole con tent of the machine being discharged through the valve V* into pipe, through which it was forced by a steam jet to pump 1 an returned to agitating compartment A‘ for further treatment. Th concentrates produced by the cleaner machine flowed through a pip to pump 2, by which they were discharged into the shipping bin. In operating the experimental machine at Basin, the amounts d oil were determined at all times by an observation (150—77) of th results obtained and by varying the flow of acid and oil i 166 such way as to give what appeared to he the best results. Q. 36. Have you ever found any better means of regula ing the amount of acid and oil than by an observation of the resul secured ? A. I have never found any other means which can be made use¢ I met Mr. Edward H. Nutter in Montana on two different ote sions, or rather at two different periods. While engaged in makin the examination of the Butte & Superior property with Mr. Kueh I met Mr. Nutter in Butte on a number of occasions, and later m him at Basin. On both occasions he informed me that he was .the as a representative of Minerals Separation, Limited, or Mine Separation American Syndicate, Limited. Q. 40. When in England, in the employ of Minerals Separati Limited, did you witness any tests made with a large testing appal tus owned by Minerals Separation? JAMES M. Hyr®. 85 A. I saw the tests which have previously been referred to as being made in South Wales. The large test machine in the London works was not being used at the time of my first visit to England, because of alterations which were being made in the plant. During the period of my second visit to England tests were being carried on in a special machine devised by Mr. Nutter, which machine I saw in gperation one or more times, but I was informed that its results were not entirely satisfactory. Q. 43. You have referred to a U. 8. patent upon a flotation 167 process. When and how did you come to invent the process described in this patent? A. I take it that you refer to U, S. patent 1,022,085, and shall formulate my answer accordingly. (151—78) While engaged in making tests upon small quantities of the ore of the Butte & Superior Copper Company in the small test apparatus which I had made at the foundry in Butte 1 was surprised to find that the concentrates obtained were not of as high a grade as I had anticipated from a careful study of the ore. I therefore examined the concentrates and found that they contained an apparently con- siderable amount of free gangue particles. The thought occurred tome that if the froth which was first formed was retreated by itself, it would be possible to disentangle and drop out a considerable por- tion of this worthless material. 1 therefore took the froths obtained from the treatment of a portion of the ore and after cleaning out the small test machine returned these froths to the machine, together with a sufficient amount of water, and reagitated the mass thor- oughly. The bulk of the metalliferous mineral again floated and, n assay, was found to be of higher grade than the concentrates which had been produced by the procedure which I had previously followed. I followed this matter up and found that whereas the concentrates produced without retreatment would contain from 48 fo 51 per cent of zinc, it was possible to raise the grade by retreat- ment in the small test machine to as high as 55 per cent. 168 Consequently, when I came to build a test machine at Basin, I planned for a machine consisting of a rougher and cleaner, and aapoe to use the rougher to make as complete a recovery as ible, and the cleaner to raise the grade of the concentrates as lich as possible. When this machine was installed it was soon apparent that the test way to achieve the results desired was to maintain such an over- fow of concentrates and free-flowing water over the discharge lip of the overflow settling boxes (152—79) of the rougher as would in- sure the complete and rapid removal of all metalliferous mineral matter which rose to the surface of the water. This involved the werflow with the concentrates of a considerable amount of suspended gingue matter. The concentrates on the surface of the overflow set- ing-boxes of the rougher machine were usually thin and light col- ied. It was found possible to pile up the concentrates upon the sur- te of the water in the overflow settling-boxes of the cleaner ma- tine to such a depth that the water-level could be kept so low that ere was no free flow of water over the discharge lip but a constant 86 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. or intermittent sloughing over of a thick froth of cleaned concen- trates. It was soon apparent that the tailings resulting from the cleaning operation were too valuable to be thrown away and an ar- rangement was consequently made by which they could be carried back to the rougher machine and further treated. As it was found very difficult under the conditions met at 169 the mill to produce a pulp sufficiently thick to be advantage. ously treated, the thought occurred to me that sulfuric acid might advantageously be made to act as a coagulant of the slimes in the pulp-thickener, and thereby perform a useful and added function. This was tried and was found successful. The process as covered by the patent was therefore largely developed in the course of these experimental operations, the matters of manipulation, ete, being learned during the first few days in which we worked. Q. 44. What is the composition of the ore of the Butte & Superior mine which you have treated by a flotation process of separation? A. The ore varies so much in its content of its various constitu. tents that it is impossible for me to give you (153—80) a chemical analysis which would be typical of the whole mine. Mineralogically, the ore consists of zine blende, a small amount of galena, varying amounts of pyrite and copper minerals, which are usually very small in quantity, quartz, altered granite, in which most of the felspars are kaolinized, and rhodonite and rhodochrosite (respect- ively the silicate and carbonate of manganese). The principal value of the ore is due to its content of blende or zine sulfid. Q. 45. In your experiments with the Butte and Superior ores have you made any observations of the quantity of oleic acid or other oil used in different experiments, and if so, with what result? A. I have experimented in my small test machine, usin 170 500-gram charges of ore with amounts of oil varying from f of 1 ce. to 9 ce., getting very satisfactory results with both the smaller and larger amount of -oil, the oil referred to being the impure oleic acid or red oil used in the experimental plant at Basin. A typical test with the use of a°very small amount of oil gave results as follows: The pulp treated was a sample of ore from the mill which assayed 23.3 per cent zinc; the concentrate obtained from treating a 500-gram portion of this ore weighed 204.9 grams and contained 52 per cent of zinc; the tailings weighed 283.5 grams and contained 2.2 per cent of zinc. This test was carried out in the slide test machine, using 2 cc. of a 50 per cent solution of sulfuric acid and .65 ce. of oleic acid. The actual recovery of zine in this case amounted to 91.4 per cent. As the specific gravity of the im pure oleic acid used is approximately .9, the actual weight of impure oleic acid used was .585 gram. This is equivalent to 2.34 pound per ton of ore. (154—81) In a test in which 500 grams of ore containing 20.3 per cent of zine was treated in the small test machine with 9 cc. of oleic acid 1 ce. of concentrated sulfuric acid and approximately 1700 ce. @ water at a temperature of 78° Fahrenheit, 217 grams of conett trates containing 46.5 per cent of zine were obtained, and 283 grams of tailings containing .6 of 1 per cent of zinc. The weight of im JAMES M. HYDE. * - 87 pure oleic acid used in this case was 8.1 grams, equal to a rate of 32.4 pounds per ton of ore. This is equal to 1.62 per cent on the 171 weight of the ore or 5.3 per cent of the weight of the metal- liferous mineral contained in the ore. The percentage of re- covery of zinc in this test amounted to 99.4 per cent as figures from the weight of concentrates and their assay value and as 98.4 per cent when figured by subtracting the total zine content of the tail- ings from the total zine content of the portion of ore treated. All assays quoted by me in discussing these tests were made by W. H. Hocking, of Butte, Montana. I have tested the ore similarly with cotton-seed oil, using a sam- ple which I obtained from the Fair Drug Company, of Butte, Mon- tana, and getting phenomenally high recoveries with amounts vary- ing from .27 of a gram to 18 grams per charge of 500 grams of ore or through a range ef from 1.08 to 72 pounds per ton of ore. Using .3 of 1 ec. or .27 gram of cotton-seed oil in treating a 500 gram charge of ore containing 21.3 per cent of zinc, I obtained con- centrates assaying 50.6 per cent zine and tailings assaying 1.3 per cent zinc. The percentage of recovery as figured by formula was 96.3 per cent. Using 5 ce., of 4.5 grams, of eotton-seed oil in treating 500 grams of ore of the same lot, I obtained concentrates (155—82) containing 45.4 per cent zine and tailings containing .8 of 1 per cent of zine, the indicated recovery being 96.5 per cent. Using 10 ce., or 9 grams, of cotton-seed oil in treating 500 grams of ore of the same lot, I obtained concentrates containing 49.5 per cent zine and tailings containing .7 of 1 per cent of zinc, 172 the indicated recovery being 98.1 per cent. The amount of oil used in this case was equal to 5.6 per cent of the weight of metalliferous mineral present in the parcel of ore. Using 20 ec., of 18 grams, of cotton-seed oil in treating 500 grams of ore of the same lot, I obtained concentrates assaying 51.5 per cent of zinc, tailings assaying 1 per cent of zine and an indicated vem recovery of 97.2 per cent. The amount of oil used in this test was equal to 11.2 per cent of the weight of metalliferous minerals in the ore treated. All of these tests with cotton-seed oil were made upon a sample of ore containing 21.3 per cent of zinc. In each test 1 cc. of pure sulfuric acid was used, and, in all cases, the concentrates were re- covered as a froth. By Mr. Williams: It is noted that the tests above described by the itness not having been made in the presence of opposing parties, the observations and conclusions of the witness are objected to as not the best evidence, unless an opportunity is afforded to complain- nts to repeat these experiments by supplying the complainants with ficient quantities of the ores used in the conditions in which they ere used in these experiments, and also, if necessary, of the other reagents. With this reservation, no objection is (156—83) made to ihe assay figures upon the ground that the man who made the as- sis not produced as a witness. 88 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. When I commenced to test the Butte & Superior ore, I investi- gated the sources of oil supply, and the only oil produced in 173 the vicinity was that made by Charles T, Perry & Company, of Helena, Montana, at their soap and candle factory. | obtained samples of Perry & Company’s red oil and also samples from other companies, and determitied that Perry’s red oil was more satisfactory than other materials available. It is the only oil pro- duced in the Rocky Mountain region, with the single exception of some petroleum products, which do not give as commercially sue- | cessful results. In the vicinity of the pulp-thickeners and the flotation machine a decided odor of hydrogen sulfid was evident, which I attributed to the re-action of sulfuric acid upon the zine sulfid in the ore. Perry & Company delivered oleic acid to us in drums or barrels, the oleic acid always being in a solid or semi-solid condition. I have never seen a bairel opened in which the oleic acid was sufficiently fluid so that the whole content of the barrel could be poured out through the bunghole. I therefore heated it and brought it into the fluid condition necessary in order to use it in the flotation process, I do not know of any process of oil concentration which is univer- sally applicable to all sulfid ores. I have attempted to work out a successful method of treatment of ores containing very finely-divided chaleocite, copper sulfid, without being able to get commercially use- ful results, Many sulfid ores containing sulfids of lead, zine, (157— 84) iron and copper could be made to yield tailings very free from sulfid, but the resulting concentrate containing the differ- 174 ent sulfids mentioned is scarcely, if any, more easily mar- ketable than the crude ore from which it has been concen- trated. There are very few ores which can be successfully treated by oil concentration alone. Cross-examination de bene esse, not waiving objections and notices heretofore stated and given: I am paying the expenses of the defense of this suit with the ex- clusive right to use in the Butte district the process covered by my United States patent No. 1,022,085, that exclusive right being granted to the Butte & Superior Copper Company for such sum of money as is necessary to cover the expenses involved in the defense of this suit. | X Q. 72. From the letter marked for identification “Letter Min-, erals Separation to Hyde, November 23, 1910,” which you have produced, I quote the following: “After attending to the above matters, please proceed to Butte, Montana, and there go into the Zinc situation with the same minute care which has attended your investigations of the various fields in Mexico. Also test the tailings and various products you can secure from the copper mines and mills, say as little about your connection as is considered with getting information.” Was not the Butte & Superior Copper Company an important ele- ment of the zinc situation in Butte, Montana? A. To the best of my knowledge and memory, the name of the FREY @ axa n—- Oo = O&O ~-. JAMES M. HYDE. 89 Butte & Superior Copper Company has never been mentioned 175 to me by anyone connected with Mineral Separation, Lim- ited. I do not doubt that they knew of that property and of Senator Clark’s adjoining property, from which zine concentrates were being shipped to Beer, Sondheimer & Company for treatment, through Beer, Sondheimer & (158—85) Company who were asso- eiated with them in the Mexican syndicate, in whose behalf I had been retained to give my services for one vear exclusively in search- ing for ventures in Mexico. These two properties are an important feature of the zinc situation at Butte. X Q. 73. As a matter of fact, the mines at Butte are principally eopper, and the two properties that you have mentioned are about the only zine mines. This is true is it not? A. The properties which T have mentioned are the most important producers of zine in the Butte district, in which, until the last year or two, no attempt had been made on a large scale to make use of the zine ores which occur in great quantity in a number of properties. In the Butte & Superior mine and Senator Clark’s Elm Orlu mine, which is the mine I have referred to in my answer to the previous question, the zinc ore is of greater puritv than in other parts of the district, but in one section of the district I understand that practically all of the mines contain considerable zine, and I am informed by the officers of the Amalgamated Copper Companv that many of the large copper producers contain notable amounts of zine-bearing ore of such grade that they should ultimately be large contributors to 176 =the zine output of the camp. It is my private belief that Butte will eventually become as important a factor in the zine industry of the country as it is now in the copper industry... (Witness identifies the letter described by him as delivered to Minerals Separation American Syndicate, Limited, in severing his connection with that concern, and it is marked for identification “Letter, Hyde to Minerals Separation American Syndicate, January 17,1911.” It (159—86) was later offered in evidence by the com- plainants with the same title.) My equipment for testing ores while in Mexico included one or more slide machines sent to me from London and such small motors as I was able to make use of in places where I worked. It is my recollection that I made bottle tests such as T have referred to while in Mexico, although IT have never, while with Minerals Separation, made very many tests of that type, as I had the means at hand for doing quantitative work. With proper manipulation, such a bottle test is practically absolutely conclusive as to whether or not the sulfid contents of an ore could be made to float. This test was held in so high esteem by Minerals Separation, Limited, that T. J. Hoover, their chief technical adviser, assured me that it was useless for me to burden myself with heavy test apparatus, because the bottle test would always give an indication of what could be done with an ore, and it was a safe guide. as to whether or not an ore tested by it was worthy of further investigation and that it would be 177 saving of time to rely upon the London test works to make all quantitative tests, but, in deference to the wishes of the Board 90 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. of Directors that I should be able to report as to quantitative results It obtained in the field, we considered it worth while to devise and make 4t field use of the slide test machine. X Q. 88. In the flotation separation apparatus used by you at }t Basin, Montana, what percentage of sulfuric acid was employed in the pulp solution which was fed to the first agitating-box? A. I have no absolutely definite information upon this point. il X Q. 89. What was the consumption of sulfuric acid per ton of | d ore treated, on the average? (160—87) A. I never had any absolutely reliable information as to the exact | n tonnage of ore which was being treated, and can therefore not give absolutely reliable information with regard to the average consump. tion of sulfuric acid per ton of ore treated. X Q 90. Is it not a fact that the cost of the sulfuric acid is an essential element in determining the commercial value of such a process as you used? A. It is, but the conditions under which the operations were car- ried out at Basin were such that it was not possible there to determine the actual commercial value of the process as practiced. 1 X Q. 91. What is your present knowledge as to the cost or con- sumption of sulfuric acid per ton of ore in this process? fl 178 A. From reports prepared by Mr. Smith, who was taking § , samples while tests were being run with the experimental ma- chine, it was indicated that the consumption of_ sulfuric acid J « amounted to from a quarter to a half-pound per ton of ore treated, when it was used in the particular way indicated in my patent and practiced at Basin, that is, by being added previous to the thickening of the pulp. The reason I have referred to the information as not absolutely reliable was because the calculations as to tonnage were based upon the weight of quart samples of the feed pulp which were taken from time to time, as was also the number of gallons per minute flowing through the plant. The percentage of solids in the feed was deter- mined by reference to a chart prepared by Smith, giving the per- centage of solids in a quart of pulp for different weights of the quart of pulp. The chart and method have since been demonstrated to be so unreliable that no common factor even can (161—S8) be used for corrections of its errors and the reports based upon such observa- tions are so inaccurate as to be unworthy of consideration as evi- dence. ; X Q. 96. I take it that you have no doubt that the pulp which was fed to your flotation plant and entered the first agitation box thereof contained less than 1 per cent of sulfuric acid? A. It is probable that it did not contain more than 1 per cent. X Q. 97. It seems to me a reasonable conclusion that it con- tained much less than one per cent of sulfuric acid. Do you 179 agree with me as to this? A. It is reasonable to so assume, but, as the amount of acid used in proportion to the ore treated was not accurately determined and was sufficient to cause such a reaction upon the ore as to make the odor of hydrogen sulfid apparent both at the pulp-thickeners and in the flotation plant, I would not feel justified in committing myself nt SoS oO cw Ees~ f JAMES M. HYDE. 91 to any definite conclusion as to what amount was used in proportion to the amount of water or ore. X Q. 98. What became of the sulfuric acid in the overflow from the thickener in which sulfuric acid was added to the pulp? A. It passed off with the overflow water which flowed to waste. X Q. 99. Referring now to the typical test first described by you in your answer to Q. 45, at what temperature was this test con- ducted ? ae I have no record of what temperature at which this test was €. X Q. 100. What is your best recollection? (162-89) A. My best recollection is that while making the series of tests of which this is one, it was my custom to put into my machine the hottest water which was available, which was frequently at almost boiling heat, but which would be cooled by contact with the machine to a temperature of approximately 60-65° centigrade. As this prac- tice was not always followed, and I was performing many tests, I cannot say that I have any definite memory as to the condi- 180 tions of temperature under which this test was made. X Q. 101. You say that you used a sample of ore from > pam Please more definitely describe the sample which you A. My note-book bears the following record as a title to this test: “Slime Table Heads plus alum, four days.” My recollection is that this is material which was collected over a period of four days’ time as a sample of the material being treated by the Wilfley tables which were treating what was called a fine feed. This was the material which was later used as the feed for the flotation test ma- chine. The reference “plus alum”’ refers to the fact that a very small amount of alum had been added to the pulp, as collected, in order to settle the slimes so that clear water could be turned off, and it would not be necessary to dry down the whole sample which filled several half barrels. My tests have indicated to me that the use of alum in this way does not disadvantageously affect the re- sults to be subsequently attained in treating ore by a flotation X Q. 102. Continuing my reference to the physical test first de- sxribed by you in your answer to Q. 45, please supplement your de- sription, more particularly as to the speed of rotation of the agi- tator blades, the diameter thereof, and the period of time and the number of times the agitation was carried on, and any other par- ticulars that may be necessary (163—90) in order to reproduce this test. Sie A. I have no description in my notes of the exact dimensions of the test machine used, but, from memory, would state 181 that the approximate width of the slide machine was prob- ably 4 or 5 inches, the probable diameter of the impeller, 3 or 31%4 inches, The impeller was a simple, cross-like metal agi- tator having two cross-arms attached to a hub. These arms had a height of approximately one-half inch and a thickness of not over probably an eighth of an inch. This impeller was attached to a 92 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. vertical shaft introduced into the agitating chamber through a stuffing-box or gland in the bottom of the agitating-box, and was driven by an electric motor, power being transferred to it by a small belt. I have absolutely no record as to the speed, it never hav- ing been determined, and having varied through a considerable range at different times, because the motor was upon a movable block or board, and the belt frequently ran so loose that the full — was not transmitted to the impeller. The agitation was risk. In most of the tests of the series from which this one is taken the pulp was agitated for from twenty to forty seconds, when it was allowed to come to rest, and after the gangue material had settled sufficiently to show clear water through the window in the side of. the machine, the concentrate floating in the upper portion of the machine was removed by sliding the upper half of the machine forward and emptying its contents into a pan. The upper portion of the machine was then pushed back into position, clamped into place, and sufficient water added so that about a quarter of an inch of water was visible through the window in the upper half 182. of the machine. The operation of agitation (164—91) and removing of froths was repeatedly performed so long as a material amount of concentrate was produced by each operation. The time of agitation was as before. Usually but two portions of concentrate were removed, a third agitation rarely giving enough added concentrate to be of consequence. I believe that the manipulation just described was that by which the results cited in the test referred to were obtained. There is no record in my note-book describing this test more fully than to give a description of the material treated, the weight and assay value of the ore used, and the concentrates and tailings resulting from the test, the numbers which were attached to these when sent to the assayer, and the percentage of recovery indicated. From memory I would state that the material treated was very fine—would all pass through a 60-mesh screen, most of it being fine enough to pass through a 100-mesh screen. X Q. 103. You have not, in vour description, stated the amount of water used originally in this experiment. What was this amount? A, Approximately 1,700 ce. X Q. 104. Now, referring to the second test described by vou, in which you used 9 ce. of oleic acid, please supplement your descrip- tion by such particulars as would enable us to reproduce the test. A. The manipulation in this case was practically identical with that described in my preceding answer. The note-book con- 183 tains this additional data: “3 froths, 1 film obtained. Re sult excellent.” The oleic acid used in this case, T remem- ber to have been from a sample of purer red oil which Charles T. Perry & Company, of Helena, Montana, had submitted to me in response to a request to (165—92) submit sample of oleic acid or red oil with the lowest melting point which they could produce in commercial quantities. ; ; The red oil used in the test just previously described was from JAMES M. TTYDE. 923 fia sample of impure oleic acid, which they lave regularly pro- duced and marketed under the name of “red oil.” This was the material used as oil in the test carried on with the experimental machine. X Q. 105. Will you send me a specimen of each of these varieties of oleic acid used by you in these experiments? A. I will arrange to have it sent to you-from Butte. X Q. 106. And will you also send me a specimen of the ore ued in these experiments in the condition in which it was used therein? A. I will arrange to have this duplicated, as nearly as possible, for you. "XQ. 107. Now, as to the test wherein you used 0.3 ce. of cotton- ged oil, please supplement your description by such particulars as will enable us to reproduce this test? A. The series of tests with cotton-seed oil were all carried out substantially as has been described in my answer to X Q. 102. I have no record in my note-book, and cannot state from mem- 184 ory definitely, as to the period for which the pulp was agi- tated in these tests, but my memory is that it was from twenty seconds to a minute. It may have been even more than a minute. The amount of water used ‘was approximately 1,700 ce., the water was warm, but I have no record of its temperature. My note-book bears notes of these tests as follows, with a test in which 5 ec. of cotton-seed oil was used: “3 good froths, concentrates not cleaned”; with a test in which 10 ce. of oil was used, “3 froths, concentrates cleaned”; (166—93) with a test in which 20 ce. of oil was used, “4 froths last very small, concentrates cleaned.” The phrase “concentrates cleaned” refers to the fact that the concentrates recovered in the several successive treatments of the ore were united and returned to the test machine after the tailings had been discharged from it. To these was added enough water to make the total amount present approximately 1,700 ce., and they were reagitated substantially as before, and the floating concentrates were removed. This operation was repeated one or more times. The tailings or middlings resulting from this operation were added to the tailings produced in tie first treatment of the ore. It is possible that a drop or two of acid and oil were added during this re- treatment of the concentrates, but I do not remember that this was done. X Q. 108. Did you use the same slide machine in your cotton- seed oil test as in the oleic acid test? 185 A. The machine used was not the same machine, but was its duplicate, made from the same pattern in the same foundry. P X Q. 109. If required, will you produce one or both of these slide test machines, for the inspection of our experts and use by them, if necessary? By Mr. Williams: Counsel for defendant having stated that one of ee slide machines, used by the defendant in his tests, will be 94 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. introduced in evidence during the taking of this testimony, the question is withdrawn. By Mr. Kremer: Counsel for complainant having submitted the statement that upon the presentation of the testimony of their ex- pert, the slide machine used by their expert in the (167—94) tests with reference to which their said expert may testify, will be in. troduced in evidence, the defendant now states that before the conclusion of their expert testimony one of the slide machines, being a duplicate of the other, wi!! be introduced in evidence, for the inspection of the Court. X Q. 110. Referring now to your patent No. 1,022,085, I quote the following, page 1, lines 75-81: “By following this method, I have been able to get highly satis factory results when using as little as one-quarter of a pound of crude acid per ton of ore treated, whereas in previously used methods, several pounds have been found necessary.”’ Again on page 3, in giving an example of use, the specification says, lines 101-107: 186 “To this pulp while in transit to the thickeners, was added an amount of commercial sulfuric acid equivalent to from one-quarter to one-half pound per ton of ore treated. At times a decided odor of hydrogen sulfid could be noticed around the pulp- thickeners.” In your answer to X Q. 91, you mention a determination of a consumption of sulfuric acid from a quarter to a half pound per ton of ore treated, and you say that this determination was so in- accurate as to be unworthy of consideration as evidence. Are the quoted statements in your patent founded upon these unreliable and inaccurate observations? A. At the time the application for the patent was drawn, and, in fact, until within the last thirty to sixty days, the data referred to in my answer to X Q. 91 was considered to be reliable, within the limits of error incidental to mill-sampling. The figures given in the patent were based upon the reports referred to in my answer to X Q. 91. The amount of sulfuric acid used, while very small, (168—95) was sufficient to cause chemical action on the metal- liferous minerals present, and was therefore a different amount from that specified by the patentees of the patent in suit, who par ticularly specified that they used an amount of acid “insufficient to cause chemical action on the metalliferous minerals present.” The only evidence at hand as to the amount in pounds proportional to the tons of ore treated in the experimental plant, is that referred to in mv answer to X Q. 91. 187 XQ. 111. Then, as I understand you, the statements which I have quoted from your patent are inaccurate, un worthy of consideration as evidence, and, in fact, untrue? A. The statements referred to are undoubtedly approximately true, but cannot be said to be scientifically accurate, and were, there fore, in my answer to X Q. 91, not vouched for as acceptable as ev dence, which I understand must be, in such matters, scientifically accurate. JAMES M. HYDE. 95 In explanation of the testimony of Jesse C. Gibson tliat he haa charge of the operations of the flotation plant installed at Basin, Montana, from the latter part of July, 1911, up to about Febru- ary 7, 1912, it is my memory that the experimental machine was used intermittently for probably between one and two months from about the Ist of Aueust, 1911, and that its use was altogether aban- doned after it had been demonstrated that the process evolved by me at Basin could probably be successfully used, and that after the experimental machine had been abandoned, another machine was made use of in the mill. It is my memory that this second machine was thrown into service on or about the 13th or 14th of October. I have no definite record at hand and may be, mistaken as to this date. My memory is, however, that this machine was either in course of construction or completed on October 9, 1911, when the present suit was (169—96) commenced. This machine is in ex- istence today. The apparatus used by me at Basin, Montana, which has been referred to as the experimental machine, did not contain any 188 inclined guide plate such as is shown in the Hoover patent No. 953,746. In front of the opening through which the material agitated in the agitating cells passes into the overflow set- tling-box was placed a submerged trough with horizontal bottom and vertical sides; the top of the front side of this trough was submerged under three or four inches of water. The function of this submerged trough was to direct the flow of the material and prevent a rapid sur- face current being directed over the Cescharge lip. This trough is indicated in my sketch by a broken line in each instance alongside the letters V, V*, ete., and might well be indicated by the initials ¢. R. B., current retarding box. To my best recollection, I first saw a copy of the patent to Hoover referred to, No. 953,746, during the spring of 1911, when I received a number of patents relating to flotation processes from the United States Patent Office, and I first say a copy of the patent to Toover No. 979,857 at the same time. After the termination of my employment by Minerals Separation, Limited, or about that time, I discussed with the model maker, Dearden, who built the slide machine, the matter of obtaining a duplicate of this machine, explaining that I wished the machine for my own personal use, and obtained from him the figure which he would have to charge for it, if he was to make one for me. He asked me if I thought Minerals Separation would have any objection to his furnishing me with the machine, and I told him that I 189 did not know, but that it was possible that they would. The figure that (170—97) he asked for one was entirely pro- hibitive, and I dropped the matter, knowing that whenever I wanted one I could have one made for me at a cheaper price. As the ma- chine was unpatented and was designed by myself and Mr. Hoover, could see no impropriety in attempting to get one made, and naturally went to the man who had previously made one for me. I have heretofore stated that IT saw in operation in the London plant a special test machine devised by Mr. Nutter, and which I i 96 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. understoo? was not suecessfu!. T bave no definite memory of hay- ing seen any other large test machine working in the London plant. I am of the belief that I did not, and am strengthened in this be- lief by the definite memory that, before I left the employ of Minerals Separation, Limited, Mr. Howard, foreman at the test works, had promised to write out for me a complete statement with direc ‘tions as to how to proceed to carry on a working test. Such statement had not been delivered to me when I decided to sever my relations with Minerals Separation, Limited, and I thereupon turned all papers belonging to the company in my possession over to the secretary, Mr. W illiams, and wrote a letter to Mr. Howard telling him not to forward the statement referred to because of my intention to leave the company. When I witnessed the operations on the San Francisco del 190 Oro mine in Wales, I observed a very scanty froth on the surface of the spitzkasten. It is difficult to obtain the best results in the flotation process when the temperature of the pulp is much below 25° centigrade, and the necessity for operating at about 25° centigrade or above arises from the fact that, even if the oil used were brouzht into a fluid con- dition (171—98) by heat, it would solidify immediately upon being dropped into a cold pulp. At the time of the receipt of the letter from Minerals Separation, dated November 23, 1910, I was aware of the existence of zine sul- phide ores at Butte, Montana, and of the fact that they were being worked. (172—99) Testimony for Defendant of Eugene A. Byrnes. Wasnineoton, D. C., May 1-14, 1912. Direct examination: I am fifty years of age, a resident of Washington, D. C., and by occupation a metallurgical and chemical engineer. I am a gradu- ate of Michigan and Columbian Universities and received therefrom the degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Master of Laws, and Doctor of Phi- losophy. After graduating from the University of Michigan, I taught physics for a short time and then entered the examining corps of the United States Patent Office, of which I was a member for sev- enteen years. For ten years I was Principal Examiner of the Di- vision of Metallurgy and Electrochemistry of the United States Patent Office, having charge also of the laboratory. I re 191 signed from the United States Patent Office in 1901 and en- gaged in private practice. I am a member of various scientific bodies, including the American Chemical Society, the American Electrochemical Society, and the Society of Chemical Industry. As Pri [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386003_0236%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.