Newmont's 'iffy' Indenture
                     (...the $60,000 offer that Turcaud refused to sign...)

And, ...believing that here was an offer in good faith in respect of a full and final settlement for all his discovery, ..for everything, Turcaud accepted.  He couldn't believe it was over!...   He recounts the excitement:-

"Mr Picton-Warlow was then on the telephone and talking to Parker & Parker.  I was still flabbergasted by the news that this battle with Newmont was over, ..I could not truly concentrate and make any sense out of the legal jargon of the indenture."   "Yes!  Yes," (Messrs Parker & Parker were agreeable [to the slight change]).  Mr Picton-Warlow was up now.  I had just managed to finish reading this page 4 and to try to make sense of it.  I got up too.  "You can keep this one," said Mr Picton-Warlow, pointing to the document I was holding, "the final indenture will be sent later by Parker & Parker."

So what happened?  What went wrong?  Because on reading the document more carefully, Turcaud turned it down..  Why?   Well, ...because  it had nothing to do with anything concerning a reward for his discovery of  Telfer.  In fact there was a specific rider that the agreement was only valid if Turcaud agreed to having "..no present claim demand or right of compensation against Newmont or any other person in respect of any area in Western Australia in which Newmont was or is now in any way interested other than those rights and interests arising out of the Agreement."

So what exactly?  Was Newmont offering Turcaud $60,000 for relinquishing his role in discovery of the Pascale Hills (Telfer dome) area?  Not at all!  From the beginning Newmont had been strenuously avoiding recognising Turcaud's discovery in the first place.  They were not about to recognise it now.  Quite the opposite!  The document was entirely designed to reinforce that disconnection, whilst offering no concession to Turcaud.   So what was the document that Turcaud refused to sign, ..that his lawyer was pressing him to sign, ..all about?  It was an offer solely in respect of Turcaud having introduced Newmont to the Parallel Range prospect some 12 kilometres to the south of Telfer, an arrangement with so many 'ifs' in it and so full of holes that according to a second legal opinion one could "run an elephant through it" (and not touch the sides).  And this agreement was valid only if Turcaud agreed to the above rider.  In others words, if Turcaud dropped his dispute with Newmont over the Pascale Hills (Telfer Dome).  This perplexed Turcaud, as Picton Warlow had insisted that Turcaud sign and immediately make a claim to those "other areas" specifically excluded in the indenture.   So, despite agreeing initally to what he thought was a face-value, all-up, rounded settlement Turcaud therefore refused to sign this $60,000 'Parallel Range' Indenture.

It should be noted moreover that this indenture was drawn up in such a way that the 'if' clauses offering emoluments  were distinctly quarantined from the rider.  Had Turcaud signed it, he would have been agreeing to that parallel clause irrespective of any positive outcomes of the 'if' clauses.  This would have been fine had the 'ifs' favourably come to pass, but what chance was there of that?   The claims in question were in dispute with Hill Minerals,  the Warden's court had passed the matter over for Ministerial Consideration, and the Minister had reserved his decision.

The ifs and emoluments were, ..
1.    If those claims (or others with similar boundaries)  were approved  ..$2,000
2.    If Newmont were still to be holding them a year later...   $8,000
3.    If Newmont commences commercial mining ...$50,000

But what if other approved boundaries were not similar?  Or, what if Newmont dropped the claims before the year was up and applied for others with differently oriented boundaries?  Or applied for them under a different name?  Moreover, a clause transfering entitlement to Turcaud should Newmont withdraw would " have no effect while Newmonst still retains title to any portion of the Turcaud prospect. - And provided further that such an offer shall lapse if not accepted by Turcaud within one month of the date of service of notice aforsaid and Newmont shall upon such lapse be under no further obligation to Turcaud pursuant to this provision."  This meant that any transfer would be stymied if Newmont decided to play 'dog-in-a-manger', and retained a single tenement. One really does have to wonder what was in Turcaud's lawyer's mind in strongly recommending that Turcaud sign such a document when its import was clearly so much at odds with his face-value representation of it when he enthusiastically welcomed Turcaud into his office, and when moreover it explicitly carried the exclusion of the Pascale Hills (Telfer) area.

Does one detect a slight note of cynicism when Turcaud records?:-

"I must say here that I am very grateful to Mr Picton-Warlow for the work he did for me.  Somehow however, Mt Picton-Warlow and I did not share the same view.  In fact our opinion on this was diametrically opposite.  Mr John Picton-Warlow was very concerned that I should get some compensation for the discovery of the Paterson Range show, the high cost of prospecting expenses I had incurred and also the high cost of the action, legal and political, which I was supporting.  Consequently his opinion in this case was:- something was better than nothing!   And if he rushed me a bit, as is implied in these pages, it is, as I say, motivated by the highest altruistic consideration."

Perhaps, ...for the invitation to Turcaud to sign this document occurred via Mr Picton Warlow a mere few hours after Turcaud had lodged with the CIB a complaint of fraud against Newmont, a move which considerably disconcerted Mr Picton-Warlow when Turcaud notified him of this, but in the event of the result triggered, turned to invoke a highly positive reaction.  It is to the impartial observer on the sidelines to whom perhaps slightly more disquiet occurs over Mr Picton-Warlow appearing strongly to want to hold Turcaud to a misunderstood verbal acceptance against a later more fully informed decision to demur signature... particularly when Newmont's prime condition highlighted above reads clearly at odds with Mr Picton-Warlow's advice on the 22nd May:-

Dear Jean-Paul,
22nd May 1974.

We have already verbally advised Messrs. Parker & Parker so far as the claims covered in the agreement are concerned are acceptable. If you wish to vary at this point we feel that you should obtain other legal advice.  So far as the other claims are concerned it may be that we can accept this present agreement and immediately make a claim to the other areas.  However we think you would be extremely foolish to risk losing the present agreement as it is our view that you have no legal claim against Newmont in any of the areas.  Please let us have your instructions as to whether you wish us to continue to act.

"it may be"..??   Hardly.  Much more likely it would be  'maybe not'.  And again on the 5th June:-

Dear Jean Paul,

You do not yet seem to appreciate that we reached an agreement with Parker & Parker whilst you were in my office and following those instructions we confirmed that agreement with them.  The agreement does not preclude you from making claims to the other areas but you are most certainly bound by it. It you do not wish to honour this agreement we do not feel we can continue to act for you.  Please sign and return the documents.  (p.69)

Prima facie had he signed, Turcaud most certainly would have been bound by it, for that was the sole intent of the document.  But was he/ would he have been (bound) ?   Turcaud records:-

"..and my lawyer, without giving me a real chance to examine the document, phoned Newmont's lawyers Parker & Parker at once, to tell them of my assent, ..and as I had promised, I withdrew my complaint (to the CIB)."  (..and..) "As I have shown previously this agreement was NEVER approved by me.  What I accepted was an offer of $60,000 from Newmont for a full settlement of this affair, and this is under such a light that it was presented to me and conseqently accepted.  Therefore the acceptance which I expressed did not apply at all to the Agreement.

Was it really just a coincidence that Turcaud was invited to sign 'The Indenture' immediately following his lodgement of a complaint of "fraudulaent sharp practice", to the Criminal Investigation Bureau?   Did that complaint precipitate Newmont's action in drawing up this document for Turcaud to sign?   Or if not, why did Newmont present it at all, after having denied Turcaud so consistently and for so long?  Was this really a demonstration of bigheartedness?  Was the Leopard changing its spots?   Of course not, for this offer was nothing other than a hypothetical, within which was couched the very real sting of forfeiture.  A signature would have negated any future CIB investigation.  It was also one which, thanks to the enthusiastic (if unwitting) cooperation of Turcaud's Lawyer they very nearly got.  And equally clearly, as Turcaud well showed by his counter offers (thrice refused by Newmont), an offer that very clearly demonstrated Newmont's lack of bona fides, and that their 'indenture' approach to Turcaud was nothing other than a lure to sign.  Turcaud wrote:-

By refusing our counter offer for a reduced amount ($40,000) Newmont were showing that the initial offer of $60,000 was merely a bait!  A web of legal twines set to catch the unwary and trustful prospector!  The pathetic aspect of it however is that it may be a game at the level of Mr Robert Searls, the Newmont Australia Manager, but at my level it is a hard and bitter battle."

Sheppard (2002, p.207)  records that Turcaud in turn came up with alternative proposals more in line with his own fair understanding of the agreement as this was implicitly represented to him in the instant of greeting by his lawyer, namely an all-up settlement of $60,000 to terminate the dispute.

Newmont refused.

Turcaud also proposed another alternative, namely that Newmont might fund his study at university, for a sum of $58,000:-
$10,000 on signing,
$6,000 a year allowance for four years for a first degree
$8,000 a year allowance for three years to complete a post-graduate degree.

Newmont refused.

And finally Turcaud then modified his proposal to an all-up $40,000.

Again Newmont (by Director Searls) by telegram dated  4th September 1974, refused.

REURTEL HAVE AGAIN REVIEWED YOUR CLAIMS STOP INDENTURE PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO BY YOU FORWARDED BY YOUR SOLICITORS MAY 24 WAS OUR ONLY OFFER STOP REGRET YOU WILL NOT FINALISE THIS MATTER AS YOU HAD AGREED STOP SINCE THERE ARE NO OTHER GROUNDS LEGAL OR MORAL FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS SEE NO USEFUL PURPOSE IN FURTHER MEETING WITH YOU - SEARLS

Turcaud wrote to the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, about his compensation claim. The letter was referred to Mr Mensaros (Minister for Mines of Western Australia), and was in turn referred to Newmont, as was a letter to the Chairman of Newmont's Parent Company in America.   Some two months or so later, on December 4th, in answer to a front page newspaper article on Telfer, Turcaud wrote to the Kalgoorlie Miner:-

"In reference to your front page story on November 28th, relating to Newmont's possible development of the Paterson Range project, I have a deep and binding interest in Newmont's prosperity with regard to this Paterson Range project since I discovered it.  (....)   Since I was the discoverer of this extensive and important deposit I have received less reward for my effort than Patrick Hannan did for finding Kalgoorlie. Patrick Hannan did not get much out of his discovery of Kalgoorlie, but at least they called it Hannan's Find for some years.  I hope I do not have to wait until I am 61, as did Paddy Hannan, to get recognition."

If Newmont were so adamant about recognising gold being critical to the fact of 'discovery', why did they bother to try to get Turcaud to sign anything at all, much less their concoction of 'ifs'?  Turcaud makes no claim to having recognised the gold, but in having provided the gossans that allowed others to do so, and to the falseness of Newmont's story in how they came by the prospect.  It is hardly credible that a company with the stature of Newmont would deal with anyone in such a shoddy way, in a manner hardly even befitting the most pennyweight, fly-by-night company.  In the light of the historical record uncovered by Sheppard (2002) and in the withdrawal from the scene of some of those main players, Newmont now has an opportunity to revisit and redress that shameful situation.

It is indeed ironic that Turcaud was prepared to settle for enough money for his education, in return for which the entire story revealed in Sheppard's account would never have surfaced.  Instead, so much dirty linen is showing, not just of Newmont, but of the frocks of all the other "key people" who went along with them.  Thomson was certainly not the discoverer, and serious questions remain over the ease with which the two local Australian companies (and their shareholders) Day Dawn Minerals NL and Narla Mineral NL,  were denied participation in what was to become the richest gold mine in Australia.  What was Newmont so afraid of, in recognising Turcaud?