Justice, ...the Handmaiden of Law
                      (..or is it vice versa...?)

When Turcaud tried to interest Newmont (twice) in his prospect he didn't tell them that besides the copper, there was gold.  He didn't know.  And therein (by blaming the victim) lies both Newmont's reason for denying Turcaud's discovery and their reason to exclude him from any reward.  Newmont have all along placed the "cornerstone" of their defence against Turcaud -  their 'legality to title'  -  not in the fact that they pegged the claims, but in Turcaud's failure to assay for gold, a conscious displacement designed to obfuscate the issue of the manner in which they acquired title to the ground, which attracted the attention of the Shadow Attorney General at the time.

Turcaud was then prepared to settle for hardly the cost of putting himself through University.  What virtue then for Newmont was there in refusing Turcaud this, given that they knew from the very beginning that 'discovery' was not Thomson's, but Koehn's , and that Thomson in any case "learned of the discovery".  It surely wouldn't have taken much to discover where or when or who Thomson learned it from.   Indeed Newmont tacitly recognises Turcaud's discovery in their very reason for denying it!    For in saying that Turcaud "didn't recognise the gold/ didn't assay for gold" Newmont are in fact saying that they accept that Turcaud did recognise the (obvious) copper, and (of course therefore) where the samples came from, which is tantamount to accepting that Turcaud did discover the surface expression of the orebody.   Turcaud's samples when assayed ran gold also, as did Western Mining's samples (whom Turcaud had led over the prospect) when checked.  So what Newmont are saying is that yes, they recognise that Turcaud did discover the orebody, ...but, the orebody "if you don't count the gold".  And that the reason they refused before (twice) was that Turcaud didn't tell them there was gold in it.  Turcaud wrote:-

"... As a small prospector I was looking for an appraisal of my find, rather than attempting to tell what it was to highly qualified geologists who knew better." (JP Turcaud, Own Report, p.15

This is patently and breath-takingly absurd:  Turcaud discovers the orebody (the gossans);  tries to interest Newmont through Bill Brook, Manager of the field office in Marble Bar (and is refused); then  Day Dawn (manager Thomson) and is refused; then Newmont again (and is again refused); Day Dawn then go (directly)  to the prospect (Koehn) and confirm the gold; then go out there again (Koehn and Thomson) and confirm it again, by which time Day Dawn (to the surprise of its staff) decline interest in the prospect and go into voluntary liquidation and sack the staff.  Thomson then informs Newmont of the prospect, Newmont hire him and pay Day Dawn for the information about the gold (who by then, some time between the first and the second trip, had 'liquidated' ); Thomson and Tyrwhitt (Newmont) then go to the prospect and sample the outcrops, and proceed to claim 'discovery'  for Newmont and trumpet 'honesty' as their fundamental modus operandum!  And THAT is the justification for Newmont denying both Turcaud and Koehn, and for preening and crowing over their "great good fortune."

Newmont then proceed to set about severing all other possible connections to the prospect:- Turcaud denied, Thomson sacked, Koehn ignored, Day Dawn (by then liquidated) paid for the information that could have saved them from liquidation (with not even a 'buy-back-in-if..' agreement), and Newmont's own joint-venture partner Narla Minerals NL being denied participation in the prospect (Sheppard 2002, pps 179, 247).   Thus Newmont become the sole owners of the prospect.  We leave Tyrwhitt (1995, p.32) to describe the importance of "key people" in securing the partnership with BHP as substitute for Narla, when Narla through its director Sir Elton Griffin tried (unsuccessfully)  to gain the intervention of Premier Charles Court over their exclusion from the joint venture.

..........................................

To understand Newmont's satisfaction and relief here over their Telfer acquisition, and their overweening miserliness towards Turcaud, one has to remember that In the middle-to-late sixties Western Australia was virtually unmapped territory (geologically speaking) that was opening up to nickel exploration.  R. J. Searls, son of Fred Searls Jr (one of the four founding fathers of the American Parent Company) had been sent in 1964 by the board to start up exploration and look after Newmont's interests in Australia, an earlier venture in 1923 having failed.  It would be two years before prospectors Morgan and Cowcill would introduce Western Mining Corporation to the Kambalda (nickel) prospect and the nickel boom begin.  In another three years prospector K.G.Shirley would introduce Poseidon to the Windarra prospect, propelling the boom to its heady heights; Poseidon shares rocketed to an incredible $140 a share in the earliest stages of the drilling and peaked at $280(!) on February 5, 1970 (about $5,000 a share by today's figures!), after which Poseidon would go into long decline, culminating in receivership in 1975.  In 1971 Seltrust Mining would discover Agnew.    And by 1973 Ramsey, in Men and Mines of Newmont,  would write a single line of that company's efforts in Australia:-  "Nothing came of Newmont's ventures in Australia".  Imagine then the frustration of Searls when touching home base in New York and being assailed by questions like "We're hearing good things about Australia, Bob, ..how are things going?"   However this record was to prove premature thanks to Turcaud's discovery of Telfer, for in January of the same year Newmont's (Searls') solicitors would write to Turcaud refusing all right to reward for his discovery.  And thus Searls, the son of the father, would rescue Newmont from nickel-boom ignominy, and with the help of Tyrwhitt secure for Newmont a mine.  And a gold one at that!   He would prove his mettle to the parent company and to anyone interested to know.  And in no way was he going to share the credits with anyone - not even Newmont's joint venture partner, Narla Minerals NL!

Turcaud was to feel the injustice deeply, for there was a steep sliding scale of inversely proportionality of credits and rewards in respect of discovery in relation to effort expended.  Of his own volition and at his own expense he had prospected alone and on foot over a wide area in that most inhospitable region on the fringe of the Great Sandy Desert.  He had risked his life - and saved another!  Newmont's Marble Bar field office geologist, Bill Brook had expressed  disbelief at Turcaud's adventure.  And for all of this Turcaud had not only received no credit, no emolument, ..nothing from Newmont, but Newmont had demonstrated most forcefully they were not inclined to do so.  Neither, when Turcaud appealed for arbitration to government, would anyone there listen.  Moreover, it was directly through his pioneering effort that this entire region was to open up to exploration.  Day Dawn geologist Phillipe Koehn had gone directly to the prospect on information that (according to Mason in Sheppard, 2002) "Thomson had learned"  - and had received like Turcaud, nothing.  Thomson, who had been subsequently led to the prospect by Koehn on the second trip, received (perversely) credit for recognising the gold in outcrop, and (probable) commensurate emolument.  Tyrwhitt was handsomely rewarded in company promotions, also probable commensurate emoluments, and wide and enduring public recognition that served his career well.  It is unknown how much Searls as Director of Newmont Proprietary Limited in Melbourne received, but it may safely be assumed it was commensurate with his position as director of the company who had instigated exploration in Australia.  Certainly it would have been more than those at the other end of the scale and possibly more than Tyrwhitt, though as Director in Melbourne he probably never set foot in any bush.  Potter Partners as brokers for the share float of the new flagship Newmont Australia Ltd, with Potter also on the board of Boral the parent company of Narla Minerals NL (then in dispute with Newmont over Narla being excluded from the joint venture) received a commission of $15m.

But one thing Searls did secure for Newmont, and most handsomely too, ...was the enduring wrath of Turcaud, which as the story of Newmont's usurption of his discovery is revealed, falls like a curse on the mine, on Newmont, and all those who turned their backs on his role as discoverer,  and will be inscripted evermore in the history of the State in the name of Telfer.  This might not be Newmont's idea of Justice,  nor that of Bert Telfer,  nor that of successive government officials who were in a position to correct this injustice,  ..but it certainly will be that of posterity...

So much for Newmont sending Searls to Australia to augment their fortunes.  ....Tainted gold, indeed.

.......................................................

The Quit Agreement:- the jurisdiction of the 'Quit' agreement was in New York.  However the object of the dispute (the Telfer mine) was in Australia, Turcaud was (by then) Australian, Newmont Proprietary Ltd was Australian.  Also, Newmont in New York had clearly confirmed authority to hear the dispute lay in Australia, shown by the way that Searls had overriden Leroy and Malozemoff in negating the agreement in the first place, and Malozemoff had demurred to exercise authority of the Parent Company.   Moreover with the passage of time the Australian Public increasingly has standing in this dispute since Telfer, as the largest gold mine in Australia, has special historical significance.  And Bert Telfer, after whom the deposit was named and who posthumously might (given the opportunity of a second thought arising from Sheppard's account) demur the use of his name in authenticating Newmont's Lies, was Australian.

Turcaud had sought an agreement in New York solely because of Searl's intransigence, and it had been immediately withdrawn at Searls' (in Australia)  insistence.  That is, there was no agreement, ...or, if an 'agreement' were deemed to have taken place, it could easily (surely) have been set aside if Turcaud had wished.  It didn't happen because Turcaud felt he had been lured to the table with the promise of a substantial final settlement that his lawyer had led him to believe was possible to gain. However in the event of having secured Turcaud's complaint, Bordelon proved only interested in collecting his 40% contingency of such a sum that could be achieved with the least possible trouble, which was basically the minimum that Newmont were prepared to offer.  He heavily pressured Turcaud to accept.  Turcaud's acceptance then was not for the paltry sum, but for what it represented in the face of the Royal Enquiry that had been promised him by the Shadow Attorney General, T.D. Evans (consequent on his own enquiries into the affair) should a Labour Government win office - namely recognition of himself as discoverer which till then Newmont had denied.  Such was the unfairness, and the pressure on him to secure recognition, that Turcaud wrote later:- "I would have signed for a dollar!")   However with Evans' premature death, the destruction of his files (despite a promise to his daughter that they would be kept), and the disinclination of successive Labour Goverments to execute Evans' promise, this Enquiry has not yet happened.  It remains suspended, hanging like a Sword of Damocles, gaining ever increasing weight with the passage of time from the facts revealed through Sheppard's (2002) researched account, an account that at the very least will see Newmont persecuted, if not prosecuted, in the history of the State for Searls' incompetence in resolving this dispute.
 

"As we sat down in his office, we spoke in French and Jacques Leroy clearly and pointedly commented on Searls' managerial competence, referring to the latter's inability to resolve such a small affair." "I cannot understand that!" he said.

...................................................

Newmont have placed the cornerstone of their defence, not in the fact that they pegged the orebody, but in Turcaud's failure to recognise gold.  But as shown above and elsewhere this is a complete nonsense argument, and returns the dispute to the question of fair dealing  between company and prospector, in which Newmont knowingly and falsely attributed Thomson the credit for discovery of the gold, deliberately ignored Turcaud's role in locating the orebody, his previous attempts to interest Newmont directly,  and Koehn's recognition of the gold.  For successive Premiers and Ministers of Mines for the State to continue to stand behind Newmont on this, and maintain that Turcaud has no claim in this affair, is reprehensible beyond comment.  Three years ago Bob Sheppard personally gave a copy of the results of his research confirming Turcaud's claims to Premier Gallop.  Gallop continues to ignore it.

It is unacceptable that the official record of the Geological Survey of Western Australia should maintain Thomson as discoverer when Thomson himself would be challenged (in the light of facts revealed) to make any such claim, and when Koehn received acknowledgement of this error and his own role directly from the Director himself.  Similarly, the Editorial Board of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy should include a correction in any future publications on Telfer.  It is also unacceptable that Tyrwhitt should be known (as he is on numerous internet sites) as "responsible for the discovery of Telfer", when Tyrwhitt himself has removed all mention of Telfer from his CV hosted on the site of the Mineral Industry Consultants' Association (or perhaps never claimed credit for it in the first place!).  And it is unacceptable that the name of A.H. Telfer, former Minister for Mines, should bear the weight into the future of Newmont's untruths and half-truths of this story.

So, (and it bears repeating..) Not only is there most clear direct evidence for Turcaud's discovery of the ore body per se, but it is actually implicit in Newmont's own account, when they rest their 'cornerstone' (that Turcaud didn't discover the gold)  directly on top of their tacit admission that Turcaud did however, discover the location and surface expression of the orebody.  And though Turcaud himself did not recognise the gold ("... as a small prospector I was looking for an appraisal of my find, rather than attempting to tell what it was to highly qualified geologists who knew better."), through the mineralised samples that he collected and submitted for assay, and in his exhaustive attempts to interest companies in his find, he did indeed play  a most pivotal role in the gold being discovered.

Which returns us to the consideration of the fair value of Turcaud's discovery in relation to the thing discovered, and the fact that thus far, Law has only succeded in securing Newmont's illegitimacy in denying Turcaud.   Turcaud got virtually nothing from his find.  The small amount that he did receive from the Unfair Contract of  'The Quit', after being pressured by Bordelon to sign (and Bordelon taking his 40% fee) was less than half its monetary value in relation to the time of discovery over a decade earlier.

The summary outcome?  The Australian Public are dudded by the addition of Newmont's shennanigans to the historical archives (and the complicity of successive governments in allowing it to happen),  Thomson gets left to hold a babyful of lies (and refuses to talk about it), Day Dawn Minerals NL get 'liquidated', joint venture partners Narla Minerals NL get denied participation, Searls and Tyrwhitt get laudits, plaudits and emoluments, Newmont absconds with the gold,  Bert Telfer's name gets used as a doormat, and Jean-Paul gets nothing.  And neither does Koehn.   We shall give the last word to Jean-Paul's rather acerbic observation of the way deals are done in Australia:-

1.  "Once convicted, deny..",   2.  "Dob in your mate",   3. "Grab, run, and 'shoot through' ".

....Or, on second thoughts, perhaps we should give it to the Shadow Attorney General, Tom Evans, who, as a result of his own independent enquiries into the affair considered that there were indeed grounds for a Royal Enquiry.  In Parliament Evans (laying aside the vernacular) said:-

"In the light of that I believe in the interests of natural justice the Government is duty bound to consider seriously calling upon all those who are willing and competent to give evidence in this case with a view to determining whether the Newmont company did in fact acquire these mining tenements in a manner befitting a company which was acting with fairness and honesty."  (hansard record)

The present government upholds Newmont's lie and refuses to recognise Turcaud's pioneering efforts and his contribution to the economy of the State.