A Mine Born from a Dispute

The Grand Central occupied part of the great mineralized fissure that also carried the Contention Mine. Later accounts connect its discovery with prospectors Ed Williams and Jack Friday. In the familiar version, their loose mules dragged a chain across exposed rock, revealing mineral beneath the surface. A dispute followed with Ed Schieffelin and his partners, who believed the ground belonged within their earlier claims. The disputed ground was divided. Williams and Friday retained the upper portion as the Grand Central, while the lower portion became the Contention.

That account has been repeated often, but the picturesque chain-dragging episode requires better contemporary documentation before it should be presented as established fact. What is certain is that the Grand Central and Contention developed along the same important ore-bearing structure and became two of the most productive mines in the district. Their physical relationship later mattered because pumping water from one part of the ground affected the other mines connected through the workings and fractured rock.

Capital Machinery and Ore

The Grand Central was not a small prospect worked with hand tools and hope. Eastern capital financed extensive underground development, steam-powered hoisting equipment, and a reduction mill on the San Pedro River. Nathaniel Kellogg Fairbank, the Chicago businessman for whom Fairbank was later named, was associated with the Grand Central company and its financing. The mine became one of the industrial foundations beneath Tombstone’s growth.

By the spring of 1882, the mine had reached the 600-foot level. The Tombstone Epitaph reported that the drifts running north and south along the ledge were approximately 110 feet long in each direction. The newspaper described the ledge as improving and the ore as becoming more uniform. It also reported stopes producing their customary 300 tons per day. The paper’s optimism reflected the central question confronting the district: would the ore continue downward?

At the 600-foot level, the answer still appeared favorable. The ledge remained strong, and the Epitaph believed the Grand Central’s development supported the view that the mineralized fissure continued to considerable depth. The company had ore developed above that level and was considering additional milling capacity. Yet the same report recorded the first warning that continued depth would carry a new cost.

Water in the New Shaft

The first reports show the water problem developing over a matter of weeks. On March 16, 1882, the Arizona Daily Star reported that the new shaft stood 12 feet below the 600-foot level and was being pushed downward as rapidly as possible. The newspaper expected a few additional feet to show whether water stood at a uniform level throughout the great fissure. At that point, the mine was still advancing into what the paper called the water regions.

The following day, the Star reported that the water strike did not yet amount to much. The quantity entering the shaft was only about enough to supply the drilling. The report nevertheless warned that more could be expected at any time.

On March 27, the Tombstone Epitaph said the water problem remained unresolved. A drill hole in the bottom of the shaft had produced a strong stream, suggesting that the miners might be close to a larger source. The hole was plugged while the shaft was timbered. This protected the soft sides of the shaft from caving if blasting released a heavier flow.

When the plug was withdrawn, the flow had diminished. Another deep hole driven into hard rock produced no water. The foreman believed the first hole might have tapped a limited vein rather than a large underground supply. Preparations were made to handle several thousand gallons during a twenty-four-hour period. A pump would be required if the flow exceeded that amount.

That hope did not last. On April 4, the Star reported that a large and apparently permanent stream of water had been struck in the Grand Central. Work in the shaft had been suspended until a pump could be placed to drain the surplus. In less than three weeks, the published description had changed from a light flow useful for drilling to enough water to stop work.

The Water Level Reaches the District

The Grand Central was not the first Tombstone property to encounter underground water. The Sulphuret reached water at approximately 520 feet in 1881. Accounts disagree on the month, so the year is the safer statement unless a contemporary report settles the date. As other shafts deepened, the problem spread. By early 1883, most of the principal mines had reached the water level. Mining below it required continuous pumping.

At first, underground water did not appear entirely unwelcome. Tombstone’s mills had been built along the San Pedro River because ore reduction required large quantities of water. A dependable supply near the mines raised the possibility of reducing ore in Tombstone and avoiding the cost of hauling it several miles to the river. The quantity encountered at depth soon exceeded that advantage. Water had to be lifted hundreds of feet before men could continue working the lower levels.

The Pumping Battle

By February 1883, temporary arrangements were no longer sufficient. The Arizona Daily Star reported that E. B. Gage, superintendent of the Grand Central, had arrived from Tombstone and departed for San Francisco to purchase pumping machinery. The notice confirms that the company was committing itself to mechanical drainage nearly eleven months after the first water reports.

Two months later, the machinery was apparently ready to be put into service. On April 8, 1883, the Star reported that the drift on the 600-foot level was turning out well and that pumping would begin on April 15. The notice supplies a definite scheduled starting date for the Grand Central’s new pumping operation, although additional reports are needed to confirm that the pumps started as planned and to measure their early performance.

The Grand Central installed steam pumps reported capable of lifting approximately 500,000 gallons per day. According to a later historical study, this equipment failed to lower the district’s water level. The Contention company then invested about $150,000 in Cornish pumping machinery with a stated capacity of one million gallons per day. The Grand Central followed with a larger Cornish installation, reportedly costing about $200,000 and capable of moving as much as 1.5 million gallons per day.

Capacity figures describe what the equipment was designed to move, not necessarily the amount pumped continuously. One account reported that the operating pumps were removing 576,000 gallons during each twenty-four hours by February 1884. The combined system eventually lowered the water approximately 100 feet beneath the level at which it had first stopped deeper work. Rich ore could again be reached, but only while the machinery remained in operation and the companies continued paying for fuel, maintenance, and labor.

The geology turned pumping into a district problem rather than a matter confined to one shaft. The Grand Central and Contention installations lowered water in neighboring workings as well. Those neighboring companies benefited without necessarily paying a share of the expense. Disagreement over pumping costs weakened any common response to a problem shared beneath the surface.

A Broken Rod Stops the Pumps

The vulnerability of that system became clear early in 1886. About a week before January 3, the Grand Central’s large pump rod broke and the pumps stopped. The Star reported that the company immediately telegraphed San Francisco for a replacement, this time made of wood. Yet the water had risen only five inches, and the paper took that limited rise as proof that the mine remained under control. The Grand Central and Emerald still employed 125 men, only nine workers had been displaced, and the mine continued shipping about 60 tons of ore each day to its San Pedro mill.

Replacing a 600-foot pump rod was an industrial undertaking. The new rod required twelve timbers, each 60 feet long, with two held as spares. The completed rod was to be assembled from eighteen pieces. It filled two railroad cars and reached Fairbanks in February, where two large teams began hauling it to Tombstone. The newspaper predicted that the pumps would resume within three weeks, but repairs took longer. On April 24, the Star said the pumps were nearly complete and would probably begin operating within a few days.

The Night the Hoisting Works Burned

At about eleven o’clock on the night of May 26, 1886, a rapid whistle from the hill was followed by the fire bell. Men in the engine room saw flames bursting from the boiler house. Before help could be effective, the Grand Central hoisting works were engulfed. The buildings above ground burned, and the fire traveled into the shaft, where smoke, burning timber, and falling rock made the extent of the underground damage impossible to judge. The pump rods were initially presumed destroyed.

About twenty-five miners were underground when the fire began. All escaped. Some passed through the connection with the Contention workings, others climbed the timbers of the old Grand Central shaft, and the remainder came out through the air shafts of the Grand Central South. The physical connections that complicated responsibility for pumping now provided routes to safety.

The fire exposed weaknesses above ground as well. Couplings at the hill fire plugs were smaller than those on the fire department’s hose. Firemen obtained smaller hose and carried 1,200 feet up the hill, but four streams of water could not stop the blaze. Sparks started brush fires, and crews cut them out before nearby residences caught. Several men suffered burned or blistered hands and faces. About seventy-five workers were thrown out of employment.

Contemporary estimates show the scale of the investment at risk. The hoisting works, erected in 1882, were valued at $55,000. Pumping machinery installed in 1884 had cost $175,000. A May 30 account added roughly $50,000 for the shaft and $10,000 for buildings and other improvements, producing an estimated property value of $290,000 against $65,000 in insurance. The newspaper cautioned that the actual damage to the machinery was not yet known.

Smoke Recovery and a Closed Mill

The fire did not produce instant abandonment. By May 30, the fire in the main shaft was reported extinguished, and foreman Charles Leach entered through other workings to inspect the damage. One report, explicitly presented as rumor, said the cage had caught at the 300-foot level and that cave-ins filled the shaft below that point. On June 8, Leach, Hume, and Corbett came within 300 feet of the main shaft from underground. They encountered thick, visible gas on the 400-foot level but intended to try again.

By June 23, about ten men were filling the Grand Central shaft to keep machinery from falling after the summer rains. On July 10, the Star reprinted an Epitaph notice that the Grand Central mill had closed the previous evening. Lumber was already on the ground for a concentrator, and the company expected to restore steam when it was completed. The notice records intention rather than a completed recovery, but it gives this chapter its natural endpoint: after the pumps, the fire, and the first salvage work, the company was still planning what might come next.

What Ended the First Bonanza

The usual statement that water closed Tombstone’s mines leaves out the central issue. Engineers demonstrated that the water could be pumped. The combined installations lowered it and allowed work to continue beneath the original water level. The obstacle was the continuing cost of doing so.

Silver prices were declining. The companies disagreed over responsibility for a pumping system that benefited much of the district. A broken pump rod had already shown how one failed component could suspend the system; the Grand Central fire then destroyed the works around it. Every foot gained below the water level demanded fuel, maintenance, labor, and dependable equipment before a ton of ore reached the surface. The ore had to be valuable enough to carry all those costs.

The Grand Central story therefore does not end with a mysterious underground flood, nor even at the moment of the fire. Men escaped, crews reentered the workings, and the company considered a new concentrator. What had changed was the burden of recovery. The mine had reached profitable ore below the water line, but it could remain there only while an expensive mechanical system worked without interruption. The news thinned after July 1886, leaving plans rather than a clear triumph.

Research Notes

Question	Current finding
Discovery account	The Williams and Friday runaway-mules story is useful background but should remain qualified until supported by a contemporary claim record, court record, company account, or early newspaper report.
First water at Grand Central	Arizona Daily Star reports dated March 16, March 17, and April 4, 1882 establish the progression from exploratory sinking below the 600-foot level to a slight inflow and then a large, apparently permanent stream that stopped shaft work.
Depth and production	The same Epitaph report places active development at the 600-foot level, gives the north and south drift lengths as about 110 feet each, and reports customary production of 300 tons per day. These are newspaper figures and should be attributed rather than treated as audited company totals.
Sulphuret date	Later sources agree that the Sulphuret encountered water at about 520 feet in 1881, but they differ between March and July. Use only the year until the original report is located.
Pump capacities	The stated 500,000, one-million, and 1.5-million-gallon daily figures are rated or reported capacities summarized in later mining histories. They should not be added together and presented as a measured daily discharge.
Pump purchase and startup	The Arizona Daily Star reported Gage’s February 1883 trip to purchase pumping machinery. On April 8 it said pumping would commence April 15. A follow-up report is still needed to confirm startup and performance.
Fulton Iron Works advertisement	An advertisement states that Fulton Iron Works manufactured machinery for the Grand Central Mining Company, among other Tombstone operations. The advertisement does not identify the specific Grand Central machinery and should not be used alone to attribute its pumps to Fulton.
Pump rod failure	Reports from January through April 1886 trace the failure and replacement of a 600-foot pump rod. The dates show that a repair predicted to take about three weeks extended into late April.
The 1886 fire	Contemporary reports describe the May 26 destruction, the escape of about twenty-five underground miners, the failed firefighting effort, injuries, and roughly seventy-five jobs lost. The origin is localized to flames entering from the boiler house, but the precise cause is not established.
Loss estimates	A May 30 report valued the pumping machinery at $175,000, hoisting works at $55,000, shaft at about $50,000, and other improvements at $10,000, with $65,000 insurance. These are contemporary estimates, not a final adjustment.
After the fire	The reports document inspection and stabilization through June and a July 10 mill shutdown with a proposed concentrator. They show continued activity but do not prove that the proposed plant was completed or that full production resumed.
Interpretation	Water was technically controllable for a time. The stronger conclusion is that pumping costs, declining silver prices, company disagreements, and equipment losses made deeper mining increasingly difficult to justify.

Documentation

Arizona Daily Star, March 16, 1882, page 1

Reported the new Grand Central shaft 12 feet below the 600-foot level and being driven toward the water region. Also described ore development on the 300-foot and 600-foot levels.

Arizona Daily Star, March 17, 1882, page 2

Reported that the Grand Central water strike remained slight, with about enough water entering the shaft to supply drilling, while warning that more might appear.

Tombstone Epitaph, March 27, 1882, page 1

Contemporary mining report on the Grand Central 600-foot level and the unresolved water problem in the new shaft. Available through NewspaperArchive as the clipping titled Other Mar 27 1882 5526087.

Arizona Daily Star, April 4, 1882, page 3

Reported a large and apparently permanent stream in the Grand Central and suspension of shaft work until a pump could drain the surplus.

Arizona Daily Star, February 3, 1883, page 4

Reported Superintendent E. B. Gage’s trip from Tombstone to San Francisco to purchase pumping machinery for the Grand Central.

Arizona Daily Star, April 8, 1883, page 1

Reported that the Grand Central drift on the 600-foot level was turning out well and that pumping would commence April 15.

Fulton Iron Works advertisement

Listed the Grand Central Mining Company among Tombstone-area companies for which Fulton Iron Works had manufactured machinery. It does not specify which machinery was supplied.

Arizona Daily Star, January 3, February 6, February 14, and April 24, 1886

Traced the broken pump rod, the 600-foot timber replacement’s shipment and overland haul, and the near-completion of repairs.

Tombstone Epitaph fire reports reprinted in regional coverage, late May 1886

Described the alarm, destruction of the hoisting works, escape routes used by about twenty-five miners, firefighting difficulties, injuries, employment losses, and early inspection of the shaft. Exact issue dates and page numbers remain to be confirmed.

Arizona Daily Star, May 30, 1886, page 4

Published contemporary cost and insurance estimates and reported the shaft fire extinguished, together with an explicitly labeled rumor about the cage and cave-ins.

Arizona Daily Star, June 8, June 23, and July 10, 1886

Reported underground inspection, work to stabilize the shaft before the rains, the mill shutdown, and the proposed concentrator.

Mining and Scientific Press, October 22, 1881, volume 43

Contemporary trade-journal coverage of Tombstone mining and milling. Digitized in the Internet Archive collection for Mining and Scientific Press.

William P Blake, Tombstone and Its Mines, 1902

Early technical and historical report on the past and then-current condition of the Tombstone mines. Pages 17 through 21 are cited by later researchers for the early water history.

B S Butler, E D Wilson, & C A Rasor, Geology & Ore Deposits of the Tombstone District Arizona, 1938

Arizona Bureau of Mines Bulletin 143. A principal geological and production study based partly on surviving company information.