Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-12-02
FIGHT OVER PHONES
The Council to Consider The Question Of
ReTckins Existing Franchises.
TALK NTH COLONEL EcLUER.
re Fully sess Forth the Company's Side
Of the Case Unwilling 60 Admit Other
Wires 90 Their Conduits.

Wbe telcphone is likely TO ring loud and
long IN the Council Chamber tomorrow
night
The Committee on Grounds and Build
Tugs VIII submit the report, adopted at
their last meeting and printed In full In
the Dispatch. recommending that the ex-
is,ins franchises of the southern BEL
Telepboue Company be revoked, and II
the consideration OF the paper Is gone
into the session OF the lower branch Will
be OF unusual interest.
While the fight OF the old committee.
which was inherited by the present one
and has been carried on by II, was for
free phones" the matter. as our read
ers have seen. has assumed n much
broader and more important phase. Col
onel McCluer. the telephone company
representative here, was seen by DIS
patch man yesterday and questioned as
20 the relations between his corporation
and the city.
"To what do YOU attribute the commit
tees action in moving TO repeal your
franchise?' the superintendent was FIRST
asked.
"well. now" ne replied, that Is very
natural and a very fair question, ana
am quite ready % answer II; but II can
not be done withou going into matters
nj some length. / may say that, II my
company is in any degree responsible ior
the present attitude OF the city authorlues
and the citizens generally toward tin
shns oft
and susplclon-it is. in my view, due 10
n somewhat extreme reti,ence on our
part. The company has not favored
policy OF proclamation or pubic talk, ana
the people have felt. perhaps naturally
enough, that we would ere this have ex-
nIaIned and defended ourselves IL We had
not occupied an indefensible position.
THE STRAINED RELATIONS.
1.-THE originating cause Of what may be
termed the strained relations between
ourselves and the city authorities has
come from n difference of view between
ourselves and the city as TO what was a
proper and practicable occupancy OF our
poles by other wires. having reference
10 a desire to limit the number or poles
I'm the streets. We could not agree to the
provisions OF an ordinance passed In
July. 1891. requiring 'strong-current
wires-that is. those used for electric-ilght
and power-to be placed on our poles. We
had been compelled TO expend thousands
of dollars In constructing what electrl-
clans call 'common-return' wires 10 par
TALLY relieve our business the taking OF
our patrons over our wires) from the
disturbing effects OF these currents car
,ied on pOles al a considerable distance
from ours. They would have been ir-
remediably disastrous If carried on our
poles.
Furthermore. I must do my company
the Justice to say that even this is not
the largest consideration which Influenced
us We felt then. and We feel now, that
our consent 10 the arrangement OF the
clectric-iight wires Of the city, according
10 the provisions Of the ordinance OF July,
1891. would have jeopardzed the public
safety To a degree that can scarcely he
appreciated. We made the objection
against this ordinance stoutly and per-
sistently because We felt impelled TO ms
course by the highest considerations or
public duty and business prudence. There
were numberless meetings OF committees
and officials. at which we were repre-
scented by able counsel and by the most
intelligent experts of this country. we
made the objection on behalf Of the city
OF Richmond and its citizens as well as
ourselves, and aided by the growth OF
general popular intelligence and eXperi.
ence, our views finally prevailed. ana
therefrom started the movement to repeal
our franchise
IT EXPLAINS ITSELF.
1.-THE late revival of the proposition OF
repeal carries its explanation upon It's
face The report of the subcommittee
which was adopted by the full Committee
on Grounds and Buildings. hardly needs
any comment These gentlemen have pro-
II ,sfe. "a
tee meetings. and through the public
press. that their proposition 10 repeal
our ordinance was in no way connected
with our refusal TO grant the CITY thirty
nine free phones. But We think the
public will agree with US, that it is i'm
possible for these gentlemen, by any
amount Of protestation, ia separate their
proposition to repeal from our refusal
10 grant
1--WE do not, Of course, mean to suggest
that they were insincere in their protesta-
Mons; nevertheless, we do not believe that
my intelligent and unparalleled man can
read their report without any conviction
being forced upon him, that. IL we had
granted the free service asked, nothing
would have been heard. for the present
at least, OF the proposition TO repeal our
franchise At the least we are safe In as
kerting that II we had granted this de-
nand Il would have been practically i'm
possible for these gentlemen TO carry. as
we believe II would have been morally
Impossible for them Immediately there
upon to introduce a resolution to repeal
the franchise of this company. 1t would.
indeed. have been passing strange for
the city to have first asked the telephone
company. which conducts its business by
virtue of a franchise granted by the city
Itself TO grant the city thirtS-nine free
phones; and. the moment afterwards