Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-12-02

Indeed, at the same meeting. to render
| this accommodation OF no eject. by re-
peaiing the ordinance by virtue OF when
! the telephone company maintains Its
| wires and transacts its business.
ABOUT GOING UNDER GROUND.
what have you now TO say about
going under ground with your wiresy'
'onr company has repeatedly suggested
! 10 the city officials that We should be al
! lowed to bury our wires: but they nave
always opposed the movement. At least
| once, and that about two years ago, we
made and pressed formal application for
this privilege. submitting a carefully-pre-
pared ordinance covering the ground. but
were unable TO secure the Street Com
| mittee's approval.
1T Is now several years since the art or
| telephony has arrived at such stage OF
development that experts agree that the
beet results are only TO be attained In
cities by the underground system. In
the first place, under ground we would
US. COPPER wire exclusively, and the cop
per wire greatly increases the talking ca
| pacity OF the telephones We are enabled,
also by the underground system not only
| TO free the streets from poles and wires.
but to guard more perfectly against
strains and injuries 0 the wires and lines
by winds and other causes. az well as
against obstruction and diversion Of the
current by foliage. and crosses with
strong-current wires. endangering life ana
property from confiagrations. In short, a
telephone expert will state emphaticaIly
that the underground service is SO vastly
preferable that il should undoubtedly be
resorted to wherever the patronage Is
sufficient 10 justify the expense of pre-
paration for IL. We have without sue
cess pressed these arguments in favor Of
burying our wires. particularly that the
accumulation OF wires and poles in the
streets. against which the city officials
are constantly inveighing, would thus be
relieved; but all has been without avail.
We are satisfied that we would have been
under ground to-day with large part OF
our wires in this city, II we had been
permitted TO do So"
NOT EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE.
Does, or not, your company claim
that its present franchise or ordinance
gives II exclusive control Of the streets
for telephone purposes?'
Certainly not, sir; we have never
entertained or advanced such an idea"
The public would like TO know now
whether the proposed underground ordi-
nance provides for an exclusive grant of
underground privileges to your COM
pany?'
ut does not. On the contrary, II lays
down terms and conditions. upon COM
pliance with which any and every cleo
trio company In the city will be per-
mitted TO place It's wires under ground
and, as Major Stiles said at the COM
miltee meeting, the ordinance is sub
stantially one which has been adopted by
the city of Atlanta, after full discussion
and conference between the city au-
thorIties and the representatives, OF the
electric companies. and in accordance
with the terms of which our company
has actually buried its wires. to a great
extent in the business portions OF the
city of Atlanta.
NOT WILLING TO THAT.
I'VE would like to know whether or
not your company would be WILING in
accepting the new underground ordinance.
10 agree that when any other company
desires to establish a telephone system
here. II shall be permitted, upon pay
ment Of equitable compensation, TO use
your conduts?"
"Ah! now | think / get at the milk In
the cocoanut and / answer NO. Your
question is whether our company, acting
under a general ordinance which shall
permit any and every company. upon
compliance with its terms and conditions.
10 go under ground. will undertake TO lay
an underground system indefinitely larger
than IT requires for it's own use to-day,
or is likely to require in the reasonably
near future and allow the expense and
cost Of building in excess of its own
needs TO lie and rot as idle capital upon
the chance of enabling other people. who
have neither capital nor experience In
the business. and who have not estab-
lished their claim TO public conii-
dencc, to compete with us ana 10
break us down by the competition. We
go further and say that we cannot under
stand how any intelligent and fair
minded businessmen of this city, In the
Council or out Of IL, could feel that rea-
sonable devotion 10 the public interests
demands Of us any such sacrifice of capt.
tai or of common sense. We can, how
ever, perfectly understand how any man,
in or out OF the city Council. who is
interested In a proposed competing COM
pany, should insist upon our assuming
such position and undertaking such a
burden. We are entirely willing that the
intelligent public of Richmond and
members Of the City Council shall know
exactly where we stand upon this mat
ter. and where we split from those who
make, or are disposed 10 make, the unreal
sonable demand which is embodied in
your question.
'In addition to the difficulties Of cleo
trical engineering involved in the pro-
posed joint use of conduits. we do not
feel that a successful business ought TO
be loaded with the burden OF providing
a basis and capital for competition which
otherwise would not be able 10 get upon
its feet We do not think we ought TO be
condemned because we are not willing
ourselves to load the bludgeon which 10
10 be used to break our own heads"
CHARGES HERE AND ELSEWHERE.
How do the charges for telephone SER
vice here compare with charges for SINH
lar service in other cities of about the
size of RichmondY
1T would be difficult 10 answer this
question exactly and in detail but / can
say in general that these charges are
upon par with those OF other southern
cities Of about the size and commercial
importance Of Richmond, for instance,
Atlanta; and they are smaller than the
charges of other cities of about the same
size generally throughout the North. Our
comparison Of its rates In Richmond with
rates elsewhere"
art not these charges higher here In
Richmond than they formerly were?'
1--WE have not increased our rates since