New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-03
TELEPHONE RATES HEARING
MR. BOARDMAN ARGUES AGAINST RE-
DUCTION.
HE SAYS THERE Is NO GENERAL. PUBLIC DE
MAND FOR THE PENDING BILI,-MR


HE SAYS THERE NO GENERAL PUBLIC DE
MAND FOR THE PENDING BILI,-MR
sTERNs REPLY.
Albany. April "A final hearing on the Telephone
Rate Reduction bill was given al a Joint meeting
Of the Senate and Assembly Cities Committees TINS
afternoon. William Shaw, for the Troy Telegram
and Telephone Company, opposed the measure ne
furnished the committee with a large nunoer o'
statistics TO prove that the bill would be ruinous 10
his company as well unjust 10 It's patrons Inc
oneratlng expenses average about 81 a year ior
each instrument, he said The bill only allows a
charge of from S27 to sSG in the cities ana villages
IN his territory. 1t would cause complaint among
Subscribers who now satisfied. because us hNeu
rates would raise the charges now prevailing !"
so,aral localities lie did not think It practical for
husy state officers to act satisfactorily in adjusting
disputes to rates.
Mr. Boarlman. Of New-Nork. speaking lot the
METROPOLITAN Telephone Company said ne adInl''ed
the power OF the Legislature 10 deal with the mat
ter in hand and adjust rates. II competition did
not do So He laid down the propositions that the
matter Is one in which the telephone-users arc
primarily interested and that the rates hxed are
altogether Inadequate II these rates were enforced
the New-York Company could not pay It's operating
expenses As law he said the proposed measure
was unique. and ne believed it TO be unconstitu-
tiOnal.
He proposed to conflne his argument chiefly 10
the question OF policy. In other States similar bills
had been tried and proved failures lie asserted That
this bill had sufficient support from telephone
subscribers TO warrant legislative action
For several years a few men had been coming 10
the legislature pretending 10 represent an outraged
public sentiment. lie reviewed the history OF uc
bill particularly the threat made by friends OF the
bin TO defeat for election legislators who opposed
IT, He presented circular used In brooklyn IN an
effort TO defeat Assemblyman Scanon. The many
changes since made In the bill by Its friends had
hos lust Il
such procedure he protested as Unfair ana unjust
Outside of Brooklyn. New-YOrk end Bunao' ne
asserted, there no substantial advocacy OF inc
proposed measure. In proof Of this. he read CLIP
pings from Utica paper. showing how an eHor'
to get the telephone subs'rDerS therc 10 pd0N NY
the bill had failed.
He protested that the fact that telephone SUD
e,ribers generally had petltoned for tho passage
OF any such bill was proof sufficient OF lack Oh
interest on their part. on the other hhhh I'4"
New-York and Brooklyn subscribers had I~titiohed
against tho bill Mr.. Stern h. said. did not repre-
sent the telephone subscribers in II way emitting
hin, 10 standing in this important matter.
In New-Yo-k city. he said. there were a few
restless men who were continually getting up ASSOC
Citations to protest against the established order OF
things thereby making themselves prominent 9uch
self constituted bodies should not count He as
serted that Mr.. Stern could not tell how many te'e-
phonc cubse-ribers he represented Ia New-Nork ana
Brooklyn public sentiment on the matter uhd'r us
cussion was divided. The busy. prosperous men hhd
no time - agltate. \ number II clippings s"'"eu
that several new telephone companies w"i" "rg'h|-
Ing 10 enter the field and compete for The business
~ 10 the prevailing rates. h. denied that th'y
were excessive anywhere in this STATE, ana made
comparisons t. prove his assertion. In Ne"-f'rK
the rate could not be shown - b. unT''s'h'o''
The conditions were vastly different from those III
foreign cities. with which 1t hal been sought 10
cornpare tho New-York CITY service which j. The
frT'a ftgH IfT
selves had complained - their servc- to the Tow
eminent lie read reports u foresn experts snow
iur tho superiority 81 American t"."phon" y
telephone service and prices her' AZ pr'v'l nF I'D.
general use ~ the t,cph. ne. subscriber" Ih tnl7
r',otrt, ms. the telephone twice much as th"s"
ohr,nd ,ytgcs are about four times 49, mich n"i"
AS they are abroad. and rents At'rlr' hpI'', ~
times "a much In this country. ~" men "hl.nne1
NOV m. cost f,r service Increased A. ia" hhiHn't
~ subscribers grew. The expenses I''-'''s n.
tho square OF tn nurO"r ~ suhscri'-r7' az. n
~ French experts Ou th"s" facts "e aH"'' we
comm.tie" NJ Z? 1lpi'.r i.g n....t NJ noarlmnn
his nlrues. ~ pi"scniins .hs as ,.o.i,ti"n
thought III" Tolcrhon" Hnp" il'"' -, ~ t,t Lui
hal secured som" petitions u. 100 , h 80 u,,.~n'.i
II was his plac" 20 present or s',nfc , ~
show mat he represented a majority OF icl'rhou"
,n,ni,,cr Tho I'm ns IL stood he thought 4 fair
measure. ana on" ihni WOMB NV U.s. u -
a. 10 The relative cost N this and other eounir'-
although he admitted That IN" COST ABROAD WIS
n, Mr BoarImau b. said IN" reason no oin"r
h,,sin.ss assOciaflous iu New YORK tity hdd a't'I
H., f,vnr az the bin was because they all thought
The BOARD OF Trade would do better thah ih'y
could. , 80.
Nr Nc doo ~ YoukcrS thought the cost ot op,
GRAFTON given had be.n too h%h II" hhi u''h 'o''
that iclophoncs could bee run for much less
Mr. HoarlmAn. IA closing. asserted ihat IN" pro
roaoI legislation was vicious. b"chus" II le't very
important matter 20 the discretion of The propo+rl
cnInnisson In that u delegated authority " was
a., ,sbo,ncd or the Power 81 Removal bill AMI
would los of tho Police iii. deprivins men ~ the
riyht ~ auucal This sort ~ legislation Was on
wrong lines and would be- regretted So would TINS
blll II passed 49,,
Wr Iiumuhrcv or Buffalo, favored tho bill.
rho committee adjourned at o'clock and Will
consider the bill at its next meeting
Tn, senate Committee on Canals tomorrow VIII
reuor, ravorably Mr.. O'Cirady's bill nppropraing
s o., for the ExchAnGe-st canal bridge In Rochcs-