Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-10-28
e a brief hlstory OF the telephone

the city. Tie CITY mas no cohliot Vi .at'
character over the Bell Company. we
ali know how cxactng they have becn IN
their CHARGES Wen do l remember Nhen
Mir. McClucr was before this body some
time ago urging us not TO use our HIlu
cncc with the Council. He stated lhat
every subscriber cost the company 49,
and that he did not consider $40 TOO much
profit. when the outlay was cohsiosSI.l'
and for one i agreed with him.,, Vow,
after Keeping ucrfectly quiet all these
months. permitting the new company 10
put up their poles and wires. just as they
are beginning TO be ready 10 give y bo9n
service he steps forward ana olleis 70
give the same service that ne says cos
him so for $50, a loss OF 80 Tor each SUI.
scriher For one ! am not willing that
the Fell Company shall do US service
az such great loss -.
SHOULD SUSTAIN THE NEW CUM
Il have heard complaint Of the service
Of the new company" went on Mr row
ers There is no doubt TINS VIII llh-
prove. The Bell Company was long
time IN making theirs as good as 1t now
IS. and ] wish 10 say here tnat the service
they give US IN Richmond is as good, ii
not better, than any have seen. Inc new
company. with few exceptions, am loiu'
Is employing all their iemale optra,ot,ss
from this city and Manchester, and as IL
requires but a short time 10 learn, no
doubt the service VII rapidly improve.
/ think. therefore. II is eminenty proper
that this Chamber should adopt tne reso-
utiOne and that we should use Whatever
influence we have 10 induce our
pcopie TO subscribe TO the new
company / have said nothing about
the legal status OF THIS Gotipdit,y' 49,
of the injunction which tney haNe
gotten out against the city. that being
matter for the court; but this we can 40
we can induce all 10 take the new phone.
i think we shall thereby accomplish our
Obiect-namely, OF having Only one
phone for the Bell Company Will hardly
care to remain with US without business.
Mr. Charles Straus said that at the last
meeting he was opposed 10 the fesoluuon
offered. but his mind had been chonkcd
by tho statement of Mr.. McCluer th9t
but one company could exist, and unat
IL was the intention of his company, =
necessary. 10 take the case to the highest
court I'm the land and that the litigation
Of 10 might require FIVE years. The only
way I'm which the organization could con-
trovert the efforts Of the Bell Company
was through the patronage or the com
munity and therefore. he favored the
minority report.
FOR THE MAJORITY REPORT.
Mr.. B. Rama wexford. a member Of
the committee. I'm support OF the majority
report. said that the question resolved
itself simply into whether the Chamber
should take action between two corpora
tons Neither was here for love OF the
community. but for the profits OF tie
business. The Chamber should not allow
antag0nism against the old company 10
influence its action. the matter should be
left 20 the determination OF each sub
scriber 10 patIOnize the cOmpar. which
ne thought would best serve his indi-
vidual interest.
was not familiar with the constitution
OF the Chamber. but felt assured 'his
body. like an other bodies, had the right
20 protect itself and also the right and
duty 10 do what was necessary for the
~ therefore.
considered il entirely within the province
of the Chamber to exert its influence
where the public interest was involved ia
the service.
vote for the minority report that it was
no boycott. iu his opinion. The contest
between these companies was not anaio-
gOus 10 one between two private citizens
or corporations but was one which in
yolved an interest 20 every businessman.
every professional man. and a number
Of ether citizens.
10 NEED TO ADOPT IT.
Colonel John b. Purcell stated that he
expected TO patronize the new company.
He expressed the opinion that the ciu-
ZCns were as sensible and as capable OF
judging of this matter as the members
~ the chamber VINO were present, ana
that therefore the necessity did not
exist for adopting tho minority report.
The Chamber had done its full duty I'm
opposing before the Council the grant
Of further privileges TO the old company,
and that II was not its province 10 follow
the question further or into the courts;
that the old company had right 10
demand fair treatment. and the Chamber
would weaken its influence by taking
sides between two Of it, members or two
citizens I'm such a contest; that. however
muOl we might object 10 government by
injunction. the old company had preju-
diced It's case by that course Of action,
and If that action. together with the
ont rsrtf fls bod Of
meeting were without effect nothing
that tho Chamber could do would have
any further effect. He, therefore. ex-
pressed the intention Of voting for the
majority report. and urged the other
members OF the Chamber TO do likewise.
Mr. J.. T. Morris fully cOncurred with
the remarks OF Colonel Purcell, and eX-
pressed the opinion that the adoption Of
the minority report would be fraught with
great danger.
MIR. GUNsTS STATEMENT
Mr.. Marx Gunst gave a brief history Of
the municipal action upon the telephone
matter. He disclaimed all desire 10 have
the Chamber take improper action or dis
play animOsity against the Bel Com
Uauy but said that the action Of the
Council was largely due TO the influence
OF the Chamber and that the present pO-
stiOn Of the Bell Company was owing 10
its unwilingness 10 give lower rates and
TO meet the reasonable demands, as he
thought. Of the City Council; that they
now were I'm the position Of ignoring the
city Council and defantly doing business
ln Richmond without franchise.
Mr. McCluer said he thought he should
state the history Of his company in Rich
mond, and explain the present conflict.
This he did very fully, and made strong
appeal 20 the Chamber not to take sides
in the contest between his company and
the new company, stating that II b. had
no interest ia the Richmond Telephone
Exchange as q member Of the Chamber
and "a citizen or Richmond ne should give
Mr.. d. S. Mccarthy a member Of the
committee, faVOring the majority report,
said that the committee recognized that
the Bell Company had prejudiced IFS case
by not meeting the demand OF the Cham
Der for lower rates, by not applying FOR
new franchise, and by applying FOR an In
junction against the city, but that the
majority of the committee did not think
10 wise TO recommend that the Organiza-
ton use its influence in favor Of one cor
poration against the other
Mr.. Everett Waddey earnestly advo-
Gated The adoption Of the minority report.
saying that he did not think the mem
hcIshiD of these two companies In the
Chamber should have the slightest effect
upon its action; that If such was the
case whatever interest the city or its
citizens might have at stake. public cor
porations would shield themselves by
membership ln he Chamber. He added
that I'm the present instance the citizens
had direct interest involved amounting
20 about $4,000 Der annum. and that
therefore, II was perfectly proper 10 pro-
tcct their interest by influencing patron
age i'm favor OF the company which would
permanently secure them that reduction
in the cost OF telephone service. He ex-
pressed the opinion that the thanks Of
the Chamber were due 10 Mr. Gunst and
others who were Instrumental I'm securing
such action by the Council as revoked
the franchise OF the Bel Company.
The question being called for, the vote