The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-10-09
THE BELLS INJUNCTION.
CITF-ATTORNrY NEREDITH NOT
READY TO EXPRESS IN OPINION.
The Bell Telephone Company Cutting
Estes-They VIII Try to Retain Their
Grip on the City at ANY Cost.

The action OF the S-utAern Bell Tele-
phone Company in getting out al in
junction against the city OF Richmond
TO restrain II from interfering in any way
with the wires and poles of the company
in this city was somewhat in the nature
Of a bomb-shel. 1t had been thought
that the impenetraDle silence Of the L i
people ever since heir franchise was
revoked portended mischief, bat what
movement they were contemplating wa
not conjectured until they suddenly
sprung Judge COTS injunction upon tie
public.
The whole glst OF the bill. a sum-
mary Of winch was printed in yesterday ;
Times. Is 10 the effect that the Bell Tele-
phone Company. through its connection
with the Western Union Telegraph Com
pany, and under the laws of the United
States, Is entitled TO all the privileges and
benefits riehtfully accruing 70 tele-
graph company. For that reason they
claim that the City Council has no power
whatsoever TO make them remove their
poles from the streets. or cause them TO
be removed.
City Attorney Meredith. when question
ed yesterday on the subject. said that
owing 10 his continued sickness and
consequent weakness therefrom. he had
been unable 10 look into "a subject OF
such depth and quantity as the questions
involved In the bill filed by the Rell Com
pany.
COULD GIVE NO OPINION.
Mr. Meredith sad that for the above
reason he was unable az this time 10
HN.f fHlf
could not say whether there was any pro-
babillty Of the company S being able 10
sustain I'm court its contention that II
was TO all intents and purposes tele-
graph company, upon which its whole
case hinged.
There was much comment yesterday
upon the situation. Many expressed the
belief that n the Western Union Tse-
eraph Company could be induced TO sub
stitute the phones OF the Richmond
Telephone Company for those OF tho
Bell. the case OF the old company would
be knocked IN the head.
However that may be- there VIII hs
no future action taken I'm the matter
either nv the city or the Bell Company
before November 18th. when the iniunc-
ton will come up before Judge Nathan
Goff. in the United states Circuit court
At that time the city VIII nave 10 sho"
cause why the injunction should not be
made permanent. ...-.
ACTIVELY CUTTING RATES.
Tn order 10 keep their phones In use
q, far as possible the Bell Telephone
Corrpanv are engaged In cutting rates.
They now offer the use Of an instruneI-
for s26 a year. as against 500 ana $i9
heretofore. They are willing, II IS salo'
a. I'm f,,r.ber reduce rates II the above
nrice is not satisfactory. and It Is be
i,evcd mat II number OF people who have
not ordered the Richmond phone WIZ
not a. so as long as they can hold on -
the Bell phone az even more reasoilapl-
,ates than the home company IS oiierins,.
NV pou noople are said 20 be willing 10
nnt their instrument down to msrely .,,s,,
ppominal por figure rather than give up their
grip on the city, and to keep them en-, 'nere mere,
&, an endeavor TO starve ont the ne"
connanv I'm course Of time