Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-05-27
WILL TRY TO AGREE,
LONG-DIsTANCE CO.'S LAWYERS
AND CITY ATTORNEY TO CONFER.
RESULT o. LAST NIGHTS MEETING.
srr. Meredith Explains I'm Detail the
Ordinance Presented by htns-
MANY Objections Raised 10 II by
Counsel on the other Side.


wore Chairman Allen and Messrs
Bahon moombcrg Burton, carter Ebei'
Foster. John NJ. King, Lawder. Pollock
and Woody. There were also in attend-
nncc Mcssrs Clarence J.. Young ana
George Wayne Anderson, representing
the American Telephone and Telegraph
company Of Virginia. and Mcssrs. John
= Robertson. president and A. p. Guison,
general counsel for tho Richmond Tele-
phone Company There was great deal
OF discussion relative TO the mode oi
procedure 10 be followed. Several mo-
lions were offered and voted down and
oftcr much debate. the committee heard
from, Citv-Attorney Meredith IN regard TO
ths ordinance prepared by him permitting
the I.ong-Distance Company to do busi-
moss I'm Richmond under certain resiric-
tions. The City Attorney explained IN
detail the provisions Of the ordnance
going carefully into the safeguards
thrown around the city. lie was asked
81 the Ben Telephone Company had any
right 10 put down poles I'M the pace -,
their present poles. The Attorney sald
this question would come under the ponce
regulation.
WHY He PREPARED 1T SO
Mr.. Meredith proceeded with his ex-
,lsnafion OF the provisions Of the ordl-
nance After this ne was asked 10 state
10 The committee what reasons prompted
him TO prcpare the ordinance as he d!d.
Tie smoke of the great fight tho city had
already had as 20 the much-ialked-oi
ioint usc of poles. and referred 10 the
fact that tho committee had lnha"S
agreed upon separate poles for the heaNy-
current and light-current wires. AT
Meredith argued the great necessity IoI
recurring these light-currcnt wires 10 20
upon the poles carrying otner Ashl-Cn'-
rent wires under the ordinance requiring
Them TO do $50. The pole and conduit
question was thoroughly discussed, ana
The matter OF arrangements for lo~al ttlc-
phone business. connection OF Wiies' elc'
was explaiucd by the city Attorney. AS
10 the time in which the company shoulu
complete the work Of establishing lls
plant here. Mr. Meredith recommended
that "a clause bee inserted in the ordinance
prescribing that it should be completed
and in operation within ninety days or
six months. This was necessary in order
10 require the company 10 complete this
work
The CITY Attorney next took up the pro-
vision in the ordinance fixing a minimum
charge for local telephone service or -
"a month for phones in business-houses'
and s. "a month for phones i'm private
residences lie spoke at great length
relative TO this matter saying that any
company could. IL it chose TO, get arouhn
a minimum rate. Rebates. reductions, al
lowances Of claims. or contentious of one
sort or another. would enable a company,
If 10 desired so 10 do, 10 furnish It's
'pbones at prices below the minimum
price fixed by the Council. The city At
torroy treated the subject OF the maxi
mum rates for local phone service saying
that he had left the price blank. and sus-
cested that this feature OF the ordinance
should prescribe that the maximum rates
should continue for two or three years.
This provision. ne explained, had been
deemed advisable, because II might oe
PRACTICAL as the company had intlmalea'
for system of charges TO be arranged
whereby telephone subscribers should pay
for their phones in accordance with lne
number of times they were used.
POSITION or TIE COMPANY.
After Nr. Meredith had concluded his
explanation of the ordinance, the COM
mittee ON motion OF MI BloomDel b
made ii request TO hear from counsel for
tbe American Telegraph and Telephone
Company of Virginia, i'm reference 10 the
features of the ordinance submitted by
the city Attorney, TO which the COM
pany would raise objection.
Mr.. Clarence X. Young representing lhc
company. stated that he had no desire
10 take the time Of the committee IN con
Fider!ng Il subject which had been so
thoroughly investigated by the members
unless IL was the desire Of the commit
Zee TO hear from him upon some parucu-
,.r point raised by the City Attorney.
IA n u
lion his company had TO accepting an
amendment which he had offered, sub
i-ctiug The company 10 the PROVISIONS oil
..cti0n cf the general conduit ordinance?
Mr. Young said that the committee ordi-
nance contained all the reasonable pro-
visions iu the general conduit ordinance.
"Eyery provision of section 90 said he'
els embodied iu the committee ordinance
except one provision. which says that the
c8nduts 10 De placed under ground by
the company shall be of suiuclent Ca
uacity TO accommodate all the wires IN
such streets and alleys, and TO provide
for an increase thereof TO az least the eX-
tent of 100 per cent. such increase OF
space not TO bc occupied by any such
company. corporation, partnership, or in
diyidual. directly or indirectly. without
the consent of the City Council
MADE TT 4 NULLITY.
This provision said Air. Young, was
one which practically made the whole
conduit ordinance a nullity. 1t simply
means" said che. that any company
coming into Richmond would be com
peeled 20 put down q conduit, not only
for it's own wires bat for all the wires
IN the city and provide additional space
OF 100 per cent" This provision, Mr..
Young argued. was unreasonable. and no
company would accept A. and for that
reason his company could not accept the
amendment OF Mr. Carter He called the
committees attention 30 the fact that
The general conduit ordinance had been
a law since September 10, 1895; that other
companies had accepted It's provisions
but had failed 10 comply with them; that
the ordinance had never been enforced,
and that no company in the city could be
forced TO comply with its provisions.
For this reason the ordinance was prac-
tlcaliy "a nullity.
Mr. Young took up the other provisions
o. the conduit ordinance and endeaVored
10 show that they were all embodied IN
the committee ordinance.
THE CITY ATTORNEYS ORDINANCE
SIR. Ebd asked Mr. Young TO point out
his objection to the ordinance submitted
by the City Attorney
In the first place" said Mr.. Young,
"Our company carries on a large tclc-
graph business. The committee in It's
ordinance gave as right TO 10 tele-
graph business as well as a telephone
business IN the first section Of the ordi-
nance presented by the city Attorney our
telegraph business is taken away Why
This Is done don't know. There Is cer-
tainly nothing Illegal I'm our doing a teie-
graph business"
"As 10 the second section Of the ordl-