Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-01-05
TALK ABOUT PHONES.
INTERVIEW WITH THE PREsi-
DENT OF THE HOME. COMPANY.
HIS SIDE OF THE CONTROVERSY.
Refers 90 American Company as the
Ally of the Bcli, and Gives His
Reasons for So Doing-Cost Of Pro-
posed Line

Mr.. John c. Robertson. president OF
the Richmond Telephone Company, IN
speaking with a Dispatch man yester-
day about the proposition Of tho Ameri-
can Telephone and Telegraph Company,
OF Virginia, 10 establish business IN this
city, gave an outline OF the position Of
his company IN this controversy. When
asked II his company intended TO fight
the Tong distance company he said:
Il don't look upon the matter as
fight. We cannot hope to compete with
the Bell Company and its powerful ally,
in the expenditure OF money, or In the
employment Of able and eloquent coun-
sci 20 champion our cause. but We shall
present the facts in this remarkable
case 10 the City Council end the un-
bassed pablo, and let them decide
whether this application OF the Ameri-
can Telephone and Telegraph Company
IA a bona-Ade effort 10 give the city the
benefits OF a lOnE-distance service, or
whether Il is really an effort TO rivet
the Bell Company upon this city under
another name: and perpetuate the
monopoly which the people have so
long suffered and from which our COM
pany has rid them"
MR.. ROBERTSON'S REASONS.
What reason have you for saying that
this Is not a bona -hde effort to secure a
long-distance franchise asked the re-
porter.
Because. IL they were only after do
ing a lOng-distance business, no fran
chise would be necessary. They need
only come TO the city limits, and We
would gladly allow them the use of our
poles to connect their long-distance sta
lions, as no one could imagine that they
could possibly have more than ten or
dozen long-distance stations in the
city washington having only about
twenty-five. this accommodation would
not materially burden our lines.
And right here, l would remark
that there Is misapprehension in the
minds Of some people regarding the
connection between a local exchange and
a long distance service. There is, in
fact no necessary connection. In cities
which have the lang-distance phone.
parties desiring lOng-dstance cOnnec-
lions have TO go 10 a long -distance sta
ton, and in every such city such sta
tons are separate and distinct from the
local service. and the two systems are
I'm no wise dependent >he one upon the
other
COST OF THE WORK.
'"rhe conclusion, therefore. seems ir-
resistible that the long-distance feature
is simply a bait offered the public to
disguise the real purpose of the applica-
ton" Mr. Robertson went ON TO say,
especially as they publicly announce
this 10 be the only city in the United
States in which they propose to do a
local business. Theae gentlemen promise
70 spend about 100000 in Virginia II
this franchise is granted them, but the
public might naturally wonder how this
enormous sum could possibly be expend-
ed when the cost Of a line between here
and Washington could not reasonably ex-
coed $4,000, If, indeed, it amounted 10 as
much
There is another point about which
the public might desire enlightenment,
and that is the cost Of long-distance
conversations. In the petition filed by the
American Company We are referred TO
what 1t has done for the cities of Louis
VILE KY, and Nashville. Tenn. Upon
turning 10 the printed schedule Of prices
OF this company for hve-minutes con-
Versation between New York and other
points, we find that 10 Louisville the
charge Is $3.50 and TO Nashville, SO
The propOrtionate charge Tor five
minutes conversation between this city
and New York would be certainly not less
than s.. How many of our citizens would
avail themselves of this privilege, ana
how often, when the charge for a written
message of ten words by telegraph IS
only 80 cents? Only few at the most
and i cannot think our people would be
willing 10 run the risk Of returning to the
excessive charges Of a monopoly. at a
cost Of not less than $1,000 a year on eacn
thousand phones. to gain the meagre re-
suits promised"
CONNECTION OF THE COMPANIES.
"why do you speak Of the Long-Dls-
lance Company as an ally Of the Ben
Company was asked.
Because il is confessedly such. 1t has
been publicly stated here by the repre-
sentatives Of the American Telephone ana
Telegraph Company that they are IL
censed by the American Bell Company,
that they use only Bell instruments, ana
will exchange business or make terminal
contracts only with companies also using
Bell Instruments and likewise licensed
by the Bell Company. l make the state
ment for the further reason that the two
companies have the same president and
secretary and treasurer, and as far as
the public is aware their interests are
Identical. 1t certainly seems TO me that
il is closely and strongly to the interest
OF the one TO strengthen the other in IT'S
effort to crush out local opposition ana
It would seem equally plain that If they
were granted the franchise asked Tor
they would either transfer it 10 the South
ern Bell or nominally lease or purchase
the latter's plant, and thereby continue
business at the old stand but under
new name. In this connection it is
pregnant fact that the Southern Bell has
never asked the city Council TO renew its
franchise. but is seeking 10 tie the city
hands by an appeal to the United states
courts until II can procure perpetuation
o. it's existence under another name. 1
90 not believe our City Council or our
people VIII allow this home enterprise
backed by home capital and home indus
try, to be Handicapped and throttled by
any such pretence.
"As showing our confidence" concluded
Mr.. Robertson, ''n this view Of the situa-
ton and in the result OF this pending ef-
fort TO freeze us out. we are to-day adding
10 our exchange equipment several radical
improvements. which will enable as TO
give the people by far the best service
they have ever known"