Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1899-07-11
What Telephone Users Say

What Telephone Users Say
Lincoln, Ill.,
II regard two telephone systems as
confusing, expensive and useless. =
Thomas H. Stokes.
Danville. III
ITO be required to use two tele-
phones in the same office is certainly
a very great nuisance and an unneces-
sary expense "A. r. Samuel.
Davenport, Ia
Better one good telephone system
at decent price than twenty poor
ones, even though we have them for
nothing. davenport outlook
Grand Rapids, Mich
ut is a perfect nuisance. 1t costs
more and is OF more bother. have To
pay for four phones. l would be in
favor OF consolidation. DIR. L. e.
Best.
Grand Rapids, Mich
Il think the use of two phones on
different lines is a nuisance. and will
be glad to see the time, which believe
will surely come, when 1t will be abol-
ished by the determination of one line
by the other Business men are much
annoyed by residence 'phone-users
calling up and requiring the transfer
Of message from one line to another
ASA favor."-John e. Peck.
Belvidere. Ill.,
II consider two telephones in our
town nuisance. William H. Piel.
Toledo, o.
1T is great nuisance to have two
different systems of telephones in the
same city, and we find 1t especially in
convenient to have to many different
wires in our building. splitter g. Co.,
Sandusky, o.
II have not found that the use of
two telephone systems is of any ad-
vantage. On the contrary, the ex-
pense of two telephones is greater
than the old phone was before the
new system was introduced. DIR.
TIA F. Cook.
Decatur, ILL.,
"A person Is obliged to have two
phones in order to be able to talk to
all persons having telephones, and we
are often annoyed by having a sub
scrlber on one line call us up and ask
US to transmit message over the 9TH
er line. Decatur Plumbing & Heating
Co.
Decatur, ILL.,
Two telephone systems in one city
are nuisance as regards the service
and no saving from a financial stand
point. "-R. w. Ferguson.
Brazil, Ind
I'VE cannot understand how two
telephone systems could be of any ad-
vantage in any city, when such perfect
service can be given by one system. =
]. V.Ayer.
Shelbyville, Ind
1.-The use of two telephones in an Of
fee or place of business is a great
nuisance, and 1t would be far better
II but one system or companys phone
was in use in city or town. ID. L.
Wilson.
Fort Wayne, Ind
"We have no comments whatever to
offer in favor of using two telephones
in our place of business. Why
should we be compelled to pay for two
phones when one will answer all prac-
tical purposes?"-Gross & Pellens.
st, Joseph, Mo-
1--WE feel that city has as much use
for two telephones as dog has for
two tails. We are paying bitterly for
what we thought at one time might be
good thing" F. C. Darlington.
st. Joseph, Mo-
I'm our opinion 1t is a great mistake
for two telephone companies to try to
do business in the same city, and we
can very plainly see that 1t has not re-
suited in any better service, and has
caused great deal of unnecessary
expense by compelling some concerns
to have two telephones when they did
not really gain anything thereby, but
were simply forced to put in a second
telephone. This seems to us to be a
very unfortunate state of AFFAIRS
R. W. Powell
st. Joseph, Mo-
After my experience here with two
telephones, must candldly confess
that when the matter was FIRST talked
OF in our city I thought 1t a big thing
but, to my sorrow, find 1t useless ex-
pense,"-H. NJ. Garlichs.
| Topeka, Kan.-
"We had the Bell phone taken out
but after trying for several months to
get along. without it. we were com
PEELED to have 1t put back The two
phones made the cost OF service more
than business would Justify, so we
took out the new one and find we gel
along well without It's. Rain.
Topeka. Kan
We find in business that it is a
very rare occurrence when we have
business communications through one
| talaDhona that ,oanrof ga a attandad b.