The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-05

The Senate Committee on the District
of Columbia granted hearing yesterday
! afternoon to the Washington Telephone
Company. Senator Proctor presided, and
several of the officers and promoters OF
| the new company were present. as were
| also parties interested in the Chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone Company. includ-
| ing its President Judge Jere NJ. Wilson.
H. w. Rusk, counsel for the new COM
pany. made a brief statement to the COM
mttee to the effect that the bill before
them was the one prepared by the House
OF Representatives and accepted by the
Washington company He introduced Mr..
| George X. Webb, of Baltimore, the Presi-
/ dent Of the independent company in that
E city. director in the Pittsburg indie
| pendent company, and in the proposed
| new Washington company.
| Mr.. Webb stated that he was not mex
! perienced in the matter of establishing
new telephone lines, and that gentlemen
with whom he was interested owned and
/ operated plant at Wilmington, Del, and
one in Baltimore. THE one in Balti-
more" he said which we are now en-
larging. will have a capacity of about
5000 telephones. We are spending over a
plant Of about 1900 telephones now IN
actual operation. We are putting up
seven-story building, itself costing over
5000 600. In Pittsburg We are spending
about s1.500,000, and by the middle OF
June will have system in operation with
capacity OF about 1000 telephones. We
start business there with 5000 contracts.
Our rates, have been stated. will be
S48 for a business phone and s36 for
for
Washington, of course we had no fran
chise. but we assumed that the conditions
here were pretty much the same as these
elsewhere; tina: is, that the people wanted
lower rates, and we started in here on the
theory that in the end we would secure
this franchise
Mr.. Webb then stated that while the
Chesapeake and Potomac Company is ad-
vertising 5000 telephones. he found that,
according to their book, published in Feb
Tuary 1900, they had apparently but 2,242,
and of these 293 we're duplicated names,
such for instance, as United States Senate
appearing under ~ and also under IS.
In addition to governmental telephones he
found a total number of but 2,020 in bust
ness and residence houses.
In answer to question from enc OF the
committee as 10 the success OF the indie
pendent companies in other cities, he ex-
hibited the books of the two companies in
Detroit, the Independent company contain
ing about 5 400 names, against 300 for the
Bell Company. In most of the large cities,
he said. the independent companies were
either at work or were preparing to render
service. He exhibited a map of the United
States, showing the extent of the growth
of the Independent telephone business, and
claimed that it would soon be so strong as
TO build UP lOng-distance service
throughout the country. He read clipp!n gs
from several newspapers, showing tie
enormous dividends paid by the various
Bell companies, the stock of which, as in
the case of the Chesapeake and Potomac
Company, is controlled by the parent Bell
Company. Mr.. Webb stated that he ana
the gentlemen associated with him knew
what they were doing in proposing TO put
this iystem in operation: that he felt PEI
fectlf confident of his position in stating
that . first-class service cou d be ndered
at the reduced rates promised, and that his
company had ready a 100000 bond as a
guarantee.
Henly +. Woodard, representing the
Telephone Subscribers Association of the
District OF Columbia stated that this as O.
citation had used every persuasion possible
to induce the Chesapeake and Potomac
Company to lower its rates. but had met
with only insult and neglect from the CON-
pany; that Congress had finally passed an
act regulating the charges of the COM
pany the legality of which act was con-
tested by it; that the association had spent
ever $1,000 in fighting the case, and that
they proposed to fight it to the bitter end
After 4 careful investigation of the new
company, they had been favOrab!y in
pressed with its reliability and ability TO
fulfill its promises, and they urged strongly
upon the District Committee the propriety
of fayorably reporting the bill granting the
franchise.
Mr.. Rusk said that when the price is put
down telephones are put within the reach
of these who cannot otherwise afford them
thus not only benefling them. but as well
hose who have business connections with |
them.
W /. Marbury the general counsel for |
the independent Baltimore telephone COM |
pany. brought out the point strongly that |
the Bell Company In Baltimore had shown |
and shown cOnclusively. that they could |
not operate system for less than the |
extortionate price they were asking but |
that notwithstanding this the independent |
company had started up with low rates
and was now in highly Hourishing condi- |
ton.
Mr. y l.. Worthington. the counsel for |
the Chesapeake and Potomac Company
made statement to the committee in |
which he claimed that no conclusive evi-
dence had been produced to show what it |
cost 10 run any of the telephone systems
He argue! that before acting upon this bill |
the committee should be informed upor
this point. At the time of the passage OF
the Law regulating the charge for Washing
ton telephones Il large amount of testl-
mony had been taken by the House Com
mittee but ii was not in any way conclu-
sive He maintained that The present rate !
eXacted by the Chesapeake and Potomac
is the lowest rate possible, and
that the revenue to be derived by the new /
according to its own figures
would nos pay per cent interest upon the
apital stock required to institute the sys-
TEN, 10 say nothing Of running expenses.
salaries. wear and tear. etc. He also de
MED that the Independent companies in
other cities were making money. but stated
hat they were on the contrary operating
at 4 heavy loss.
He stated that the Chesapeake Company
had not expected to appear before Con-
sress and had prepared nothing upon the
subject but that he would like the oppor-
unity TO gather some data showing it 10
be an absolute mpossibility for any new
properly to maintain a system at
he rates proposed by the Washington
Telephone Company. namely S4S and s36.
Mr. Webb informally replied in a few
words to the effect that it was not a ques-
ion of particular interest TO the people of
he District of Columbia as TO how much
[ cost to operate telephone systems In
pittsburg or Detroit or in any other city;
he question was that his company pro-
,osed to operate this system in Washing,
on at the rates named and that they had
100000 guaranty bond as an assurance OF