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

The Senate Committee or the District
! Of Columbia granted a 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
1 and Potomac Telephone Company. includ-
/ ing its President, Judge Jere NJ. Wilson.
II. W. Rusk, counsel for the new com
| pany. made a brief statement TO the COM
mittee 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 r. Webb. of Baltimore, the Presi-
dent Of the Independent company in that
city, a 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 a plant at Wilmington, Def, 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
million dollars there. and We have small
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 a system in operation with
a capacity Of about 10 600 telephones. We
start business there with 5000 contracts.
Our rates, as have been stated, will be
F,r nd
those for residences When We came TO
Washington, Of course we had no fran
chise but we assumed that the conditions
here were pretty much the same as those
elsewhere; that 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 were duplicated name,
such, for instance, as United States Senate
appearing under "U'' and also under s.
In addition to governmental telephones he
found a total number of but 2.02O in busi-
ness and residence houses.
In answer to d question from one 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 400 names, against 2,S0O 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 map OF the United
States, showing the extent OF the growth
Of the Independent telephone business, and
claimed that il would soon be so strong as
to build up long distance service
throughout the country. He read clippings
from several newspapers, showing tee
enormous dividends paid by the various
Bell companies. the stock of which, rs in
the case Of the Chesapeake and Potomac
Company, is controlled by the parent Bell
Company Mr. Webb stated that he and
the gentlemen associated with him knew
what they were doing in proposing to pat
this system in operation that he felt Pc
fectly confident of his position in stating
that d frst-class service c0u be ndcred
at the reduced rates promised and that mis-
company had ready $lo0OC0 bond as q
guarantee
Henry f. 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 com
pany; that Congress mad finally pass ed an
act regulating the charges OF the COM
pauy, the legality of which act was con-
tested by it; that the association had spent
over $1,000 in fighting the case and mat
they proposed to fight il to the bitter end.
After 4 careful investigation Of the new
they had been favorab!y in
pressed with its reliability and ability TO
fulfll 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 those who cannot otherwise afford them
thus not only benefting them. hut as well !
hose who have business connections with I
them
W. /. Marbury. the general counsel fol /
The independent Baltimore telephone COM |
9any. brought out the point strongly that /
he Bell Company IN Baltimore had shown /
and shown conclusively that they could I
not operate a system for less than the |
aNtortioHaic price they were asking but !
hat notwithstanding this the independent /
company had started up with low rates
md was now in q highly loUrishing coudi-
ion.
Mr. \ l.. Worthington. the counsel for
he Chesapeake and Potomac Company
made statement to the committee iu
which he claimed that no conclusive evil
Ieuce had been produced to show what it
.Ost to run any of the telephone systems
be argue. that before acting upon this bill
he committee should be informed upor
his point Al the time of the passage Of
he law regulating The charge for Washing
on telephones Il large amount Of test
no f.fL. fy hs
nitte,. but it was not in any way couclu-
i've lie maintained that the present rate
.Nacted By the Chesapeake ami Potomac
'ompauy is the lowest rate possible and
hat the revenue to be derived by the new
Cmpauy. according 10 its own figures
would no, pay 6 per cent interest upon the
apital stock required TO institute the sys-
en-. 10 say nC;hlng Of running expenses.
alaries. wear and tear. etc. He also de
lied that the independent companies i'm
Their cities were making money. but stated
hat they Were on the contrary operating
t a heavy loss.
He stated that the Chesapeake Company
ad not expected to appear before Con-
ress and had prepared nothing upon the
uhject but that he would like the Oppor-
unity TO gather some data showing it to
e. an absolute impossibility for any new
ompany properly to maintain system at
he rates proposed by the Washington /
telephone Company, namely SiS and $50.
Nj Webb informally replied in few
lords to the effect that 1t was not ques- 1
ion Of particular interest TO the people OF
be- District of Columbia as TO how much
cost to operate telephone systems In
ittsburg or Detroit or in any other city. /
be question was that his company pro
osed to operate his system in Washing
nm al The rates named and that rhpV had