The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1900-06-27
The Telephone Franchise

Nix. EDITOR: have read the Ortli-
nance of the City Council granting to
the Anderson Telephone Co. al cxclu-
sive franchise for the next ten years
upon the terms and conditions therein
mentioned. have been Informed that
there is strong opposition to the Ordi-
nance OH the part OF the voters and
taxpayers Of the town, and further
that three Or four Of the Aldermen of
the City Council are stockholders in
the Anderson Telephone Co, to which
the franchise is granted. If this be
true then as it respects these particu-
lnr Aldermen they are acting in this
matter in two distinct capacities which
nre nntagOnistic to ench Other-One rs
trustees for the town and the other rs
members OF the Telephone Co., which
is TO DC bone flied by the grant of the
franchise. In other words, by virtue
of the powers vested in them by their
election to the office they hold, they
nre granting to themselves franchise
for their own benefit.
In the reading of the Ordinance, as
published, it is stated Charges to be
no higher than present rates" But in
Sec. 5 of the Ordinance it is stated
that the charges on each city phone
shall not exceed $500 per year, nor
on other phones $50. per year. This
! think is its meaning. If SO the COM
pany may change rates which will not
exceed the limits prescribed and yet
those rates may exceed the rates ut
present charged. However this may
br, it is certain that tho rates which
profitable, or the Company would not
desire the franchise. Then the uucs-
tiOn make rccurs--can those Alder
men, who are also members Of the
Telephone Co., make Il contract with
themselves from which they are to de-
rive profitY The agreement of the
Company 10 cXpcnd $4,000 in the next
twelve months in improving their sys-
TEN and tho other stipnlations on their
part cannot in the slightest degree
affect this question.
Mr.. Cleveland, during his admins
tration, truly said that public Office is
II public trust, and there is no princi-
pie of law better established and more
universally recognized than that
trustee in the performance of his trust
duties shall not be allowed to make
profit for himself. The particular
Aldermen to whom refer are friends
of mine and are honorable gentlemen.
In concurring in the grant of this fran
chise they did not have these legal
principles III mind and there was moth
ing sinister in their motives. But there
are numerous instances III the law
books where on bill filed against q
trustee the Court of Equity has ordered
the trustee to account for every dollar
he has made in the discharge of his
/ trust duties. The other Aldermen
who are not members of the Telephone
Co. can derive no profit from the grant
of tile franchise. But why would not
a bill, such as have indicated, be
mainta;nahio against those. Alder mon
who are members Of the Tele phone Co.
to compel them to account for the pro-
fits made under n franchise they have
granted to themselves. These matters,
it seems to me, deserve to be considered
by the Aldermen referred to before
they accept the franchise offered them
by the Ordinance of the City Council.
A. T. BROYLEs.
Mr.. Burrlss Declines.