The age-herald., 1900-03-25
SPECIAL MEETING
 OF CITY COUNCIL
Question of New Telephone Fran
 chiSe to be Considered.
BUSINESS MEN INTERESTED
Experience of Other Cities is That Com petition is Not Desirable-The One Utility That is Nat
 ural Monopoly

The action of the mayor and board of al-
 dermen on the application of a proposed
 new telephone company for franchise for
 a new telephone system in Birmingham,
 which comes up on the committees report
 at a special meeting of the council to be
 held tomorrow is of more than passing in- terest to the general public and especially to the business men of the city. The agitation of the question during the
 past few days has developed strong op- position to the movement, and the city
 fathers will no doubt give the matter care ful consideration before coming to any
 final decision.
 Birmingham is not the only city that has
 been agitated over this self same question,
 and while some have acted for and some
 against rival telephone systems, the history of the utility as gathered by results, is fla
 verable to the one company system, as strange as it may seem at first reading. The experience of many cities has proven that the telephone business is a natural
 monopoly-in fact the o2ly business in which the theory can be sustained by ar gument. Competition, which, according to
 sound business principles, is the life of trade it has been proven will not hold
 good when applied to this peculiar bus mess, since the subscriber, the person most vitally interested, instead of choosing be- tween two competitive articles, must pur- chase or subscribe to both in order ito get
 the full benefit which could be obtained if the business was in the hands of a mon-
 opoly.
 In many cities where rival telephone ccm- panies have existed, subscribers have pe-
 titioned the municipal authorities to put
 the business into the hands of one company, holding that it would mean better service at less cost.
 The question has been freely discussed by local business men, and many or them
 are outspoken against the granting ot an- other franchise. principally because they claim that it will mean another taX-and | taxation is a sore point with the business | men of Birmingham.
 Among the cities who are enjoying the | blessings of two hello" companies might | be mentioned the Following, with the num- | Der of subscribers and the rates that they | are paying:
 Atlanta: The Bell company, with 2,90O | 'phones, and a rival company wAth 1,io0, | of which 300 are subscribers of both con- panies at a combined cost of $96 per year. Augusta: The Bell company, with $50 suo- scribers, and a rival company with 50O SuDSCrlDGTS, Ol Nll4CH ozJ dI6 pdliOIIS OL | both companies at a combined cost of $SS l per year.
 Charleston: The Bell company, with 1,203 | subscribers, and a rival company, with TAT | subscribers of which 538 are subscribers l of both systems, at combined cost Of | $100 per year.
 Mobile: The Bell company, with 93i sub scrtbers and a rival company with 504 sub scribers, 327 of which subscribe to both companies, at a cost of $60 per year. These figures have been gathered by the advocates of one-company system, and are simply given for what they are worth.
 Perhaps the most important test of the two-company system was in Detroit,
 Mieh., where consolidation was recently effected, much to the specification of the
 public according to the reports and edi- torlals of the newspapers of that city. The Detroit Journal, in its editorial upon the consolidation said:
 NO city is big enough for two perma- nent competing telephone systems, and that one of the local concerns should absorb the
 other was as inevitable from the beginning as sunrise and sunset. It is all very fine to theorze about competition; but compe- tft9on in respect to telephone service must be unsatisfactory to the customers as it is improbable to the companies. Tele- phone service Is one of those natural mon- opolies, created by the very force of cir cumstances. There can be competition in leleSTdpn SerNlce Tn me express DuSlneSS, and with certain Limitations in the railroad business; but competition in telephone sers vice means a great deal of annoyance, if no increased expense to the user, if he tries to secure as efficient a service through two companies as he could secure through one. There is a respectable part of this property that now represents only an in- vestmen't in dead horses and 1t is too much Go suppose that the company will simply charge off its value. In time the worthless property will all be paid for by the patrofs-of the company.
 'Out of the consolidation, however, they will ultimately obtain many advantages that are not to be lost sight of. Business and professional men will longer be taxed for1 two telephones
 The Free Press, the leading daily of that
 city, commented upon the deal in its edi- torial columns follows:
 'The usual has happened. Through the deals eompleted yesterday the Michigan Bell Telephone company has acquired prac- tieally mdisputed possession of the entire field wiusdn the state. To Detroit people
 one interesting feature of this big trans action is the practical absorption and dis appearance of what has been known here as the new company. It was born of the same influences and with the same foster ing aid as tlhe Detroit Railway company. That was eoddled and favored by munich pal authority that 1t might cope with the Citizens company and force a general
 adoption of the 3.cent fares for which such authority was contendlng through nu-
 merous terms and campaigns. The tele-
 phone company was favored because it
 was to make a fight against the old one
 and force reduction of rates, the contract being. as given out to the pubic, that it would never amalgamate with the older organization. In both instances the enter
 prses that were to emancipate the people
 have been swallowed by the respective 'octopP they were to destroy. Ore settled
 fact as that competition is destroyed. There is not room enough for another organiza-
 ton to get foothold without the expendi-