The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-08-13
FOR PUBIC OWNERSHIP.
Prof. Parsons Affidavit for the In
dustFia Commission.
He Replies to Testimony of the Vice
President 0f the Western Union
Telegraph Company and the Man
nger of Telephone Company.

COMMISSION now engaged IN EtNlrMliE ltlr
testimony addUc-d before the Commission
for the purpose Of formulating report
to the fun Commission on September 3,
has received an afidavit from Prof Frank
Parsons. Presidelt Of the National Public
Ownership LeaEIe. answering the state
ments made by L. y. Bethel, General
Manager Of the New York Telephone
Company, and T F. Clark. Vice President
Of the Western Union Telegraph Com
pany. These statements were made IN re-
ply TO the testimony delivered by Prof
Parsons. His lhidavit will be printed
in fun in the forthcoming report
In his affidavit Prof Parsons SAYS.
AS the Vice President Of the Western
Union and the General Manager Of the
New York Telephone Company have re
ferred 10 parts q my testimony in Criti-
CiSm, questioned my sources of infOTma-
ton In relation @ two Of the facts cited
by me, and misunderstood my position in
some respects. 1 trust IL may be deemed
proper FOR me to make some explanation
ana suggestive Comment IN the interests
OF thorough misunderstanding
Remarks wer. made by the general
manager tending 10 throw disCredit on my
sources Of information IN respect to two
cases without eHQliring what those sOurC-
es We're In fact they were OF the high
est character IN 10Th instances. I got the
data relating to the cooperative Tele-
phone Company Of Grand Rapids Wis
from John A Ga!nOr. the first president
OF the company, man OF excellent re-
pGle ana thoroughly familiar with the
facts. At the time Of my testimony 7 held
IN my hand a later from Mr.. GaynOr
written few days before. and from that
letter ] took the facts about lines. cost
OF construction ard operation, net charg-
IS. etc. that ! gave the Commission The
facts about the Government telephones
obtained directly from the books Of the
department by personal visit TO the
fatent ONCE uidiug in 1896. The gen
eral manager said he thought II perfectly
safe 10 say that the expenses Of a man
10 attend 70 the maintenance OF the plant
We're not included IN the Sl0.2j total cost
per phone. The fat is, however, that one
OF the items in the Government account
was f5JJ year for the service Of an eX-
pert electrician under contract TO attend
70 the maintenance Of the plant. which
duty took only part of his time The
general manager 3 statement a g to the use
made OF the Government data IS also
incorrect. IS n .- be seen by examining my
testimony. J ,ised the data TO show that
the Bell was wrong in that case IN its
refusal 10 reduce TateS. wherefore IL may
De mistaken in other cases a G TO the prac-
lcaDlhty Of low rates IT the time OF my
testimony / did not know that the de-
partment exchange had been given Up but
on enquiry find that il has, that the in
stallation was not satisfactory "a thing
lhAI mas happened many times in private
q
needed. and that the Bell folks withdrew
their refusal 70 make reasonable rates to
lhe department and now supply such
WIDER service. lOnR-dtstance facilities and
Al. at rates that-cOC-5 down close TO the
cos' under the department system with
II comparatively narrow service-all the
way down. perhaps, considering TIE addi-
tonal facilities nov enjoyed
The statement / made about the wages
OF tFlephQue girls related to the general
7l(uatlon In this country and IS not met
ly comparison Of foreign wages with
those in New York CITY. one Of me high
am informed on high authority THAT OF a
leading telephone 0ficiaD that in the
sm Her places the companies pay many Of
their telephone girls only $40 and $40 a
month. SO being considered good nav
compare what the general manager saws
about wages OF telephone operators IN
France and Switzerland.
MY position on the fiat-rate question
vas misunderstOod believed in the
Out mink ,nv UO1Oie nit -r2ITg- CresIIeIIcu
and buslnessl simpler and better for small
exchanges. II the message charged Is car
ried too far il limits communication where
ne end is gained by the limitation, as well
as where Limitation is useful
The general managers data of tele-
phone development are Of great interest.
but the comparisons made do not have the
bearing implicitly given them in reference
10 the influence Of public and private own
ership on telephone development because
Of the mixture Of other causes, and be
cause Of the selection OF American cities
entirely from the list Of those NEST highly
developed That New York CITY has TWEEN
ty-slX telephones per 100 people while
Paris has - per Loo proves nothing as 70
public ownership, because there iR even a
greater difference IN favor of New York
In respect to transit and other interests
which are private in both cities
II Ct Y Of low general condition shows
"a higher telephone development than an
= civ
an progressive, then some valid Inference
may be drawn as TO the effect Of differ
cnces In rates and management But Il
the more civilized and Progressive.
city has the higher telephone de-
velopment, that il what might BE- ex-
that Is what might be ex-
pected even in spite Of DverCharges. The
truest comparison Is between public and
private ownership IN the same place and
Mr. EetheIs statements about Stockholm
and the movement from private to public
telephone systems In Amsterdam. Den
mark. Sweden. Austria, Switzerland
4 rance, and England, are Of the deepest
moment
The variations between 5 telephones
per ] 900 OF population in Chester and =
in London To 81 in San Francisco
and lIu in LarchmOut, all under pri-
waite ownership. are much greater than
the difference between the public group
and the private group.
Mr.. Clark began with a statement
which shows an entire Misrepresentation
Of my testimony. He says the evidence
given the Commission IN favor Of the pub
lie ownership Of the telegraph was chiefly
based on the conditions Of the telegraph
iu Great Britain, Switzerland, and Bel
GUM. and proceeds to point out the dis
parity of conditions as 70 population.
wires wages, distances. etc In fact
however. the said evidence was chief
~ based on the broad principle that
the fundamental test Of any system IS its
of on or
civiliZation-the human effects being FAR
more important than any material CON
sIderStlOuS-and upon he broad facts. ID
That "a normal public plant aims az ser
vice and benefit for all while a private
monopoly aims At divid,nds OF profit for
a few. 81 that public ownership tends To
superior harmony OF interest and fuller
cooperation, removing the vital aUtugO-
niSm of interest that private monopoly
creates between the owners and the pub
lie and transferring the interest OF
wealthy and Influential men 10 the side. OF
good government and honest aduinistra-
ton. 90 that private monopoly means
congestion Of power and benefit while
public ownership fdTOTS diffusion Of DOW
cr and wealth and service, a. that private
monopoly means taxation without repre-
-,Gtatf1n. with power TO max, and uu-
make the fortunes Of individuals. cities
states. and uatl0Is-->-u-J reign power m
private hands. 80 that In the sam, conn
Try, and under similar conditions. other
wise than as 10 ownership. the chang,
from private 70 public ownership has r.
suited ia sup, TiOr service. lower rates
1cttCr treatment Of employees. less c0rruu-
dion OF government, improved citizenship
nobler manhood, and higher civiIlzatioT,
80 that the movement OF civilization As
toward the public ownership OF muuoD1-
lies. etc. facts entirely independent OF
tho disparity Of conditions In wages
wires. Offices, rates, distances. etc L,
which Mr.. Clark directs attention.
AS 20 the data Of miles and wires. etc