The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-01-27


stookholdor. Tho now oom-
oany rot about ACQUIRING tho necessary
equlpinant and by tho middle OF Juno,
SOC, WINS giving telephone service to n,ib-
sorlborn.
rho new company hnd hardly 80
,urod u foothold before It had n battle
royal TOR ita lifo, In tho spring OF 1897
tho American Telephone md Telegraph
made application to tho City
TANGO ana local busnens. Thora was ar
upon tho floor OF tho Council In
regard 10 tho relation botwocn the Amor
lean Telephone una Telegraph Company
and tho Flouthcrn Boil Telephone and
Telegraph Company
There was n ntronE fight made for tho
ordinance and enrnest Opposition to It.
1t was recommended to tho Common
Council by a vote Of s 70 I. It was DO.
teatsd; however. In the Common Council
IN THE LEGISLATURE.
Ono Of the most interesting phnscs OF
This contest was tie fight In the Vir-
enia Legislature In February and March
1900. over an act incorporating the "Vlr-
glnin Telephone md Telegraph COM
pany." The bill was offered by Senator
Conway r. Eanda. Tho incorporators
named wore John 3. Purcell, John D.
j. Taylor Ellyson. George L. Christian
nnd r. r. Byrd 1t conferred rather
broad powers, in particular the right to
entertain any city or town without having
to secure tho permission Of such city or
town. Tho bill passed. tho Senate with.
out a general recognition Of the extent Of
tho powers conferred. Passing to the
House, 1t went to committee, and had
been 'jncketed" and was receiving tho
ture OF tho bill became known. A spe-
cal meeting OF tho Council was held.
Resolutions OF earnest opposition were
adopted and the assistance Of other cities
invited. The city attornies Of number
OF cities were soon on tho ground. Tho
House Committee did not act favorably
on the bill and the bill by vote OF the
House was dismissed.
On February Is, 1900. tho day tho House
relieved its General Laws Committee Of
tho consideration Of tho bill, passed by
tho Senate. and dismissed It, It was again
introduced In the Senate by Mr.. Sands
with the addition OF n guarantee OF Sl0,-
0o0 that the proposed telephone system
would be extended to every city and
county In tho State. The measure in this
shape went to the General Laws Commit
tee Of the Senate, where 1t was vigorously
attacked by number of city attornies
led by Mr.. Fl r. Pollard. and Col. W. =,
Cutshnw and was ably defended by Gen.
u. p Meany and Mr. Eppa Hunton for
the Company. Tho committee by vote
OF 8 to reported tho bill favorably on
February 21st. A similar fight was made
for and against the bill before the House
Committee on General Laws. In tho
hrht in the Senate, Mr.. Flood led for tho
bill and Mr. Glass in opposition.
RATE AMENDMENT.
On February g. 1900. after long fight.
the bill was practically killed in tho
Senate by tho addition Of an amendment
fixing maximum and minimum rates.
This was not acceptable to the promoters
Of tho scheme and the bill matter was
dropped
Tho identity Of those back of this on.
terprse with those In control OF tho Bell
Company Is a question which has proven
worry fertile OF discussion. the friends and
the enemies Of the Bell taking positions
dramatically opposed. General Meany
has since that timo stated that ne np-
peared not rs tho representative OF the
Bell Company, but Of the American Tele-
phone and Telegraph Company.
SUCCESS AT LAST.
Following tho failure to secure an act
OF the Assembly Incorporating tho Vir-
GINA Telephone and Telegraph Company,
It was decided to try the City Council
again, this time In the name, directly.
of tho Southern Bell Telephone and
Telegraph Company. After some, rumors
that an overture OF this character was
coming, a petition from the Bell Com
pany to tho City Council was filed with
the city clerk on Jan. 10. 1901 This pa
per stated TINT the company most earn
estly desired to establish relations with
the city OF Richmond Tho company
regretted ''the unfortunate differences
which had led to this protracted legisla-
tion," and desired to establish sntisfac-
tory and cordial relations With tho city,"
This paper WINS presented Ia the Coun-
ell and passed to tho street Committee OF
that body where a franchise ordinance
was offered by the company number
of committee meetings were given to
Its consideration. General y. ?. Meany
appeared as tho champion OF this meas
uro, and Mr.. A. B. Guigon Of the in
terests Of the Richmond Company. Tho
City Attorney and city engineer We're
opposed to the adoption OF such an ordl-
nance, Or Its consideration Until tho
pending litigation was ended.
Tho matter of rates was fought over at
great length. Tho ordinance as ut first
offered was client on this subject. A
scale OF rates was later olLered anu q sec
ton offered providing that they should
not be increased IN ten years, also that
the rates shall not be higher than those
charged by said company under similar
conditions in cities having approximately
the same population in any otter State"
The cost of the long litigation and n GER
tain number of city phones were mr.
ranged for.
PASSED COMMITTEE.
Alto other mino amendments the
ordinance passed the committee on May
81 1901 by vote of to 4. On June 81,
1t was recommended to tho Council by
the same vote, Lengthy petitions for and
against were now prepared and presented.
An opposition meeting was held In Cor
ooran Hall on juno 81. A majority and
minority report was presented to the
Common Council which body on July 5.
after a long session passed the ordinance
by a vote of 10 to .. The Board of Al
dcrmcn on July Q. and the Bell Com