Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1904-06-08


]. Emil Nelson. Business Manager.
WEDN ESDAY. JUNES, 1904.
the TELEPHONE MONOPOLY
QUESTION.
The following editorial appeared in
the Willmar Gazette last week:
The remarkable zeal displayed by
the WILLMAR TRIBUNE in It's attempts
to further the interests of the Twin
City Telephone Co. as against those
of the local company would lead one
to imagine that the trip of the editor
to Minneapolis Immediately after the
meeting of the Willmar council was
not without purpose, and that sat-
isiactory understanding had been
re&ched between the foreign corpora
ton on the one hand and the local
villitier on the other. Not satisfied
with attacking the officers OF the Min
nesota Central, the TRIBUNE also at
tempts to treat the Republican Gazette
to q mudbath. Possibly the attack is
not worth noticing, considering its
source, but it is human nature to
strike back when assailed; and the
Republican Gazette will, therefore, in
its next issue pay it's respects to the
TRIBUNE Lack of time and space
this morning prevent due reply in this
issue.
We presume that the above is fair
sample of Tallman- G azette argument!
Are they then utterly incapable OF
compromising how anyone can have
or express an opinion without being
paid for it? Do editorial opinions to
them appear simply as purchasble
"busine ss' commodity, and knowing of
no higher motives do they believe that
the Jealous advocacy of public pol
icy in newspaper is prima facie evil
dence OF the bargain and sale OF the
editor: Does it not occur to Mr.. Tall
man that If We were low enough to sell
ourselves, we would show poor judy
ment to apply to q party that "does
not have enough to pay of its own
employer But the Tallman- G azette
does not believe anything OF the kind.
They have no reasons to put forth in
favor Of the monopoly that will look
we'll in print or that will appeal to the
good judgment of the people as SUI
ticient reason why free intercourse
with surrounding territory should not
be granted. So instead of attempt
ing to create public sentiment in favor
of the monopoly by showing their side
Of the controversy at issue before the
city council, they make personal at
tacks upon those who dare to oppose
them. And paper that would lend
itself to grasping monopoly for the
purpose of slandering good citizens in
lieu OF better argument, is infinitely
lower down than q bread and butter
hack OF the variety the Tallman-Ga-
zette would falsely classify US with.
Not time or space! In possession
of type-setting machine and running
blank pages ir their paper, what a
pretty excuse? They want to save up
their matter until the last issue 80 no
statement could be challenged or cor.
rected before the public before the
matter had been decided by the coun-
Gil! If they had possessed q good
case, their side Of it would have been
aired two weeks ago.
A little precedent: When the grand
recorders Office of certain fraternal
order was established in the city, and
the question of it's removal was brought
up at various times, did the post.
master because of the increased com.
pensation the postage of the office
brought him, or any other persons in
terested to keep the business here, do
a lot of wire pulling, cajoling and
vindictive writing in order to proven,
any other fraternity from organizing
here? And would it have made any
difference to the grand lodge if they
had:
Letter No. Is, of series of letters
analysing the intrinsic values of thu
leading railroad and Industrial Sc
curities, issued by Curtis & Seder
quist, bankers and brokers, Of New
York and Boston, gives information
regarding the American Telephone
Telegraph Co., or what is general,
known as the Bell Monopoly. In con
nection with the controversy as to tn
propriety of allowing people patroniz
ing independent companies to talk tt
Willmar, as we'll as for general infor
nation among our readers, q larg
share of whom are interested in th
telephone business OF small independ
ent cooperative lines, we reproduce
portion of the same. The circular i
dated May 81, 1904. Extracts from tn
same follow:
The American Bell Telephone Co., OF whic
the American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
the successor, was organized in 1880 to sue
coed the National Bell Telephone Co. 1t wa
incorporated under the laws Of Massachusett
to conduct q telephone business under tw
separate patents; the first granted on Marc
z, 1875 and the second, January 30, 1877; eac
to Prof. Alexander Graham Bell These pa
ents expired in 1893 and 1894 respectively, bl
the company still owns other valuable patent