Arizona republican., 1904-07-01

the Bell companies is more than four times on the average of that of the Independent companies. The average capitalization of the Bell companies per telephone is over $400; of the Inde- pendent less than $1G0.
 "The Bell company is enormosly rich, therefore influential Its trust methods are drastic and effectua,. Ire Independents are mostly home com panies They offer a fair field for in- vestment and money is readily obtaiE- able for them. Why should not they be profitable with one-fourth the cap ital invested, with no royalties to pay and free from the control of a trust? If am permitted to install system here it will consist entirely of new ma- terial new instruments and operated upon the newest and most approved methods. Our company is not organ iZed to nor will it have to wear out old instruments displaced by our new CT ones in the larger cities, as is tco often the rule with the Bell com panies. All the instruments in use we buy straight out, new.
 We have offered as you notice by our advertisement to dispose of ninety per cent of our stock here. This we deem fair for If it is a good invest ment it is made so out of the people who live here and use telephones. If home people take the stock, the profits resulting from the business remain here. The offer is frankly made and has no strings on it. I as frankly state that cur enterprise is not depend ent on stock subscriptions here and the installation will not wait on such sub- scriptions. If the city will permit we will begin installation at once. We are not trying to sell stock; the enter prise is in no wise a stock manipulat- ing scheme; it's stock is for sale and investors are ready to take it.
 'As I said in our advertisement, the stock has not been underwritten, but it may be assumed that when I came here I knew whence the money could be obtained to install our system.
 II notice the publication almost daily of statements that the authors I presume think constitute arguments against the installation of cur pro- posed plant.
 We cannot, of course, answer the man who frankly says he does not want competitive business in this town.
 oulie OI IHe statements made are entirely inaccurate. I can only assume that they are uttered by people wholly unfamiliar with the subject.
 AS I stated before, the Independent companies are operating more than two phones to every one operated by the Bell companies, and that ratio is increasing every month. Could this be so if the Independent companies sCpr.xriEa icfa h. competition was undesirable?
 There appeared in morning news paper a letter dated September II. 1903, at San Antonio, Texas, stating that the Retail Merchants association of that town was opposed to having two telephone companies in operation in that city. That news, if it be news, is a little stale-it IS nearly year old. The cnly result of that protest, which was directed against a proposed h. dependent company, has been to dem onstrate that the protests of that as- sociation are wholly ineffective, and that it did not represent the people of San Antonio. On the 1st of May last, nearly eight months later, the Inde- pendent company was operating 2,3O0 phones in San Antonio, and the old company about 900. People must move in these time to keep up.
 The fact is that the Independent companies are multiplying at the rate of 100 a month. It is an open fight of fair competition against trust meth eds.
 All my company asks is to be given an opportunity. It costs this city not one cent to give us the trial. If a man does not want two phones he need not take them.
 But I would like to ask if, because, for instance, Jones don't want one phone or two phones, should Smith, who does want a phone or two phones or would like a choice of phones, be de- nied that privilege?
 My company is willing to subject itself to any reas0nable regulations. We think, in fairness to the people and to ourselves, that We ought not to be handicapped by any restrictions that are not imposed on the old company; but we accept a reasonable handicap and then offer the people better sys- tenn, a more satisfactory service and at less cost than supplied.
 ''I am quite willing to show anyone who may be interested that Independ- ent companies are popular and are growing in popularity. That in up to- date towns and cities they are wei comed as competitors to the exacting and inefficient old companies is evil denced by the fact that those towns have the Independent companies.
 'Such towns, for instance, as Little Rock, Ark, Memphis, Tenn, St. Louis, Mo, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland, O., Saginaw, Mich, Bay City, Mich, Port Huron, Mich, Lam caster, Pa; Lebanon, Pa. New Or leans, Kansas City, Kansas City, Kan, Los Angeles, Cal, Toledo, O., Syracuse, N. Y, Pittsburg, Pa, Charleston, s. C., Grand Rapids, Pres colt, Douglas, A. T., Bisbee, Tomb stone. Williams. Albuquerque, Flint, Mich., Pontiac, Mich, St. Paul, Minn.. Minneapolis, Minn., Indianapolis, Ind, Terre Haute, Ind, Cincinnatti, O.. Co., lumbus, O., Portland, Ore, Camden. N. J.. York, Pa, Reading, Pa., Trenton. N. J., Buffalo. N. Y, Wheeling, Wa, Albany. N. r., Erie, Pa, Des Moines. Ia., Birmingham, Ala, Fort Wayne. Ind, South Bend Ind, Fort Worth. Tex, Dennison, Tex, Austin, Tex.