Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1905-09-14

/ telephones as required by the provisions OF
the 1902 ordinance.
The South Jersey Telegraph Company be-
came merged with this company by agree
ment dated January first, nineteen hundred
and five, by virtue Of which merger and the
laws OF the State at that time, all the rights
and privileges Of the first named company
became vested in this company and the
| latter has the right to maintain the said
poles and wires and operate said exchange
to the same extent as was vested IN the
South Jersey Company.
/ This company was incorporated under
the laws Of New Jersey, by a certificate filed
in the Office of the Secretary Of State Au-
gust twenty fifth, nineteen hundred and
four.
By transfer, dated December twenty
third nineteen hundred and four, all Of the
property and assets Of the Delaware & At,
lantic Telegraph & Telephone Company
the New York corporation, became vested
in this Company.
Some of the poles erected on the streets OF
the City and now maintained by this COM
pany, were placed there without previous
permission obtained from Council, pursuant
to the terms Of the nineteen hundred and
two ordinance.
| These poles were erected, through ignor-
ance Of the provisions of such ordinance, at
or about the time of certain changes in the
management of the Camden District and
not with the view or for the purpose Of will
fully violating any Of its provisions.
| They were not erected all at once, but
were placed in the streets from time to
time, in order to accommodate the citizens
who had SUBSIDIZED for the use of tele-
phones from this company.
The subscribers number forty-fouT, nine
on Red Bank avenue; one on Oak street;
iYe on North Broad street; one on Dicker-
son street; two on Deptford avenue; five on
High street; one on West German; two on
Hopkins; five on Hunter; two on Maple
avenue; two on Laurel; two on Curtis
asenue; one on West Centre: three on
Small wood and one on Jackson street.
The attention Of Council was first direct
ed to the existence Of these poles in mes
sage from the Mayor, submitted sometime
in the month Of January Of this year, but
no action was taken with reference TO his
Honor's communication, except the APP
pointment OF Committee to investigate
the facts The complaint made BY the
Mayor was called ii the attention 81 the
Camden District Manager, and the latter
immediately had prepared a plan showing
the existence Of the disputed poles, and
submitted the same TO Council on February
sixteenth, with request that the construc-
tion OF the lines be approved, in accordance
with the terms of the general ordinance of
nineteen hundred and two.
This application on the part of the COM
pany vas referred TO the special Telephone
Committee having charge of the matter,
but no definite action Of approval or disap-
Eproval was taken by the Council as body.
The ordinance of nineteen hundred and
two does not coutain any other provisions
for the revocation OF the privileges granted
thereby, than that appearing in the
eleventh paragraph, viz: Any as ociation,
corporation or individual exercising the
privileges Of this ordinance, falling 80 COM
ply with its provisions after ten days notice,
shall be liable to have its rights hereunder
revoked by said City Council; upon such
revocation it shall no longer have the right
to use the streets, alleys and public high
ways of said City as herein provided y
| No notice in accordance with the terms
| of said ordinance has been given to this
Company or to any of its predecessors,
requiring it to comply with the terms there
made for the approval Of the erection Of
the poles, and no definite action has eyer
been taken by your Honorable Body upon
the same.
1t would seem therefore, that as matter
OF absolute right your Honorable Body
has no legal authority to take any action
which would result in compelling this c IN
pany TO remove from the City all Of its
poles and wires, which have been erected
and maintained by the expenditure of large
sums OF money, particularly in view Of the
fact that the ordinance gives no power Of
revocation except upon failure to comply
With its provisions after being required so
to do by ten days notice.
Independently Of this legal situation, it
must also appeal to the members of Council
that as matter Of equity aud natural JUS
tice, it would be unfair, not only to this
company, but also to the two hundred and
seventy-fYe subscribe to revoke these
privileges, simply because, by an innocent
mistake, some poles were erected without
obtaining municipal consent. For your
body to take any action which would result
in the entire elimination of this company
from the telephone business in Woodbury.,
would entail infinitely greater hardship,
loss and inconvenience upon the inhabi-
tants Of the City than upon the company
! itself.
There has never been any disposition on
the part of the company to ignore the mem-
bers Of Council or participate in any con-
duct which would be detrimental to the
interest Of the City, so long as such action
is not inconsistent with good business iudg-
ment. This must be perfectly apparent
from the frank action on the part OF this
company admitting its error and its efforts
to obtain an approval Of the erection OF the
disputed poles, before any notice was taken
by Council Of the Mayors message The
erection Of these poles was not IN the spirit
Of an arbitrary and wilful purpose to antag-
onize the ordinance Of the City or to do
Ianything contrary to the wishes Of the in
simply mistake which we are all liable
/ to make