Hopkinsville Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1889-1918, 1905-08-10

Replies to the Interview Pur-
ported to Have Been Had
With President, r. E.
Cooper, of the Hopkinsville
Home Telephone Co.
TO THE PUBLIC


public, and which was a reply to
letter from X. E. Cooper, Presider
Of the Hopkinsville Home Telephon
: Company, / produced the question
herewith subjoined.
| took particular pains to quot
! the old saying that silence give
consent, " in order to impress upol
Mr.. Cooper the Importance of re
futing, if he could, the statement
contained in a recent letter which
sent out to the farmers of Christian
county, and which Mr.. Cooper dub
"scurrilous. Instead of replying t,
my questions and thereby vindicat
ing the HopkinsMlle Nome Telephon,
| Company, Mr.. Cooper comes back il
an amusing. but very weak, inter.
view, and states that he shall pay nc
further attention TO my communica-
tions, because, as he says, am con-
nected with the Cumberland Tel
ephone & Telegraph Company and
my motives are known.
asked Mr.. Cooper what difference
it made if was employed by the
Cumberland Telephone Company, so
long as / told the truth. l now ask
him what difference it makes if |
have a selfish motive in propounding
questions to him so long as the ques-
tions are based on common sense and
legitimate ground?
The public do not care if l have
selfish motives, but the public wants
to know why Mr.. Cooper does not
answer the questions propounded to
him, because the public is interest
ed in the matter in question, by
reason of the fact that the Hopkins
vile Home Telephone Company has
endeavored to sell its securities to
this very public.
l insist that every statement l have
made with reference to the Hopkins
vile Home Telephone Company shall
remain as unconvertible until the
said Company shall have disproved
them.
Iwould like for Mr.. Cooper to
answer not only the subjoined ques-
tons, but also the following:
l. Is it not fact that a person
of intelligence who is not familiar
with the telephone business, could
examine the books of the Hopkins
vile Home Telephone Company and
after said examination, by reason Of
the anomalies and complexities of
the telephone business, not know
any more about the financial status
of said Company than a ten-year-old
school boy would know about
physicians prescription written in
Greek?
2. Do you deny that the bonds of
your Company have been offered at
less than their par value with astock
bonus of the face value of the bonds
thrown in for sweetening, i. e., sim
ply given away?
3. If it's fact that the stock of
the Hopkinsville Home Telephone
Company has been offered as bonus
with bonds Of said Company, or if
the said stock has been offered at
less than its face or par value, then
is it not true that the stock does not
represent one penny of assets. and
was it right for the Hopkinsville
Home Telephone Company to at
tempt to sell it's said stock to the
farmers of Christian county at its
par value?
A. If the bonds and stock of the
Hopkinsville Home Telephone Com
pany are worth their fac value, and
if the property of the said Company
is worth intrinsically dollar for dol
lar of the said security, what objec-
ton could the said Company have to
answering the questions hereinafte
set forth. the said questions having
heretofore appeared in the columns
of this paper and being as follows:
l. Do you deny that the property
of the Home Telephone Company is
mortgaged for 500, 100000, and that
it has also capital stock of $780,
10000?
2. Knowing, as | do, that its
property is mortgaged for $780,
100000, and that its capital stock S
500, 10000, kaskif you are willing
to state that the intrinsic value of
its property is $2OO.OOO.OO? In other
u,o,.ds do voi1 cav that tha face