Gloucester County Democrat., 1906-10-04
WHY THE DFLA. < At
LANT|C REFUSES TO
INSTALL PHONES.

AANV AA&A ~ ~ ~ - y
Considerable complaints is heard from
residents at Woodbury., because of their
inability 70 obtain telephone service from
the Delaware & Atlantic Telegraph & Tele-
phone Company, and we have secured from
that Company statement Of their side Of
the case, as follows:
Under a general regulating ordinance
passed in 1902 the South Jersey Telegraph
Company, which was the predecessor in
business at Woodbury., to the present COM
pany, filed a map showing the then exist
ing construction and certain new work
which they proposed to do. City Council
approved the plan and granted to the COM
pany right to conduct the telephone bust
ness under such ordinance.
Subsequently additional permits were
obtained under which the Telephone Com
pany placed number Of new telephones in
various residences in the City. In the
latter part Of 1904 certain poles were placed
in the streets without obtaining permits
from City Council under the general ordin-
ance. The Mayor in his message to Coun-
Gil about January /, 1905, called attention
to this fact, and as soon as the situation
was made known to the Telephone Com
pany, a map showing the location of such
disputed poles was filed with Council and
application made for an approval. Council
refused 80 approve the application and re-
ferred the whole matter to special COM
mittee, consisting of Councilmen Cheno-
weth, Burkett and Glover. On March 9,
1905, a resolution was passed by Council
notifying the Telephone Company not to
do any further work of erecting poles OF
stringing wires in the City without per-
mission of the Special Committee
The Representatives of the Telephone
Company and the Committee conferred but
were unable to agree upon settlement of
she controversy. The Committee, however,
submitted an ordinance which was passed
by Council and signed by the Mayor. The
Telephone Company objected to some Of
the terms of the ordinance and it was GER
tioraried to the Supreme Court and set
aside.
After this occurred the company request
ed Council to approve the location OF the
disputed poles and certain new poles which
they proposed to erect, in order to supply
telephone service to nearly dne hundred
new subscribers. With this application
the company asked PERMISSION to put all ol
the wires underground.
The petition was referred to the Street
Committee, who made report, neither ap-
proving or rejecting the application. but
suggesting certain conditions which were
claimed to be benefit to the City. The
company practically agreed TO the terms Of
the resolution as suggested by the Street
Committee. When it came before Council
the same was amended by inserting pro-
yi'sn that the company should construct a
q il, to be used by the City, tree oi
charge, for electric light wires, at the same
time they constructed the conduit for tele-
phone wires. The resolution in this shape
was passed by Council but was vetoed by
the Mayor and when returned to Council
for the appro val of the members, the same
was defeated and the Mayors veto sus
tanned. This is tbe present condition o
affairs.
The Telephone Company under the or
dinance of 1902 has no right to do any
work either to erect poles or string wires
without permit from Council. In addition
to that the company has been expressly
notified not to do any work, which notice
has never been reseinded.
The telephone company claims that il
cannot install new telephones without per
mission of Council and as applications fol
such permits, in the past have been refused
and there seems to be no change in the at
titude Of the members towards the com
pany, 1T is utterly powerleas to supply the
pressing needs of the residents who demand
telephone service.