The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-01

tenn It would do away with many an noyances.
 Mir R. K Cooper. of Nesbit Co, said; "Of course am in favor of only one exchange and can't sec why any one could find two otherwise than nuisance.
 pr. H. A. Ligon. druggist. said: There can be no question that one phone exchange Is better than two. have always tn ought SO
 MT. (. r. Whitman was very une- auivocal and emphatic, when he said: Yes, sir. ] have never wanted two competing phones. They are an infol- existence
 Dr. H, E. Hsinitsh. druggist, said T have never been able to see where two telephone systems were Of benefit to the business community, as they not only increase the cost to merchants but are at times intolerably vexatious."
 Di. c. D. Wilson said: Tt Is unnee- sary to ask any one about two systems. Of course one ssytem Is desirable. Nor et s@n that is nuisance.
 The Mayor of spartnnburg.
 lion. Arch B. Calvert, mayor of the city Of Spartanburg, $. C., under date of December 29th. 1904. in writing of the experience of that city with two different telephone exchanges, says:
 T write to say that the city of Spar tanburg, three or four years ago, pass ed through the experience Of having two exchanges. Quite number of our most prominent business men convinc- ed the idea that they were paying too much for our telephone service, and established what was then considered a first-class exchange, backed by cap ital and practically the influence of the town. It was not long, however, before our people began to realize that two exchanges were nuisance. and in the course of time the Home Telephone Company sold out it's plant to the Southern Bell Telephone Company. much to the relief of our people. We now have one exchange. and the rates charged are very satisfactory and the service good. l do not believe that any of our neople would entertain for moment the idea of patronizing two telephone exchanges"
 A Mobile Merchant Mobile. Ala, December 23. 1904. | MT. H. P. Watson, Manager Southern | Bell Telephone and Telegraph Com pany. Mobile, Ala.
 Dear Sir: Referring to your inquiry as to my opinion regarding two sys- | tems of telephones In our city, would state that in my opinion or from what | can judge I really can see no ad- vantage, inasmueh as we find that 1t | is necessary for us to subscribe to the | two lines in order to be in communi- | cation with our necessary business re- | quirements. Inasmuch as this is es- | sentiai, the cost of both lines is equal | to. or more than I think we would or | dinarily pay if there was only one system. I also think 1t would be an advantage if all subscribers were on one line. Yours truly, E. E. Bernheimer. Another Mobile Firm. Mobile, Ala, December. a. 1904. MT. IT. P. Watson, Manager Mobile. Ala.
 Dear Sir: Referring to conversation had with you regarding the operation i of two different telephone companies | in the same city. will state that from our experience 1t would be better to have one good system for several reas- ons If there are two telephone com panies in the same town 1t necessitates a merchant to have both phones, and quite often they are both ringing at the same time which calls away two clerks from waiting on customers to answer them, whereas if there was only one phone one clerk could attend to it: again the expenses is double what 1t would be for the use of one phone. and the service is not so good as if there was only one first-class telephone system in operation. Yours truly,
 Barney -Cavanagh Hardware Co, c. R. Vaughan, President A Leading Chariestonian. Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company. Office of President. { Charleston, S C., December 24 1904. MT. D. M Therrell Manager, Southern Bell Telephone Co.. Charleston. s. c.
 Dear Sir: I do not hesitate to say that In my opinion. the telephone ser vice in this city has materially inn proved since your company has had the exclusive control of the business Not only in my observation. has your own service improved, but the fact that all subscribers are connected With the same exchange is undoubtedly great convenience to the public. My person. al opinion is that two telephone sys- tems in a city are not desirable from the standpoint either of the public or of the individual subscriber. My ex- perience was that when we had two systems here 1t resulted in increas- ing the telephonic cost by fifty per cent. to accomplish the same purpose. as 1t was almost imperative for bus mess office to have both telephones While the price of each system was 
 amount paid by the subscriber was certainly fifty per cent. greater tan it had hitherto been.
 Yours truly,
 P. H. Gadsden. President.
 Columbus, Ga.
 Ralph e. Howard, Druggist, Cor. Broad and 11th Streets.
 Columbus. Ga, December IT, 1904. To Whom 1t May Concern;
 am asked to give my opinion of the advisability of two systems of tele- phone in the same city. can con sistently and truthfully say that I con sider one or the other of them un- necessary and a deal Of bother in fact d nuisance, an unnecessary eX- pense and annoyance. If both systems had the identical subscribers. | know that what l say still applies. but in somewhat less degree. One phone with all of it's time-saving advantages re- quires no little attention: two, much more than doubles this and with the worry of customers who use only one. and those who try to use the one which others have not. it makes no little confusion nd waste of time, not to mention what sometimes happens both phones ringing at once with only one person t0 answer.
 Very truly,
 Ralph O. Howard.
 The Birmingbnm News of March 27th, 1908, snys that the Peoples Home Telephone Company Of Birmingham Ithe opposition cOmpaEy thereD, haa applied tO the Council to Rmeud It's franchise. so that | con increase It's