The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1907-07-01

| Some OF the officers of this company
have admitted that this assertion as re-
CARDS measured service is correct.
III this city council has the right to
say 20 the Providence Telephone COM
pany that per cent is a just and proper
rate TO pay In dividends 10 its stockhold-
ers. let us stop and consider how that 8
per cent Is earned, under the present
rates charged or how II would be earned
under the rates submitted TO US through
our special committee. should the new
contract proposed be put I'm force.
Let us assume, for the sake OF argu-
ment, per cent is q proper rate Next
let us find out from the company I'm what
way they figure the cost per message, TO
determine what the rate 10 each subscrib-
er shall be. Under the present system
will assume, for Instance. that SO a year
which gives a subscriber ! 2-3 calls per
day for residence telephone. earns Tor
the Providence Telephone company
enough income so that they can pay
dividend OF s per cent on that instrument.
Recently there appeared In one OF
our daily papers an article published
by the Providence Telephone company,
explaining the sl20 rate for business
use on the unlimited contract, where
they say three lines were supervised
for three successive days. During that
time the average number per day OF
outgoing messages for the three sta
tions was 81. giving an average use
per station OF 2i calls a day or $500
a year. II these calls had been mere
ly local, II would have cost the sub
scriber $3.50 n year instead OF sl2O. j
will again assume that this company
had figured that the si20 rate for the
unlimited use OF the telephone enables
them TO pay a dividend OF per cent.
But surely this cannot be a fact ac-
cording TO their published statement.
because the difference between $3.50
and $3.50 shows clearly 20 me that
much more than per cent Is earned
on the rates which limits the numbers
OF calls and a great deal less on the
unlimited.
'Now, gentlemen. I cannot vote for
any proposition which will give to one
citizen OF the city OF Providence any
undue advantage over any other citi-
zen OF the city OF Providence.
IF IL is agreed that per cent is
proper for this company TO pay. let
them come forward with rates where
by each telephone will earn that
amount Not as at present. the limited
service probably earning 30 per cent
and the unlimited probably entailing
a loss And this I believe, gentlemen,
can best he accomplished by having
only measured service for ALL"
Councilman Sears said II would be
any agreement with the Providence
Telephone company that would bind
II 10 the company for six and one-half
years. He corrected statement In
the mayors message that. IL the fran
chise were granted. the renewal would
rest on six aldermen. stating that IL
would depend upon only Ave OF them.
He said that IL would be better for
the city TO continue Its present rela-
tions with the company rather than
give the company a monopoly here for |
six and one-half years.
Mr.. Sears. In regard 10 the mayors sug- |
gestion that the 3 per cent be increased TO !
5, said that he would be pleased II this |
were adopted. IL the franchise was to be |
granted as the company could well af-
ford 10 do this
He then took up the si2o rate. and said
that this was no advantage to telephone
subscribers. although the company had
made desperate attempts to show that II
would be.
Councilman Carpenter said that at the
regular attendant Atone meeting. he I
said. the mayor was told that IL would |
he folly for the committee 10 make any |
report to the council that the mayor
was veto. Mr. Carpenter stated that |
the mayor seemed satisfied with the re-
port that the committee proposed to |
make. and he did not think IL wise that /
his honor should now veto II.
Councilman Sears said In defence OF |
the mayor that his honor would not COM
nit himself on any matter at the meet
ings.
Mr. Carpenter then read part OF the Of |
fetal records OF one Of the committee |
meetings. II did not. however. show that |
the mayor had really committed himself. |
Councilman McNamee said he thought |
the committees recommendations ought |
TO prevail as the agreement was n fair |
business proposition.
The vote on the resolution that the com !
mittee's recommendations be adopted.
the mayors veto. was
then taken. resulting as follows: Ayes
Balch. Baker, Bxby. Carpenter, Covel
Darling, Daw. Durfee. Earle, Grimwood
Hall. Heath. Littleheld, Makepeace. Mil
Ter, Moore. Moulton. McCarfrey. Nc
Nance. Parsons. Pearce, ,Presbrey. Rogers,
Sweet, Taylor, Waite, Walch-Z; Noes
Donovan. Flynn, Hatton. Kelly. Kelso.
O'Neil, Rattigan, Schoheld. Sears Sulli-
van 10. All present voted.
The matter was chen sent 10 the board
OF aldermen for concurrent action.
A message from the police comisslon-
ers asking for an additional appropria-
ton OF Sl2. 500 %, to he used for employing
63 more patrolmen in this city. was pre-
sented 10 the common council this noon
by Councilman McCabe.
BOARD OF ALDERMEN.
Alderman Budlong was the only alder
man absent. The mayors message was
received from the common council and
read by City Clerk Clarke.
Alderman Reynolds moved that the
board concur with the common council
in the passage OF the ordinance. the
mayors veto Notwithstanding.
The mayor stated that he was willing
to answer any questions any member de-
sired TO ask The mayor then called at
tention TO the four objections 10 the ord-
nance he made I'm his message.
Alderman Dunn said that. after hearing
the mayors message and heariing his
explanation, he believes that such
lengthy message should be printed He
said he did not believe the aldermen
could act nteligently today on it,and he
moved that the matter be laid on the ta-
BILE until the next meeting.
Upon the request OF three aldermen any
business can be laid on the table, and Al
dermen Peterson and McMann supported
Mr.. Dunn.
Alderman Reynolds moved that the al
dermen adjourn until 1857 o'clock. The
mayor said he refused to entertain such
"A frivolous motion" Alderman Reynolds.
however. was sustained on an appeal
srho roovar then asked the alderman 20