Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1909-02-14

y Ill session. IL was nOt, however. \ four hour session of the railroad com mittee, which has Representative Winn's telephone rate bill under con- sideration, was held and the represen- tatives of the bill and the te1ArSone companies argued so loud and long that the usual week day crowd W. attracted to hear them.
 There was q full attendance of the committee and in the argument Repre- lappeared in favor of it, while Manager P. C. Ewing, of the Little Rock Tele.- phone Company and Attorney Walter ]. Terry, attorney for the Southwest ern Telegraph and Telephone Comp pany opposed the reduction in rates.
 Winn Opens Argument
 Representative Vim, the author of the bill fixing the rates in Little Rock at s for business phones and S2 for residence phones, opened the discus sion before the committee.
 He spoke in favor of the bill, stat ing that the people of Little Roc k were now paying an unjust rate for telephones, while the Southwestern Company was paying a fat dividend on $20,0OO, 900, or $10,000, 900 more than it's paid up capital
 He was followed by Douglas Heard, a local attorney who has made q study of the local telephone situation He devoted his time largely to the legal right of the legislature to fix the telephone rate, saying that the rate made by the ordinance passed by the. city council was unauthorized by legislative act and that the rate was established without authority.
 P. c. Ewing Opposes.
 P. C. Ewing, manager of the Little Rock Telephone Company, which op- crates something less thah 1000 tele- phones, and charges $350 and $2 spoke against the bill He said that it was more expensive to operate a large system than a small one, in pro portion to the number of subscribers. It had cost the local company, he said, about $100,000 to build and equip the system. and he supposed the invest ment of the Southwestern was about eight times this amount.
 He said that capitalists were now withholding their support of move- ment to enlarge the system because of the fixed rates by the city and the threat of a further cut by the legisla- ture.
 Tn reply to question from conl- mitteeman, MT. Ewing said that he could probably operate plant three times as large as the one in opsiation at the present price, but he believed the company would lose money on: the deal.
 Walter J. Terry.
 Walter J. Terry, who has been the legal representative in Arkansas for the Southwestern company for the past twenty-two years, made the principal argument in opposition to the bill
 He denied the statement of MT. Winn that the tax assessor had re- gently been compelled to raise the as sessment of the company. He said 1t was not fact that his company had paid 6 per cent semi-annual dividends on $20,O00,000 and he produced an au- thorized statement from the home of flee at Dallas, Texas, showing that the company had paid a per cent annual dividend on $1400o,00o.
 The earnings of the Little Rock ex- change, he showed by a tabulated statement, under the present rates. had been a trifie less than per cent, and he said the people of Little Rock were paying less for service than the people in other sections of the three states where the company operated.
 He cited the fact that not foot of extension had been made either in Ar kansas or Texas during the past year. and that the company had been com pelled to retrench at every point in order to earn per cent annually for it's stockholders.
 |, He recited the history of the pas sage of the ordinance by the city coun- cil and the bitter fight waged between the city and the company to get an equitable rate in return for the vast