Arizona republican., 1909-05-29
HOME TELEPHONE REPLY
 SOUNDS LIKE U[TIMATUM
SECOND PROPOSAL OF COLONEL
 RANDOLPH DECLINED.
1t Does Not Remove the Danger ot
 Consolidated Control.

The officials of the Home Telephone regard the second proposition of Col. Randolph. of the Consolidated, with little more favor than the first, ac- cording to the following reply, direct ed yesterday to l.. H. Chalmers:
 Phoenix, Ariz., May 27, 1909. MT L. H. Chalmers, Phoenix, Ariz:
 Dear Sir-We acknowledge receipt of copy of Mir. RandolpRs letter to you of yesterday, and given by you to the press under his instructions.
 "Whether or not MT. Randolph's first letter to you suggested bad faith on the part of the committee to which he referred. must be determined by each reader of the second and third paragraphs of that letter for himself. We have so construed the statements in those paragraphs that the commit tee had agreed that certain things should be done, and had no carried out their agreement, but had adopted a course inconsistent herewith, and we think those statements admit of no other construction.
 But upon the question whether the threat of fight emanated from MT. Randolph or the Home company, there can he no difference of opinion. The threat to which we referred is con- tained in the fourth paragraph of MT. Randolph's letter, and we quote there from as follows:
 Should the second telephone sys- tenn be built, the result will be fight, and the fittest will survive
 We think this was intended to and does give notice that MT. Randolph's company was here first, and that any second company would be regarded as an intruder: that such intrusion would not be permitted without a fight, which would be to a finish. We should be pleased to have MT. Randolph equally explicit and point out the language in our letter making any threat what ever.
 MT. Randolph's proposition to take 40 per cent of the stock of the new company in the place of 50 per cent, as first proposed, does not remove the objections pointed out in our first let ter It would only make necessary the aGQulSlllOn Ol dll duulllOfldl II ptl cent instead of per cent to give com pIete control, and such acquisition would not be difficult. Nor would the obligation of the Consolidated company not to acquire any additional stock be any protection It might be incon- venient for the Consolidated company to continue to hold the stock. and purchaser from it would not be un- der obligations to regard such. agree ment or might already hold the neceS- sary II per cent required to give con trol.
 "Thc seven-year term of office for the board of directors is impracticable for this reason. if no other The ar ticles of incorporation of the Home company provide that the directors shall be elected annually. But if the Consolidated company neither seeks nor desires control of the Home com pany or its directory, or any advan- tage in any negotiations or proceed ings for the acquisition by the Home company of the property of the Con solidated company, as proposed by Mir. Randolph, we are at a loss to see why it should seek to acquire any of the stock of the Home company. The Home company does not need to give any portion of its stock in payment for such property Its stock is now in demand. Already it has refused a bona fide offer to purchase 30 per cent of it's stock at par. and applica- tions for the stock have been so nu- merous and for such large amounts as