The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1909-07-28
IMPORTANT TELEPHONE CASE.
Consolidated Company and Slate
Belt Co. Hooked Up, Again.

An action charging conspiracy
between the Bell Telephone Com
pany of Pennsylvania and the Slate
Belt TELEPHONE Co. for the suppress
sion of competition, was begun on
the 10th inst. before the Attorney
General at Harrisburg. The Slate
Belt Telephone Company operates
in the counties of Northampton and
Monroe with headquarters at Nazar-
eth. Since 1900 this company has
had traffic contract with the Con-
solidated Telephone Companies of
Pennsylvania, formerly with head
quarters at Allentown, and now
forming part of the system of the
American Union Telephone Company,
with headquarters at Harrisburg.
Under the terms of this contract the
Consolidated Telephone Companies
of Pennsylvania carried the busi-
ness of the Slate Belt Telephone
Company beyond the territory oper-
ated by the latter, giving the Slate
Belt subscribers long distance con-
nection with all independent points
in Pennsylvania and adjoining states.
On May 25th last the Slate Belt en-
tered into n secret agreement with
the Bell company under the terms
of which it contracted to deliver it's
long distance business to the latter
corporation, thus becoming a Bell
sub-liCensee company and, to all
intents and purposes, part of the
Bell system. The first intimation
of this transaction was obtained
when the Slate Belt Telephone Com
pany served notice on the Consoli-
dated Telephone Companies of Penn
sylvania that on and after July -,
1903, the contract existing between
these two corporations would be ter
minated. Immediately upon receipt
of this notice, petition filed with
the Attorney General of Pennsylvania
by the Consolidated Telephone Com
panies, charging a violation of the
antitrust laws of the State of Penn
sylvania in that the making of a
connection beween the Slate Belt
and the Bell tended to destroy COM
petition to the injury of the public.
The Attorney Generals Department
notified the Slate Belt Telephone
Company to refrain from making
disconnection with the system of the
Consolidated Telephone Companies
system and appointed a hearing for
July 14th, 1909. At this hearing
Deputy Attorney General Cunning
ham presided and it developed that,
Notwithstanding the notice served
on the Slate Belt Telephone Com
pany, the latter's connection with
ro1
panies had been cut; but the Off
GERS of the Slate Belt Telephone
Company agreed to Immediately re-
store connection, which was accord
ingly done, the line being restored
to service and patrons and subscrib-
ers of Independent Telephone Com
panies in this region can still obtain
telephone communication to North
ampton and Monroe counties as here
tofore
At the hearing Lyman d. Gilbert,
chief counsel for the Consolidated
Telephone Companies OF Pennsylva-
mia (American Union Telephone
Company appeared for the petition
er and briefs were ordered filed
pending a final adjudication of this
matter. The officers of the Consoli-
dated Telephone Companies of Penn
sylVania have expressed their inten-
tion of conserving the rights of the
public to continued competition.
The Slate Belt Telephone Company
built up its business as an Inde-
pendent Telephone Company largely
upon the advantages which it enjoy
ed in having an outlet through the
Consolidated lines. As a result it
built up a business very largely in
excess of the business of the Bell
Telephone Company in the territory
in which it operates. 1t is this fact
that led the Bell Telephone Com
pany to offer favorable terms to in
duce the Slate Belt Telephone Com
pany to tie up with the Bell lines.
A copy of the contract between the
Slate Belt Telephone Company and
the Bell Telephone Company of
Pennsylvania was filed with the At
torney General and is made a part
of the record.
Lawyers who have studied the
case are agreed with Mr.. Gilbert
that combination such as the Bell
Company has attempted to effect
with the Slate Belt Telephone Com
pany is clearly a violation of the
laws of the State of Pennsylvania.
Mr.. Gilbert in his arguments showed
that if the alleged conspiracy were
carried out, it would result in seri-
Gus injury to the public. He argued
that it would be certain to bring
about deterioration of the service,
higher rates, and arbitrary methods
such as prevailed before competition
in the telephone business became
an established fact. While the pres
ent proceeding is merely a prelimin-
airy investigation on the part of the
Attorney General, it has already had
its results in that it has forced the