The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-10-07
COUNTY AND TELEPHONE MEN AGREE

gested that something should be done
IN return.
Deputy County Attorney Milverton
stated that the contract between the
old telephone company and the Terri
tory gives the county the right to string
It's police and fire alarm wires on the
poles of the telephone company during
the entire period that the company s
franchise is in effect. Were these poles
to come down, said he, and should the
county decide to take up the offer Of
the telephone people, pay for the in
stallation of the underground duct, and
place the wires beneath the surface, it
would be necessary to expend from
$4,000 to $4,000 in the purchase of cable
and so forth. Should the county decide
not to take up the conduit offer, but
should the telephone company take
down its poles, it would necessitate the
expenditure of some $1,000 to restring
the wires
Good Wages.
Carter then took up the question of
excavation permits and inspection fees.
He said that, on the basis of fifty
cent fee for each posthole. the company
would have to pay at least $3.50 within
very few months for inspection fees.
This, he said, would be out of all pro-
portion to the cost of inspection, in
that the work could easily be done by
one man in two days, and he thought
| $3.50 for two days work for one man
would be pretty stiff pay.
| Milyerton agreed that the cost would
| be a little steep in such a case, and
suggested that an arrangement could
| be made whereby the company might
| be relieved of what would probably be
an unfair charge.
Attorney A. Lewis, on behalf of the
| telephone company, then took hand
in the argument. He said that the
| $4,000 or $4,000 required to secure cable
for the underground duet should not be
taken into consideration at all, in that
the service would be so greatly i'm
proved. He furthermore insisted that
the contract between the old telephone
| company and the superintendent OF
public works, whereby the county
claims the right to string it's wires on
the poles of the company, does not OBJ
hgate the company to maintain the
poles.
Must Keep Tab.
County Engineer Gere said that he
understood the idea of the inspection
fee and permit question to be for the
purpose of enabling the county to KEEP
tab on the tearing up of streets. He
said that much trouble has been ex
perienced in times past from planta
tions tearing up the roads to lay track:
and leaving the county authorities IL
total ignorance of the facts until some
one runs into the bumps on DARK
night. He said that considerable trou
BILE was experienced with the old tele
phone company, which seemed to thinl
that it could place its poles where i
saw fit. He thought that the difficult,
might be obviated by enforcing the per
NIT proviso. but eliminating the fe
question, for the time being at least
Lewis Offers Suggestion.
"Sbould the county require deposi
! from the telephone company. suficien
: TO cover the cost of replacing tn
streets, wherever torn up, to the salts
, faction of the county engineer. wit
the understanding that. were the worl
not done, the county should do the re
! placing and take its pay out of the de
/ post. I do not believe that the com
? pany would offer any objection. re
5 sponded Lewis.
: County Attorney Cathcart though
that the matter might be settled b,
: the waving of permit fees from tn
: | telephone company during the frs