Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-04-13
Nebraska
TELEPHONE BILL is VETOED
Goternor Says it seeks to Control and
, Monopolize Business.
ABROGATEs EXISTING FRANCHISES
~ Delegates Power TO Railroad Com
mission 90 Authorize Merweru,
but Not TO Prevent
Them.
From a staff Correspondentl


From a Staff Correspondent
II NCOLN. April 12.-Cgpecial Telegram)
Minors telephone merger bill. house roll
bd has been vetoed by Governor Aldrlch.
In his veto message Governor Aldrich
sets forth his objection TO the bill in posi-
tive terms, declaring that the provisions
OF the bill are In contravention OF rights
acquired under existing law.
Governor Aldrich denounces the bill as
seeking to establishment a monopoly Of
ell telephones and telephone companies and
90 prohibit new companies doing business
where an exchange Is already established.
The bill IL asssiled by the governor on
The ground that It jeopardizes the rights Of
minority stockholders and confuses the
authority of the state railway commission.
The veto message follows:
Il am vetoing house roll No. 5S7. gener-
tn1y known as the telephone merger BILL
!. becayyss it contains the following objections:
- .F1rst-It seeks TO control and monopoize
telephones and telephone business.
''Second--It would prohibit the organiza-
ton and operation OF new companies any
place In the state where any other company
was In existence.
'Third-It abrogates existing franchises,
which is contrary TO the fundamental law
of our land
"Bourth 1t jeopardizes the rights Of the
minority stockholders of the selling com
panies and puts them at the mercy OF the
purchasing corporation.
''Fifth--Tt permits a merger OF two or
more competing companies and then re-
auires them after this is done to go before
the commission and set its permission
without, In the first instance, getting the
right of the commission TO merge.
"sixth--It does not delegate to the COM
contract
Sesventh--rhs provision for physical con-
heotEon In section is permissive only, and
not compulsory.
".Eighth-The first three sections OF said
act are essentially a copy taken from DIFF
ferent places in the railway commission
law and make no now provision whatever.
80, then. this much OF said act is sur
pfusage and, In fact It may be said that
there is no new provision I'm this act that
squarely protectS the rights OF the public
that has not already been provided for in
the railway commission law.
Obstacles to New Companies.
cit will be seen that under the provisions
nG this section any company trying TO or
nnEazfze and do a telephone business is met
tho first place by the obstacle OF having
- q hearing before the railway commission
lnsorder to get license 10 organize a COM
pany. There the applicant will be met by
thu stubborn and resourceful opposition OF
the monopoly with plenty of money behind
It. The commission might grant the per-
mt TO organize and to build. but this would
not be final. for 1t could be taker to the
courts and in this way great delay and ex-
pense and annoyance would occur wherein
All of the devious and artful ways OF a
millionaire monopoly would be brought
mao play, and In this way business would
DO discouraged and the further develop
tnent of the telephone business in the state
b effectually stopped.
SBut this Is not all OF the vice that there
ean section g. for It effectuany abrogates
Ating contracts, because II expressly
baos that no license, permit right or fran
nhise that may have been granted to any
teiephone company 20 contract. own or
operate or control shall be permitted to
operate without having first obtained q
hearing as Aforesaid. This is certainly an
Astounding situation and is so absolutely
illegal II is unreasonable that the mere
Etatement is to make unanswerable
argument against the precautions OF this
soction g.
ut Is unavoidably known and recognized
EaAt nothing In law that is about TO b.
Enacted or to become a law since a con
tract was entered into shall in any way
WAY INTERFERE with any contract that OBJ
tainSd before said law was enacted.
syouId Eliminate Minority Interest
~Then. TO elaborate briefly upon tn,
Fourth objection. as i have stated. it viii
be noticed that this bill provides in detai
that when tWo-thirds of he stock is pur
chased by another telephone company, 1
the minority stock is not for sale and vii
not accept the price sold for by the two
thirds stock then this minority stock ha
no rights and it's property becomes worth
issk. They are not even permitted to g
kntd court to protect themselves
AMuch could be said TO each one OF thes
objections pointed out. but Il is unneces
sary TO make complete and elaborat
argument II occurs to me that there
ono absorbing theme in this measure, q
wit 10 take the necessary steps for ger
-. eraN raise IN telephone rates. This mus
- tiue because the one central though
Of this entire act is TO merge into one mar
ageinent or under one CONTROL all OF n
telephone business OF the state. II Is Il
tsresting to note in any states Of the, unio
where the legislators are I'm session a hi
ike this or similar has been INTRODUCES
IT was turned down In Ohio. IL was passs
IN Indiana and behind all Of this NOV,
ment Is the Pierpont Morgan syndicat
who owns and controls the entire Bell sy
TEN Of this country together with q
Western Union telegraph system, and
this effort OF a general merger in an
the states succeeds. then we have I'm oil
syndicate the control OF all the modern al
approved methods OF communication,
gether with the substance that IL the VIII
over which these communications a
transmitted il is indeed a situation tn
may well arouse to action the people
this entire state In a matter that so vital
Affects them this.
Aims az Complete Control.
at Is possible that this syndicate mi
eventually get complete control Of
whole telephone and telegraph systems
. the state. but DO not feel justified