Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-04-19
The vetoed Phone Mercer Bill


LINCOLN. Neb., April 1S,-To the Editor
Of The Bee: In common with other in
dependent telephone operators and Off
Gals, 1 very much regret that Governor
Aldrich did not have the time to thor
oughy digest and understand what was
intended to be accomplished by the Minor
bill, which he vetoed / feel sure that the
governor thoroughly misinterpreted this
act.
The first objection lodged by him was
that it would monopolize the business under
one management AS a matter of fact it
protect the integrity Of Independent tele-
phone investments in Nebraska
Governor Aldrich. with others, overesti-
mates the extent of competition in the
state. The records Of the railway commits
sioners' office show 469 telephone COM
panies operating 721 exchanges OF this
number the Bell company operated about
100 exchanges. In but % cities and towns
are there two exchanges competing for
business there. leaving nearly 700 exchanges
operated by more than 400 independent
companies that have a monopoly of the
business in those communities. There are
two toll line systems one operated by the
dependent system. These 700 exchanges
are connected with the one or the other
toll system and few are connected with
both.
The value of any telephone system, to
patrons as we'll as to owners, lies in its
ability to maintain and protect it's con-
nections Through the Minor bill ample
protection of all connections could have
sion.
If this bill had become a law, mergers
could not have occurred in but twenty
eight out of 721 towns having telephone
exchanges The provisions relating to
mergers thoroughly protected minority
stockholders and the public was guaran-
teed security against increases of rates by
the proviso that no rate could be increased
until after a physical valuation Of the
applicant and approved by the commission.
Governor Aldrich objected also that Sec
ton 6 would prohibit the organization of
competing companies in the future and that
it abrogated existing franchises In both
cases the governor was clearly wrong
Section 6 simply required that before any
company could secure the right to engage in
the telephone business it must first secure
ing certificate that its construction is
necessary and proper for the public con-
venience. This section is>a verbatim copy
of the administration utility bill of Ohio,
which passed the house by a vote of 80
to a. Similar provisions are found in Gov
ernor Hughes utility law enacted by the
New York legislature two years ago, in
Senator LaFollette's utility law, which has
been on the statute books Of Wisconsin
for several years. Massachusetts,. Okla
homa and other states have similar laws
and today all the leading authorities on
control of utilities recognize the necessity
of supervising duplication. This section is
in line with the modern progressive ideas
Of Roosevelt, Bryan, Hughes, LaFollette,
Cummins and others. 1t is recognized as
a necessary protection to capital honesty
invested against the cutthroat competition
of trusts and monopolies that seek to
invade fields adequately supplied by LOCAL
capital. Such a provision is necessary in
Nebraska TO protect the small capitalists
of many cities and towns from having
their investment wiped out by the trust
invading their home town and making
rates absolutely unremunerative, but the
loss from which could be made up by the
trusts in those centers, where II has no
competition. The people OF Fairbury and
many other Nebraska cities can tell you
what this means. If the governor had
accorded the independents a hearing before
he vetoed this bill he might have been
saved from the deplorable blunder the
effect OF which falls hardest upon those
he claims to be protecting.
The governor says Section L. the physi-
cal connection provision. is permlssive
only and compulsory in no sense. The alb
surdity of this statement is apparent from
reading the section which repeatedly used
the verb shall and in no case uses the
verb may"
The bill was well considered and no
unfair or Objectionable methods were
used in its passage and any insinuations
to the contrary are entirely unwarranted
II is true, as the governor states, that
the measure is OF far reaching Importance
1t was carefully framed to protect both
the people and the telephone interests of
the state. 1t is to be deeply regretted that
the governor, through a mislnterpretation
Of the provisions of the act, has been led
by his veto to block the wheels Of progress.
h FRANK IL. WOODS.