The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-08-14

| chises, first requiring the Peoples COM
| pany TO give a bond guaranteeing to all
subscribers service from the Bell COM
| pany at the same rates for an unexpired
/ term of their contracts. The municipal
| authorities of Bessemer, after the same
sort of consideration, took the same ac-
| tion.
when the matter was up for consid-
alton by the commissioners of the city
of Birmingham / stated to the commits
sioners that while the Peoples company
was not making money, and while 1T
was to their interest to surrender their
franchise and dispose of their property,
that l. of course. did not expect the
commissioners of the city of Birmingham,
in passing upon the question, to consider
what was best for the Peoples Home Tel
ephone company, but expected and knew
that they would consider the matter SOLE
ly from the standpoint OF the welfare
of the people of Birmingham, and that
it seemed to me that the only question
involved was whether the people of Bir-
mingham wanted one telephone system
or two.
After the municipal authorities of Bir-
ming CHAM and of Bessemer had agreed to
the cancellation of the contracts of the
Peoples company and to the surrender of
its franchises, the physical properties of
the company were sold at public auction
phone company. During all of the time
that elapsed from the time of the filing
with the city of Birmingham of its petit
ton by the Peoples Home company, to the
| time of final action, not single voice
was raised so far as | know, to insist
| that it was to the interest of the people
of Birmingham that there should be two
| telephone systems.
Regarding Forfeiture
Since the transaction has been consum-
mated, there has been more or less gossip
about the profits which were made by
the stockholders of the Peoples company,
and it has been suggested that under
| it's contract with the city of Birmingham
| the commissioners of Birmingham could
| have forfeited the property of the Peo-
| pies company because of the sale to the
Southern Bell company. The contract be-
| tween the Peoples company and the city
| of Birmingham provided that IL the Peo-
pies company should sell their franchises
without the consent of the city authori-
| ties, then their property should be for
| feited to the city, and because of this
| clause in the contract, some people seem
| to think that the commissioners of the
| city of Birmingham were in some way
derelict that they did not get for moth
ing the property of the Peoples Home
Telephone company and establish a mu-
ncipal1y owned plant
Whether or not the municipal au-
| thorities of the city of Birmingham
would ever have been justified in trying
+, to get for nothing the property of the
| Peoples Home Telephone company, seer
tain it Is that such an opportunity new
er existed The board of commissioners
could only have forfeited the property
of the Peoples company in the event
the Peoples company should have sold
their franchises without the consent
of the board of commissioners.
This the Peoples company never for
a moment contemplated doing. 1t was
understood, as already stated, between
the Peoples company and the Bell COM
] pany that the sale would not be made
unless the written consent of the board
| of commissioners was first obtained,
| and Furthermore, that it would not be
made unless public sentiment in Bir-
mingham was in favor of it. II the COM
missioners of the city of Birmingham
| had manifested the slightest objection