Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1913-11-26
HEARING WARNS UP.
Expert Telephone Engineer from Kew
York Engaged by State. Auditor Long
ley Says Impossible to Give Figures
Want d.

The telephone hearing in Montpelier
moves along in a laggard fashion most
of the time but has warmed up several
times in the past week
Frank F. Fowle, an expert telephone
engineer. has been engaged by the
state for use in the hearing as occasion
requires 1t is thought from the angle
things are taking now that the hearing
will last some time yet.
At one time in the hearing ATTORNEY
Graham asked for the state an appar-
entity harmless question which started
things, He wanted Auditor Longley
TO make what he considered a fair
separation of the assets and liabilities
of the New England company on the
theory that the New England COMPANY
In Vermont was a separate telephone
company. This question had been
asked the day before and when it was
repeated. Mr.. Longley said that al
| though he had wrestled with it over
night he was unable to give what
he thought would be a reasonable
answer.
The New England company has
about S43, 900, 900 worth of stock pay
ing seven per cent. and about S12. 900. :.
900 worth of bonds carrying five per
cent interest Considering the New
England plant in Vermont as a sepa-
rate institution, entirely disassociated
from the New England company, and
earning two per cent or less on its
investment he thought it would be
impossible for such a company to
secure the capital to build a plant.
Nor would such a company be able to
t1oat bond issue at five per cent
interest rate because investors would
not accept such bonds.
Mr.. Deavitt wanted to know why
3.59 of the total liabilities would not
represent fair proportion for Yer
mont, this percentage representing
the proportion the plant in Vermont
bears to the entire plant of the New
England Telephone and TELEGRAPH
company Mr. Longley contendec
that this was a wholly impracticable
computation because, although as 8 g
of the total plant value of the com
pany, it contributes only 80 of the
company's revenue. He said it woulC
be incorrect to assume that such ;
company as was being theoretically
considered, one wholly separated from
the New England Telephone ant
Telegraph company and confined en-
tIrely to Vermont. could get money
tor the same rate that was pai(
by the New England company. L
was brought out. incidentally tha
out of 4.36O stockholders in the New
England company. only 27 of then
were from Vermont
Mr.. Graham suggested that no one
has seen any Vermont territory tina
has not paid seven per cent, if it hac
fair chance, to which Mr.. Longley
replied that he thought that all Yer
mont had been given more than fai1
show. and that money had been poured
in here by the New England company
in way that no local company woul(
expend it. The New England com
pany was attempting to give just a.
good service in Vermont as in an,
other part Of its territory.
Mr.. Graham remarked that no one
, had seen any indication of a company
intention to withdraw from Vermont.
''Why should we," asked Mr.. Long
ley, 1.-The New England company is
unit as whole. it is important tha
: our people in Massachusetts should b.
able to telephone up here to you
prosperous cities and towns. and tha
your people should be able to tele
phone to ours, but the assumption
, that this territory of itself can max
money. isn't true"
The hearing has been adjourne,
until Dec. End