Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1914-02-06

public wants r. focE .srvTce. a.
reasonable price. which win allow a
tair margin OF proGt 90 those furnish
ing the service. This is as true in
the state OF Vermont as il is in the
state OF Massachusetts or the state of
NeY Hampshire. The public OF YER
mont Go not ask that rates be reduced
TO a point yielding e profit smaller
than business men expect from ordi-
nary business ventures in this state.
Inc evidence presented in this case
before this commission proves con-
elusively that the companies filing
this brief are giving good service;
that they are furnishing this Sc vice
at the lowest prices at which sucl
service Is furnished at any rlae in
the territory OF the New England rs
TEN, and this in spite Of the fact hat
Vermont, by reason of its sparse
population, its widely scattered cen
tres, Its Typographical features, IL q
difficult territory in which to give
service. So small is the profit Of
~ONHRohACb NbcA II lhClI C4E
rates were TO be fixed by a commits
sion as an obligatory schedule of
rates, the order would be clearly con
hscatory. How much more then would
an order fixing the proposed schedule
OF rates, with all the reductions and
increased expenses involved, be con-
tscatory?" #
The defendants therefore ask that
this complaint against them be dis
missed.
This complaint was really brought
by E. A. Cook of Lyndonville and
Warner A. Graham OF Bellows Falls,
who last summer were appointed spe-
cial counsel to investigate telephone
rates and service In the state. They
reported that the rates were unrea-
sonable and recommended a Feduc-
ton OF approximately 20 percent in
both local and toll rates.
The commission issued an order OF
notice calling upon the companies to
appear and show cause why the
schedule Of rates az proposed by the
compliments should not be adopted.
The report of Messrs. Cook and
Graham was not offered In evidence,
but was treated merely as a COM
plant. 1t is not specifically referred
to in the brief but its allegations were
met in the testimony presented in be-
half OF the telephone companies.
hrin a1 ho
tracts with subsidiary and independ-
ent connecting companies on the in
terchange of toll business and points
out that these companies ARE getting
the cream of the toll business and the
New England stands the loss" This
is because of the fact that although
the New England company provides
the long toll lines, the connecting
companies get percentage of all the
tolls on messages passing over these
lines but originating in the exchanges
OF the local companies.
AS to dividends paid, the brief says
the New England company as whole
shows a return of only 4 IS percent
since its organization in 1888, or, in
GLIDING surplus, 5.15 percent; that
the Champlain Valley paid no divi-
dends until 1912, when it declared a
3 percent dividend, and Az percent
in 1913; that the Passunapsic company
has never paid dividend on its COM
mon stock, and that On its preferred
it paid nothing until 1919, when 1t
paid percent, and two dividends OF
w percent each in 1918, passing the
third dividend; that the Vermont COM
pany paid no dividends from 1897 to
1911, when it declared dividends ag-
gregating 81 percent for that year
and at the rate of percent In 1912;
that that the Franklin County COM
pany has paid dividends varying from
2 to percent only since 1904.
The brief is outlined in 175 type
written pages, and the thoroughness
with which the case is submitted is
shown by the index covering twenty
two different subjects, with numerous
sub-references.