The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1914-02-05

aet sbaaie bc operated IA an h.o
lufe loss or n tact at less than
rah profits
Any ac on on the part az ans
pabue serwce commission Il goo
on 10 roo iee rates 10 point wher,
the service must necessarily be Grip.
Piled aT impaired is violation 81 lll
prime duty % the public What a.,
public wants Is good service az
reasonable price, which NIL allow
fair margin IL profit TO thase furnish
inc the service This Il as true Il
the state of Vermont as Il Is In th'
state 81 Massachusetts or the state Q
New Hampshire The public ~ Yer
mont DO not ash that rates be reduce.
70 point yielding a profit smalc
than business men expect from ardit
nary business ventures Ia This state
The evidence presented IN this casa
before this commission proves con.
clusiyely that The companies tins
this brief are giving good service
that they are furnishing this seryic,
at the lowest prices al which such
service Is furnished al any Places IN
the territory OF the New England sys-
TEN, and this in spite Of the fact that
Vermont, by reason OF its sparse
population, its widely scattered cen.
tres. Its typographical features, is ?
difficult territory in which 20 give
service So small is the profit OF
these companies that II their existing
rates We're TO be fixed by q commits
sion as an obligatory schedule OF
rates, the order would be clearly con-
iiscatory How much more then would
an order fixing the proposed schedule
Of rates, with all the reductions aud
increased expenses involved he con
iiscatoryg
The defendants therefore ask that
this complaint against them be dis
missed.
This complaint was really brought
by Il. A. Cook OF Lyndonyille and
Warner A, Graham OF Bellows Falls.
who last summer we're appointed spe-
eial counsel to investigate telephone
rates and service in the state They
reported that the rates We're unrea-
sonable and recommended a reduc-
tion 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 as proposed by the
complainants should not be adopted,
The report of Messrs. Cook ana
Graham was not offered in evidence,
but was treated merely as com
plaint It is not specifically referred
to in the brief but its allegations were
met in the testimony presented in be-
halt OF the telephone companies
The brief defends the traffic con-
tracts with subsidiary and independ
ent connecting companies on'th 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
get a percentage OF all the
tolls sor 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 G6 percent
since its organization in 1889, or, in
surplus, Sis percent; that
the Champlain Valley paid no diw
dends until 1912, when II declared a
3 percent dividend, and ~ percent
In 1913; that the Passumpsic company |
has never paid a dividend on its COM
mon stock, and that on its preferred /
i paid nothing until 1912, when It
Baid percent, and two dividends OF
Ih percent each in 1913. passing the
.hird dividend; that the Vermont conf
)any paid no dividends from 1897 TO
1911, when it declared dividends ag
5A percent for that year
md at the rate OF Z percent in 1912
hat that the Franklin County com.
)any has paid dividends varying from
! to 5 percent only since 1904
The brief Is outlined in 175 type
written pages, and the thoroughness
With which the case is submitted is
hown by the index covering twenty
wo different subjects, with numerous
NIB references
--~--4-------.s-s