The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-03-08

would cost sIss. or SIS more than the
commuters rate.
mo matter how great the increase in
the number of messages there would
still Ice the SIS difference IN the two
propositions. With a.400 messages under
tn committees scheme and with the
guarantee Of $50 a month the owner
of n small apartment house with ton
extension telephones could cover the pay
ments TO the telephone company. or with
1900 messages "A year could do this
without any guarantee. In neither case
would II he possible under the pany's
proposed schedule.
"In the case of the larger apartment
houses, having more than thirty extern
sions. the excess of the compary's rates
over the committees II only S. instead
of SIS. Thus here again the small sub
scriber Is the sufferer.
The Changes In this private branch
exchange schedule increase the burdens
on the telephone user s227.3l9 a year
over what was recommended by the
Foley committee"
, SUMMARY
Increase IN company -rhcdu,. o, rates
over the Commift"a's suggestei heiule
individual lines, small -esidenoe
suhsrrlbers .....,.... 81. 900 90
! Individual lines. users % 1900 10
$500 messages In some boz
oughs and 1900 90 5000 IN
individual linz extension ,-1e-
phonee 800. ...-........,.. as.siaoo
Private brsnch exchanges Up
II .c7.aia.O 40
Total increase .............s sl3. 300 90
The company contends. according 70
the committee. that further invcstiga-
tons have brought 10 ltsht additional
reductions and expenses not computed
ten days ago. The committee accord
iusTy IL willing 20 estimate "a net loss OF
from 500 900 TO 5000. 600 tn the com
panv. but sees no reason FOR the com
psnv's cutting s6lS.0 600 from the com
mittec's rate reductions.
The Committee next takes up the uues-
ton Of tho ability Of tho company ~
make q reduction OF $4,000. 600 The
statement says that the prnperty OF
tho telephone company within tho city
cost when new less than $40. 600, 900
and { that amount nearly 81" 0oo, Oo0
has been provided by the Subsrrihe-s
under the c'iise Of a FUN To- meet
depreciation. Lass than $4,000. 600 has
been furnished By the stock and bond
holders and some OF that mas come out
81 surplus earnings, over and above good
dividends. II may t@ put IN another
way, The property has cost now ABOUT
s10,u00.00C and even under the sd
missions OF tho company has drprcci
ttod between 5000. Ou0 and 81. 900. nOu
which would bring tho cost down Z,
about SIS. o00. 1900"
rrof. lS"mis believes that y propc,
allowance for depreciation woul6 re
dicc the cost 10 $50. oo0. 600. rlthougi
ho allowed the COMPANY So. o0o. 0OO. II.
has put the cost Of the land owned h,
the company AZ $1,000, 900. although =
COS oulg $500 o"n. he say
"IN insisting on 6 rtr cont ~ tS4.
0o0, 400. which " fully % per cont. NOR,
than the Investment, tho coUpanN clair,i
IA" rlchi to = profit Of s6.19o nnn. ~
500, 600 less than the approNimatcl'
s'.t"",o 90" Of earnings So; ny on a.
books within N" city in The cll"uda
year l9li'
First, the committee asserts that rh,
company has not offered oNid,ur. to iii.
prove the evidence Of Prof EunlS TIA
Of the $1,000. 600 which tho romu.u,
PAYS yearly 10 the American Tclcphou
and Telegraph Company. tine oW ler q
all its stock, fully 500. Goa is i'm ,s,cs
Of - reasonable return for what TN
local company receives from tho h'S=c
company.
Tho second vital point ignored hy III
company Is that neither before M, Tolt
cp.uulittee nor before the state Publ
Service Commission has II :
M. ~ tho claim ~ the Foley cuuuittc
that II IL collecting from telephone sui
srrth"rS yearly in New York cit tbu,l
$4,000, Qoo for additions and drprc,i
tom reserve. while $4,000 oo0 vnuI
%sifr".