The Waxahachie daily light. [volume] (Waxahachie, Tex.) 1894-current, 1916-03-21
wa. s.gAr HAS ANOTHER
sAy IN THE MERGER


editorial in Saturdays issue of the
Light In which YOU replied TO my
article protesting against the teIe-
phone merger franchise as IL is now
offered 10 the city council fer enact
msnt am glad you answered what
| had TO say for feel perfectly con
fident that an open discussion OF
this important matter will bring to
the surface the real merits of the
proposition. and that when this has
been done II will be plainly appar-
ent TO all who are interested that
the side of the people is the meri-
torious side.
But before I proceed to a further
discussion of the matter | would
like 10 thank you for the very gen
erous. but wholly undeserved, com
pliment you paid me in saying that
| am good diplomat. My most
indulgent friends, except in the pres
ent instance. have never accorded
TO me the fine art OF diplomacy.
However. I thank you for the com
pliment, undeseryed though IL was.
Now. with reference to the view
you take of this merger fganchise,
ii Is my opinion that your vision
would be materially clarified and
that YOU would be enabled to see
il from the standpoint of the PEG.
pie III you will fully realize that
these two telephone companies are
simply two private corporations, or
ganized for the sole purpose of MAX
ing money for their owners; that
they are not entitled to any more
consideration at the hands of the
public than any other private cor
porations. mercantile, manufacture
ing. or otherwise, in so far as grant
ing them public aid may be con-
cerned. They are all individually
owned, personally managed COM
mercial organizations whose princi-
pal mission is to accumulate per-
sonai profit for their owners. Now,
suppose two of our mercantile cor
porations (and we have a number OF
them) should merge their proper
ties by one of them taking over the
other one and after effecting such
merger should advertise to the pub
lie that they were selling theesame
but that by reason OF
the fact that they had merged they
would henceforward charge about
16 2-3 per cent more for their goods
than they did when they were doing
business separately. How much mer-
do you suppose these two
merged commercial corporations
would sell? The question answers
itself. The public would exercise
its good Judgment and personal pre-
rogative by refusing to buy their
goods. But if your contention with
reference to these two telephone
companies should prevail the public
would have no option in the matter.
Its good sound judgment would be
rendered absolutely useless and its
personal prerogative taken from 1T
by reason of the fact that the city
council (the governing body of the
city) would come to the rescue OF
these enterprises and announce to
the people that they will be forced to
pay the increased percentage. Do
you believe the city council has the
moral right to force the public to
do thing in support of these two
commercial corporations that 1t
would absolutely refuse to do with
out foree9 1t is simply question
OF looking at it from the standpoint
of the people.
In your editorial you confirm
what | said in my article as to the
origin OF this movement. You state
that the subscribers of both phones
wearied of the double burden and
|appealed TO the Chamber of Com
'merce for help, and that this organi-
cation has been urging the PROPOSE
ton. | can readily believe that to
this extent; that these double sub
scribers desired the merger; but you
will excuse me if refuse TO believe
that even these people are the au-
thors of the clause in the franchise
authorizing the increased rental rate.
That is so far divergent from all
human nature that | must demand
the proof before | accept il as true.
If people are left free to exercise
their own judgment they do not vol
UNFAIRLY offer the seller more than
he demands for what he is selling.
And. you know, this increased rem