The Waxahachie daily light. [volume] (Waxahachie, Tex.) 1894-current, 1916-03-21


would not object To the proposed
merger II the proposition did not
carry with II the demand fer TINS
tribute. and was otherwise fair 10
the public.
II occurs to me that this part OF
the ordinance can be traced to the
people who are personally interest
ed In seeing these corporations make
money. am told that they are
constantly appearing before the
council and its committees urging
the passage OF the ordinance. and
since their insistence can only be
reasonably charged TO their desire
for gain, which is perfectly natural,
and could not be reasonably charged
to the desire Of the telephone pa
irons to pay more for their phone
service than they are now paying.
which would be very unnatural. the
issue is not between the people Of
our city and these comparatively few
double telephone patrons; but be-
tween the people and the owners OF
the two phone systems.
Nobody, SO far as | have been
able to ascertain, is opposed to the
merger plan If that is what they
want to do. provided the interests
of the public are properly safe
guarded. What | do object to, main
ly, and what | believe a great major
ity of the people of Waxahachie OBJ
ject to, is being forced to pay
financial tribute to these private
commercial corporations. You are
eminently correct in saying that 1t
is the SO cents that actuates me in
this opposition, for that is one OF my
principal objections.
You next take me to task for say
ing that the Independent company
came here of its own free will and
with the full knowledge that it would
have to operate in competition to
The old company, and in that con-
nection take occasion to pour out
some praise upon the Independent
company. You cite several instances
wherein it forced reduction of toll
charges and state that | fail to give
the company credit for it. Why
should /? Do you suppose for one
instant that these reductions were
made because the owners or this
telephone company had such
clinging affection for the people that
they. on that account, forced the
reduction? If you do you are again
arguing against all the promptings
of human nature. Does not your
good, sound judgment tell you that
this was done for the sole purpose
of getting business; that it was the
result of competing systems and that
If your contention prevails that you
will not only destroy this competi-
ton, but that you will force the pub
lie to pay for the destruction?
You seem to attach much impor-
lance to the fact that a petition has
been presented by the Chamber OF
Commerce signed by a number of
telephone patrons. What If it has"
Is it not a conceded fact that this
movement was instigated by the
double subscribers, who, by their
own choice, are using and paying
for both phones? And is it not pos
sible for YOU to see that the thing
we are contending for is not against
the merger, if fairly presented, the
thing desired by the signers of the
petition, but against he increased
rate, the thing desired by the own
ers of the telephone companies? 1t
seems to me that this is perfectly
apparent to even the casual OBJ
server.
Another thing that does not seem
exactly right TO me is the threat OF
this Independent company to with
draw from the field and leave us
to the mercy of the old company.
The principal reason it does not
sound right is because ii is presum-
ing that the people of Waxahachle
will sit supinely by and permit such
a situation to come upon them. You
perhaps know that in a very short
time the citizens of our city are go
ing TO vote upon a new charter, and
whether you know IL or not, | ann
glad TO tell you that if this charter
is adopted we will not be at the
mercy of the Southwestern Telephone
company. nor any other corporation,
or individual, for il viii contain
ample provision to protect the people
from any such embarrassment. And
in this connection ii is we'll to state