The Waxahachie daily light. [volume] (Waxahachie, Tex.) 1894-current, 1916-03-20
WHY A TELEPHONE NER-
GER. AND ESPECIALLY On
THE TERMS PROPOSED.

are contrary 10 the htHiNc ~
government, and shall never be al
lowed"
Article 1877 of our Revised Civil
Statutes defines a monopoly as
combination, or consolidation, OF TWO
or more corporations effected In
either or several ways. one of which
Is the acquisition of the franchise
or other rights. or physical proper
ties. of one corporation by another,
for the purpose of preventing or
.lessening, or where the effect OF such
acquisition tends to affect, or lessen,
competition.
While the unexpected frequently
happens. still 1t is surprising that
the Light not only defends, but adj
vocates, monopoly. and even insists
that a corporation seeking a monop-
oily should have what it seeks, and
be given premium for effecting its
purpose.
In its issue Of the 18th inst. the
Light suggests that the franchise OF
the Southwestern Telephone COM
pany does not limit charges to be
made for telephone service. and that
to prevent a possibility that that
company may raise its prices for
business phones to $3.50 or $500
per month, the Independent COM
pany should be permitted to absorb,
or take over, the Southwestern To-
cal exchange, and then be allowed to
increase its rates on business phones
l6 2-3 per cent.
Does it not occur TO the Light, on
reflection. that if the public has to
pay monopoly prices for a pubic
service which company takes the ex-
torted increase is not a matter OF
much Importance and, II other means
of preventing extortion do not ex-
list, would it not be wise to retain
what competition we have as check
vi tie uthWtSttihi ittiASi eh"ii
give another company premium to
merge it into monopoly?
Are we so sure of absolutely fair
treatment from either of the exist
ing telephone corporations, if given
monopoly, that We can take the
risk?
Are we so well pleased with the
service we now get from either of
these corporations that we are will
ing to trust either for all time, and
are there not grave doubts whether
the public interests will be promoted
by a merger of these companies on
any terms?
But if a merger is deemed advis-
able what showing has been made
that should entitle the surviving
company to charge higher rate for
the service to be rendered?
The Light says in its issue of the
18th inst. 1.-The business men OF
Waxahachie who are using two tele-
phones have expressed themselves by
an overwhelming majority in favor
of the merger, and have signified
their willingness to pay rental OF
$3.50 per month";" etc.
That is. possibly, the very strong
est statement that could be truth
fully made in favor of the proposed
merger, but assuming this to be
true, would the proposed merger be
fair to the general public, because
of these facts?
The Chamber of Commerce COM
mittee reports that there are 103 du-
piicate business phones in use in
the city and go others. They say
that 159 users of business phones
favor the merger While "a oppose it.
Deduct from the 159 the 103 users
of duplicate phones and we have SO
users of one business phone only
who favor the merger. while there
seems 10 De IUI users Ol oLS buoi-
ness phone only of whom the "a neg
atives have been heard from.
1t may be that the users of the
|103 duplicates, who would save
$3.50 per month by the merger
favor il, but is that any good rea-
son why the 101 users of one phone
only, who, except the 81 negatives
have not been heard from, should
be taxed fifty cents per month on
their phones in order that the 1o3
should save $3.50 per month?
The showing so far made TO the
city council seems TO be purely one
in favor of voluntary users of tive
phones. and not showing OF any
Il