The Waxahachie daily light. [volume] (Waxahachie, Tex.) 1894-current, 1916-03-27

called Dy COUNCILMAN "
that the public was not interested IN
| his investment which might prove
bad one, but only in the real value
OF the property used in the pubic
service, he admitted the justice OF
the criticism. His attention being
called to the fact that while profess
ling to be asking only that maxi
mum rate be fixed subject TO the
revisatory powers OF the city coun-
ell. his proposed ordinance was on
express authority to charge the
highest rate named. he also con-
fessed the correctness OF that OBJ
lection.
Mr.. Earle Is very intelligent
and very capable man. with an ex-
cellent knowledge of the meaning
of words. as we'll as being an ex-
expert in telephone matters. and II
| Is peculiar that he should use In a
proposed ordinance in the interest
of his company language the mean
ling OF which is materially different
from what he says, in words, that
he is asking, the difference being
in each instance favorable TO his
company.
! The request now for a fifty cents
raise on business phones for two
years. etc, has strings to 1t the lead
az which should be we'll considered.
What he really proposed in the
writings submitted was an absolute
| change in the franchise from a per-
Missile charge of $500 per moath
for business phones, subject to re-
rction IL found unreasonable. to an
absolute permission to charge $3.50
per month, with right In the Coun-
council to lower it after two years
lii after tedious and expensive in
vestigation Of books kept by the COM
pany. it was found to be too high.
the proposition being made with a
knowledge on Mr. Earle's part that
such reduction, If attempted, would
be subject to court review.
II requires no great wisdom TO
conclude that Mr. Earle cares little
for a raise Of fifty cents per month
on business phones for two years.
What he may be working for is to
get that rate in his franchise and
take his chance hereafter of using
the action of the present council as
precedent. with the reservation
of his right to resort to the courts
in case of any future attempted re-
duction.
! This communication is already
| longer than l had intended when |
began, but I will ask the privilege
of a few words in rejoinder to your
lengthy reply TO my last communi-
cation.
While you protest vigorously that
you do not favor monopoly the stat
utes and authorities cited in your
own editorial show that our consti'
tuition prohibits monopoly, as con-
trary to the genius of free govern
ment. and our statute says that
monopoly is created where one cor
poration acquires the rights, or
physical properties, or any part there
of, of another corporation for the
purpose of preventing or lessening,
or where the effect or such acquisi-
ton is to affect or lessen competi-
ton.
The case of Jones VS.. Carter, 101
S. w. 514, cited by you says that
the term monopoly embraces any
mbination or contract the tendency
OF which is to prevent competition
in its broad and general sense and
to control prices to the detriment of
the public.
; We pay a price for telephone SER
vice and the increase of such price
, is at least prima facie to the detri-
nient of the public.
: The Light is too we'll informed
, not to know that exclusive control
|, of a public utility is the very es-
| sence of monopoly
i II you and those with whom you
act. succeed in obtaining the mer-
| ger you so earnestly champion,
: as you may, with resulting
poor service, as | believe will be
: the case. and then find that there
: is no effective way to remedy that
, condition, as there is not under
, tho present city charter, it may be
| no very great pleasure to you 10
realize that your efforts largely con-
tributed to producing that condition.
. There is. OF course. no question
} but that the Light is contending on
~ for what il believes would be for
: the public good. but fear its atti-
l<a 10 o,s