The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1920-07-27


The following communication was
given to The Banner Monday morning
by Burch B. Ferenbaugh, with the re.
quest that 1t be published in full:
Editor Banner:
From the indications, the recent eff.
fort of the Mt. Vernon Telephone Co.
to effect settlement Of the phone
controversy will result in utter fail.
ure. j
At meeting held at Pipesville on
Thursday evening this proposition
was put up to the people and unani.
mously voted down. It was left with.
out single advocate or supporter,
and the patrons committee was in-
structed to stick to the original prop
osition.
At Danville on Saturday evening, at
meeting Of group of representa-
tive citizens, the proposition met a
like fate. Not single vote was cast
in. favor of the proposition nor did 1t
find q single advocate of it's merit.
On the contrary the meeting in
structed the committee to go on and
literally finance an advertising cam
paign in answer to that of the Mt.
Vernon Telephone Co., which has
been conducted in the last week or
two.
Word has been received from Fred
ericktown vicinity that the proposi-
ton put into effect will result in more
phones going out as it is looked upon
by them as getting the same thing
they had before they began the fight
for the abolition of the toll charge.
Mt. Vernon business men, or at
least a fairly good group of them,
have at last begun to realize that the
kind of a telephone rate that is in Of.
feet in Knox county is of vital inter
est to them. They see that any sys
TEN Of phone rates which allows the
people the use of the county in lib.
eral way broadens their market and
that any rate which tends to restrict
the people in the use of the phone re
stricts their market. The committee
has been solicited to call meeting
of the Mt. Vernon business men, but
as yet no action has been taken.
Much interest is manifested in the
outcome of the present reconsidera
tion by the supreme court of Ohio in
the right to form a mutual telephone
company. 1t will be remembered that
this body denied that right to the
people, but is again considering the
legal proposition.
Many object that the plan offered
by the company does not meet with
their approval because it gives them
free use of more of the equipment Oi
the company than they would use II
given fiat rate for the county, and
yet it does not afford the service they
desire. No one family has the same
connections and same demands for
phone service as another.
( Routes of telephone service used
by the different people of Knox coun
| ty are determined by circumstances
of relationship, business, and location
Of relatives, and are so varied that nc
satisfactory adjustment can be made
except by fiat rate for the county
This does not mean that one family
if given that right, will use 1t and
does use 1t. For example, the only
use that a mother at Danville has foI
a phone is to talk to her daughter al
Fredericktown. These are the only
lines Of the county that this mother
uses and that the daughter uses
They are no burden on the rest oi
the equipment Of the concern and dc
not actually use as much equipment
as the proposed plan offers, yet th'
plan does not give these people th'
service they desire and are entitled
to. This instance might be multiplied