The star-progress. (Opelousas, La.) 1917-1921, 1921-03-16
signature recently.

signature recently.
Il was sent to Baton Rouge in De-
camber by the police jury Of this par
ish % appear before the state railroad
commission in opposition to the re-
quest made by the Cumberland tele-
phone company for approximately 20
per cent advance in rates. filed with
this commission letters, affidaVIts, tel
egrams and other documents, all OF
which protested in the very strongest
language possible against any advance
in the present telephone charges. Last
but nOc-least, l filed with this COM
mission a franchise or contract that
was entered into between the tele-
phone company and the City of Ope-
lo.sas. which specifically specifies the
rates to be charged TO the patrons OF
the company in this town. This clause
OF the contract has been violated from
the very first month. At the November
meeting the telephone company gave
very exhaustive reasons why they
should have the advance asked for
But their claims were looked upon a.
being not only unreasonable but at an
inopportune time. inasmuch as the
state is facing a most depressing con-
dition; small crops and low prices, to-
gether with the high taxation. makes
it impossible for the masses of the
people 10 pay the proposed advance
in rate.
The opposition to this advance in
vate was represented from all over the
state and Commissioner Taylor eX-
pressed himself to Commissioner
Long as being against it and the gen
eral opinion that prevailed then was
.rong against allowing the advance.
In my talk before the commission I
stamped the request as a gigantic grab
that the telephone company was try
ing to put over on the people of the
state which amounts to about $70G.-
900 in taxation. | call it taxation be
cause a telephone is a necessity and
therefore a tax.
Commissioner Taylor told me n
the lobby of the Istrouma hotel that
he thought l had justly stamped this
request as a grab so what conclusion
could a man come to, other than 10
think We had man representing US
that we could depend on TO protect
our interest? When I came home a
number OF friends called upon me and
asked what | thought The decision
would be. and I NATURALLY .Old them
Judging from what | saw and heard
from Commissioner Taylor, that the
/ telephone company would be ruled
against by the commission.
when the November meeting was
over the railroad commission said
that they would take the case uNdel
advisement Mr. Mal0ney. represent
ing the city Of New Orleans, evidently
suspecting the change in sentiment O
Commissioner Taylor, requested tnt
further hearing before the cOmmissiC-
in order to place before that body Z
complete statement in opposition Il
this advance so that the commission
would have full information from bOll
sides Mr. Maloney's request was
granted and January % was named a.
the time for the city of New Orleans
and the balance of the state to fie
/ their objections in full. Immediately
after this date was named Mr.. MalOn
ey got busy in search after a cOmpe
! tent auditor to audit the books of the
| telephone company, and after several
days employed Mr. Wolff, a most com
! petent and experienced accountant
/ from New York to furnish him witt
information as shown by the books Of
) the telephone company.
Mr.. Wolff had only twelve days
to get at this report before January
\ %. Realizing that this time was very
short, in fact, too much so. to make
thorough audit so he did the best
he could in this short time. The mair
feature of that report showed. as made
I'D by Mr.. Wolff. revealed the fac
that up to as far as he went with his
work. that the telephone company was
earning IA per cent on its investment
and not 1872 per cent as shown by The
report Of the telephone company. o;
account of Mr. Wolff being pushed TO,
time, a full examination of the book
could not be made.
ION January %. the time set 70
the second hearing there were onl,
two representatives from the stat,
present outside of New Orleans, an
they were Mr.. Thomas McCaffer.
from Washington. La, and myself
What is eVerybody's business is pro
verbally nobody's business, and tn
small attendance at the second NEE;
ing of the commission was erroneous
" construed by Commissioner TayIo
as indifference on the part of the pub
lie 10 this gross violation of thei
rights. He should have remembers
the first meeting OF the commission
on this subject, when all parts of tn
state was represented in opposition
and in violent protest.
..Mhan this Meeting was nnened Nj