Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for The Scranton Tribune
Story August 9, 1899

The Scranton Tribune

Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania

What is this article about?

In Scranton, PA, a Select Council committee opposes granting a franchise to the Lackawanna Telephone Company, citing pavement damage and service redundancy. The West Side Board of Trade passes resolutions denouncing the report as flimsy, advocating competition for lower prices and better service, amid discussions hinting at bribery.

Clipping

OCR Quality

88% Good

Full Text

COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
"This committee reports adversely on
'An ordinance authorizing the Lackawanna
Telephone company to construct
and operate lines of telephone in the
city of Scranton, state of Pennsylvania,
file of common council No. 21.: for the
following reasons:
"First—We are opposed to the cutting
up of the asphalt pavement which is now
being put in good repair at great expense
to the taxpayers and we are further
opposed to an addition to the unsightly
and dangerous poles, overhead
wires and cables, which now crowd our
thoroughfares.
"Second—Wherever competing lines exist,
experience shows that one telephone
system properly conducted serves the
public far better than two, because, in
order to secure a complete service, business
men were compelled to have two
telephones in their business places. Business
reasons compel even those financially
interested in the new company to
retain the old company's telephones, and
they have never been able to dispense
with them. Anyone can readily see that
this increase in expense and annoyance
to the public is very great.
"Your committee, therefore, recommend
the adoption of the following resolution:
"Resolved, By the select council, that
further action on this ordinance be indefinitely
postponed.
"John J. Shea, John E. Roche, Thomas
O'Boyle, Adam Schroeder."
REASONS FLIMSY.
Resolved, By the West Side board of
trade, that we look upon and consider all
the reasons set forth in the said report,
very flimsy subterfuge, and a denial to
the city itself of a considerable source of
revenue.
Resolved, That there is not one good
reason set forth in said report for denying
the franchise prayed for
Resolved, That it is high time that the
city councilmen set aside their individual
interests of whatsoever nature they may
be, and the interests of a limited few, and
legislate with respect to this and other
propositions in the interests of the people.
Resolved, That no good reason has yet
been advanced against competition in
telephone service in this city, but in denying
a franchise to a second company,
the city councils are depriving those who
now use telephones of a great saving in
prices and of invaluable advantages and
convenience in other respects in telephone
services which are enjoyed by the
citizens of many cities and towns throughout
the country.
This brought out more discussion.
Mr. Morgan wanted to be enlightened
regarding the ordinance, and asked if
it was necessary for patrons to place
two telephones in their place of business.
Mr. Mason volunteered the information
that, a year ago, the old company
had 800 subscribers and the new company
over 1,000, and that the introduction of
the new system would not necessarily
require a subscriber to have
two telephones.
Ex-Councilman Oliver explained that
where two telephones was necessary,
the price, $3 per month, would enable
present subscribers to secure them, and
that instead of paying $78 a year as is
now the case, the cost of two telephones,
with competition, would not be
over $72 a year.
MR. FARRELL'S OPINION,
Mr. Farrell again took a part in the
discussion, and expressed the belief
that the competition would be good for
trade, and if the price was reduced
better service would result
Mr. Campbell thought the old company
wanted to prevent the new company
from obtaining a franchise, and
Mr. Fellows thought that if Mr. Morgan
would ask certain councilmen
whether or not it was true that $300
was paid for votes, the truth of Mr.
Campbell's assertion could be learned.
Mr. Morgan said that the common
council, which passed the ordinance,
evidently did not know anything, judging
from the way the selectmen
handled the ordinance, and thought
that the common council might just as
well be done away with. And if both
councils do not pay any more attention
to communications from the West
Side board of trade than they did to
the resolution about the telephone ordinance,
the board of trade might just
as well cease to exist, for all the good
it will accomplish.
The resolutions were finally called for
a vote and passed unanimously and a
copy ordered furnished the council
committee.
The board adjourned after several
members paid their dues.

What sub-type of article is it?

Historical Event

What themes does it cover?

Justice Deception

What keywords are associated?

Telephone Franchise Scranton Council Board Of Trade Competition Resolution Bribery Allegation

What entities or persons were involved?

John J. Shea John E. Roche Thomas O'boyle Adam Schroeder Mr. Morgan Mr. Mason Ex Councilman Oliver Mr. Farrell Mr. Campbell Mr. Fellows

Where did it happen?

Scranton, Pennsylvania

Story Details

Key Persons

John J. Shea John E. Roche Thomas O'boyle Adam Schroeder Mr. Morgan Mr. Mason Ex Councilman Oliver Mr. Farrell Mr. Campbell Mr. Fellows

Location

Scranton, Pennsylvania

Story Details

Select Council committee recommends postponing ordinance for Lackawanna Telephone Company's franchise due to pavement concerns and service redundancy. West Side Board of Trade passes resolutions criticizing the report, promoting competition for cost savings and better service, with discussion on bribery allegations.

Are you sure?