Newspaper Page Text
Sexton's opinion which is the same as that of the lawyers hired by
the phone companies gives any alderman owned, controlled or bought by
the phone interests a chance to vote with the phone companies and blame
it on Sexton and his interpretation of the law.
But there is no reason why any alderman, who honestly wants to rep
resent the people of Chicago, should accept Sexton's opinion as final; and
nobody will be fooledJby any alder-
. man who votes against thfe public in
terest and tries to excuse himself
with Sexton's opinion.
That opinion is arrived at by an
absurd twisting of the meaning of
words. Not one man in ten thou
sand who knows anything about the
meaning of words would even
imagine that the word "serving"
means merely having the ability to
serve, or being ready to serve.
The opinion rests on the following
clauses In the franchise, as finally
amended, granted by council to the
tunnelcompany, and as separated in
to (a) and (b) by Sexton:
(a) "If said cpmpany, its succes
sors ana assigns, snail tail to con
struct, equip and install a telephone
system .under the terms of said or
dinance to said company of February
20, 1899, adequate for the services
of 20,000 subscribers prior to June
1, 1911."
(b) "If at any time after said June
1, 1911, said company, its successors
and assigns, shall not have in opera
tion or shall cease to operate a tele
phone system serving 20,000 bona
fide subscribers."
Sexton then concludes that the
courts would hold the company was
"serving" 20,000 bona-fide subscrib
ers if it had a plant installed and
READY to serve 20,000 subscribers.
In my opinion that is pure bunk. If
council had meant to provide that the
tunnel company merely had to have
after June 1, 1911, a plant ready to
serve 20,000 subscribers, why were
the words "bona-fide," or good faith,
subscribers mentioned?
If it was intended merely that a
plant should be ready to serve 20,000
subscribers, what difference did it
make whether they were bona-fide
subscribers or dummy subscribers?
Bona-fide subscribers would mean
actual subscribers who had made
contracts for automatic phones, were
using the phones and paying for the.
service.
And it was clearly the intention of
council at the time that a system
should be in operation that would
have 20,000 actual subscribers. If I
am not mistaken, the tunnel company
itself placed that construction on the
ordinance and tried to pad out its list
of subscribers to come up to this re
quirement It was only when there was some
talk of the city taking advantage of
the forfeiture clause that cunning
lawyers searched out this twisting "of
words and meaning.
It is such vicious perversion of
meaning, such trickery in the use of
the law by the privileged against the
public, that breeds contempt for law,
lawyers and judges.
You will get what council really
meant by reading this provision as it
appears in the ordinance, without be
ing divided into (a) and (b). Here
is what it says:
"If said company, its successors
and assigns, shall fail to CON
STRUCT, EQUIP AND INSTALL a
telephone system under the terms of
said ordinance to said company of
February 20, 1899 adequate for the
service of 20,000 subscribers PRIOR
to June 1, 1911, or if at any time
AFTER said June 1, 1911, said com
pany, its successors and assigns, shall
not have in operation or shall cease
to operate a telephone system serv
ing 20,000 bona-fide subscribers, then
and in each such case said company,
its successors and assigns, shall also
forfeit to the city, or to any licensee
or grantee of the city (designated or
authorized by the city for this pur-
