^fOI 
 
 REPORT OF THE 
 STREET RAILWAY 
 COMMISSION :: ::: 
 
 TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF 
 THE CITY OP CHICAGO 
 
 DECEMBER.. .1900
 
 The person charging this material is re- 
 sponsible for its return to the library from 
 which it was withdrawn on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 
 
 for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 
 
 the University. 
 
 To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 FEB 2 1 Mb 
 
 L161 O-1096
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 Report of the 
 
 Street Railway Commission 
 
 TO THE 
 
 City Council of the City of Chicago 
 
 Aid. MILTON J. FOREMAN, Chairman 
 
 Aid. WILLIAM S. JACKSON Aid. ERNST F. HERRMANN 
 
 Aid. WILLIAM F. BRENNAN Aid. JULIUS GOLDZ1ER 
 
 Aid. WALTER J. RAYMER Aid. WILLIAM MAYOR 
 
 GEORGE C. SIKES, Secretary 
 
 December, 1900
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Resolution creating the Street Railway Commission and 
 supplementary resolutions and acts of the City Council 
 
 relating to the Commission 5 
 
 Letter of Transmittal 9 
 
 Text of Report, under the heading, Questions of Street 
 
 Railway Policy Discussed 1 1 
 
 Introductory 1 1 
 
 Summary of Recommendations of the Commission. . 14 
 Discussion of the Recommendations. 
 
 I. Unification of Management 17 
 
 II. Public Control and Duration of Grants 19 
 
 III. Municipal Ownership 29 
 
 IV. Referendum 36 
 
 V. Publicity 37 
 
 VI. Control of Capitalization 38 
 
 VII. Frontage Law 41 
 
 VIII. Labor Policy 43 
 
 IX. Motive Power 45 
 
 X. Subways 49 
 
 XL Rate of Fare and Compensation 50 
 
 XII. Coordination of Service 52 
 
 XIII. Legal Questions the 99- Year Act. . . 53 
 
 Text of Street Railway Bill 55
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Appendix 71 
 
 I. Letter of Mr. Milo Ray Maltbie, Editor of 
 Municipal Affairs, to the Street Railway 
 Commission 73 
 
 II. Public Policy Concerning Rapid Transit. 
 
 Address by Mr. George E. Hooker 77 
 
 III. Two Views of Municipal Ownership. 
 
 Advantages of Municipal Ownership. 
 Dr. Albert Shaw, Editor Review of Re- 
 views 89 
 
 Municipal Ownership; A Question of Ex- 
 pediency and Local Conditions. Prof. J. 
 Laurence Laughlin of the University of 
 Chicago 94 
 
 IV. The right to own and operate Street Rail- 
 ways may be of great value to cities, even 
 though such right be not actually exer- 
 cised, as a means of enabling cities to 
 deal more advantageously with private 
 
 corporations 99 
 
 Letting Contracts Without Competition. 
 
 Editorial in Engineering News 99 
 
 Franchise Philosophy. Editorial in Chi- 
 cago Tribune 103 
 
 V. Extracts from the Report of the Special 
 Committee appointed by authority of an 
 act of the Massachusetts Legislature to in- 
 vestigate the relations between cities and 
 towns and street railway companies 105 
 
 VI. Franchise Policy of Congress, as exempli- 
 fied by the legislation with reference to 
 franchise grants in Porto Rico 1 23 
 
 VII. The Paris Subway System. Address deliv- 
 ered before the Street Railway Commis- 
 mission by Prof. Edmund J. James of the 
 University of Chicago 124
 
 RESOLUTION CREATING THE STREET RAILWAY 
 COMMISSION, AND SUPPLEMENTARY RESOLU- 
 TIONS AND ACTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 
 RELATING TO THE COMMISSION. 
 
 The City Council, at its meeting of December 18, 1899, 
 adopted the following resolution, offered by Alderman Foreman : 
 
 WHEREAS, The contractual relations at present existing between sev- 
 eral of the companies operating the street car systems in the City of 
 Chicago and the municipality of the City of Chicago will shortly expire ; 
 and 
 
 WHEREAS, The problem of the renewal or extension of these franchises, 
 and of all others that are to expire in the future, presents itself at the 
 present time, and in view of the magnitude and variety of interest in- 
 volved is of paramount importance ; and 
 
 WHEREAS, It is the almost unanimous opinion of the people of the City 
 of Chicago that the existing laws and ordinances concerning street railway 
 franchises and the municipal regulations of the operation of street rail- 
 way systems are antiquated and were enacted at a time when the City of 
 Chicago had not reached its present stage of development, and such acts 
 and ordinances are wholly inadequate to meet the needs and requirements 
 of the City of Chicago, both with respect to accommodations and facilities 
 for passengers and for compensation for the use of the public streets and 
 highways by said operating companies, and in many other regards ; and 
 
 WHEREAS, In view of these existing conditions, constructive legislation 
 is necessary, looking toward the enactment of such contracts as will result 
 in a correction of the evils and defects of the past and assure to the people 
 of the City of Chicago good and efficient service, as well as just and 
 adequate remuneration for the privileges enjoyed by the companies to 
 whom such franchises or renewals thereof may be granted ; and 
 
 WHEREAS, The question of municipal ownership of street railways is 
 engrossing public attention and finds many advocates amongst citizens 
 having the interest of the city at heart, and the expediency and desirability 
 of this step is one of the questions that must be taken into serious consid-
 
 6 REPORT OF THE 
 
 eration before any final steps are taken toward renewing existing or 
 granting new franchises ; and 
 
 WHEREAS, The people of the City of Chicago look with deep concern and 
 jealous eye at the ultimate solution of these questions and should have a 
 voice in their settlement, and with this in view a submission of the same 
 to the arbitrament of the people by means of referendum, may be advis- 
 able ; now therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved, That the Mayor be and he is hereby authorized and directed, 
 by and with the concurrence of the City Council, within thirty days after 
 the passage of this resolution, to appoint a committee of seven members 
 of this Council, whose duty it shall be to : 
 
 First Examine into the feasibility and practicability of the municipal 
 ownership of street railways in this city and the terms and conditions 
 under which this ownership may be established. 
 
 Second Examine into the questions of kind and amount of compensa- 
 tion and the conditions for the renewal of existing or granting of new 
 franchises or renewals, kind of motive power best adapted to various sec- 
 tions of the city and at varying times ; the condition in which the streets, 
 highways and tunnels are to be placed and maintained by companies using 
 the same ; accommodations to be furnished passengers ; amount of fares ; 
 commutation tickets; transfers; terminal facilities and switches; extension 
 of lines ; the hours of employment and compensation to the employes ; 
 protection of the citizens against accident, and penalties for non-compliance 
 with the laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. 
 
 Third To report to this body such measures, modes of procedure and 
 ordinances as shall be requisite and necessary to carry into effect after 
 their passage the recommendations of this commission. 
 
 Under authority granted by the foregoing resolution, His 
 Honor the Mayor, on January 3, 1900, sent to the City Council 
 a communication, making appointments as in the said resolution 
 provided for, as follows : 
 
 MAYOR'S OFFICE, } 
 
 January 3d, 1900. j" 
 
 To the Honorable, the City Council: 
 
 GENTLEMEN In accordance with a resolution passed by your Honorable 
 Body at its meeting of December nth empowering the Mayor to appoint 
 seven Aldermen to serve as a committee to investigate various matters in 
 connection with the street railway systems in the City of Chicago, I
 
 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION. 7 
 
 hereby appoint the following Aldermen as members of such committee 
 and respectfully ask the concurrence of your Honorable Body : 
 
 Aid. Foreman, Chairman. 
 
 Aid. Herrmann, 
 
 Aid. Jackson, 
 
 Aid. Brennan of the Tenth Ward, 
 
 Aid. Raymer, 
 
 Aid. Mavor, 
 
 Aid. Schlake. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 CARTER H. HARRISON, 
 
 Mayor. 
 
 The City Council, at its meeting of January 15, 1900, adopted 
 the following resolution, offered by Alderman Goldzier : 
 
 WHEREAS, Grave doubt exists as to the right of a number of the trac- 
 tion companies of the City of Chicago to operate street cars by cable or 
 electric power ; and, 
 
 WHEREAS, It is expedient and necessary, previous to the expiration of 
 the various franchises of such companies, that this question shall be 
 definitely determined, so as to fix the respective rights of the city and of 
 the traction companies ; therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved, That the Special Committee on Street Railway matters be 
 directed to report at as early a time as possible all information attainable 
 on the following points : 
 
 First Which of the traction companies (if any), to whom the right of 
 operating cars by other than animal power is granted by the City of Chi- 
 cago, are authorized by their charters from the State of Illinois to so 
 operate street cars. 
 
 Second Whether a grant by the city of the right to use other than 
 animal power in street car service is valid, when made to a company which 
 is prohibited by its State charter from using other than animal power. 
 
 Third Whether the act of 1865, under which various of the traction 
 companies claim certain rights, confers power to operate street railroads 
 by other than animal power. 
 
 Fourth What street car lines (if any) may be acquired by the City 
 of Chicago by virtue of the provisions of the ordinances under which the 
 various street railways are operating?
 
 8 REPORT OF THE 
 
 The City Council, at its meeting of February 5, 1900, adopted 
 the following resolution, offered by Alderman Goldzier : 
 
 WHEREAS, One of the most important questions before the people of 
 this city is that of sufficient means of street car transportation ; and, 
 
 WHEREAS, The congested condition of the streets in the heart of the 
 city makes it practically impossible to burden the surface of streets with 
 more vehicles by increasing the number of cars upon the various surface 
 roads centering in the down town district ; and, 
 
 WHEREAS, Under similar conditions in other cities the system of plac- 
 ing street cars underground has been found practicable ; therefore be it 
 
 Resolved, That the Special Committee on street car matters be and 
 they are instructed to investigate the question of the feasibility of subways 
 in the heart of the city to accommodate all street cars which are now 
 operated upon the surface of streets, and that said committee make a full 
 report to this Council upon this subject, giving an outline both of the tech- 
 nical side of such a plan and of the proper financial methods of securing 
 such improvement. 
 
 The appropriation ordinance for 1900, as passed by the City 
 Council March 26, 1900, and amended April 4, 1900, contained 
 the following item : 
 
 For secretary and expenses of Street Railway Commission, 
 $4,000. 
 
 Under the authority thus conferred the Commission selected 
 as secretary, Mr. George C. Sikes, whose service with the Com- 
 mission began June 12 of the present year. 
 
 The City Council, at its meeting of April 23, 1900, adopted 
 the following resolution, offered by Alderman Brennan (Tenth 
 Ward) : 
 
 Resolved, That the Street Railway Commission be continued, and the 
 Mayor be empowered to fill such vacancies as may have occurred. 
 
 In accordance with the authority conferred by the foregoing 
 resolution, His Honor the Mayor appointed Alderman Goldzier 
 to fill the vacancy in the Commission caused by the retirement of 
 ex-Alderman Wm. E. Schlake.
 
 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION. 
 
 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 
 
 To the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Chicago in Council 
 Assembled: 
 
 The Street Railway Commission created by resolution of 
 your Honorable Body submits herewith the draft of a street 
 railway bill, together with a report dealing with questions of 
 street railway policy that seem to require discussion in con- 
 nection with the bill. 
 
 The Commission also has under preparation a bill relating 
 to subways, which it hopes to be able to submit to your Honor- 
 able Body early in January. 
 
 It is the recommendation of the Commission that the City 
 Council, if it approve of the street railway bill herewith sub- 
 mitted, give formal expression of its approval of that measure 
 and that thereupon the City Clerk be directed to transmit one 
 copy of the bill to His Excellency, the Governor of Illinois, one 
 copy to the President of the Senate for presentation to the 
 Senate, and one copy to the Speaker of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives for submission to the House, with the request that 
 the bill be enacted into law. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 [Signed] MILTON J. FOREMAN, 
 
 Chairman. 
 WM. S. JACKSON, 
 W. F. BRENNAN, 
 WALTER J. RAYMER, 
 ERNST F. HERRMANN, 
 JULIUS GOLDZIER, 
 WILLIAM MAYOR. 
 
 Chicago, Illinois, December 17, 1900.
 
 QUESTIONS OF STREET RAILWAY POLICY 
 DISCUSSED. 
 
 Chicago has more miles of street railway than any other city 
 in the world. That fact, taken together with the large area of 
 this city, makes the street railway problem, or rather, the problem 
 of local transportation, one of tremendous importance for Chi- 
 cago ; for the welfare of the city as a whole and of its population 
 as individuals is vitally dependent upon the adequacy of the 
 system or systems of local transportation that may be provided. 
 Despite the importance of the subject, however, the street railway 
 systems of Chicago have been permitted to develop for the most 
 part in a haphazard manner, without regard to any well-defined 
 and comprehensive plan or policy. As a result the situation as it 
 exists today is complicated in the extreme, and the problem pre- 
 sented is exceedingly difficult of solution. In fact, it is impossi- 
 ble of immediate solution in any manner that can prove entirely 
 satisfactory to all the interests concerned. The best that can be 
 done is to outline a definite and comprehensive policy to be kept 
 continuously in mind in dealing with the different phases of the 
 local transportation problem as they may arise for consideration 
 and action, this policy to be constantly worked toward and real- 
 ized as speedily as circumstances will permit. 
 
 While so far as internal policy is concerned the street railway 
 systems of Chicago have developed without much regard to any 
 definite or comprehensive plan, there are two features of State 
 policy regarding street railways which Chicago has been chiefly 
 instrumental in forcing the State to adopt, that may be accepted as 
 well established. One is the principle of local control. The 
 other is the policy of short term grants. 
 
 The first street railway franchise under which a railway was 
 constructed in Chicago, granted by the City Council in 1858, 
 was for a period of twenty-five years, and gave to the city the
 
 12 
 
 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 right of purchase at the end of that period. The Legislature of 
 1865, however, despite local popular protest, passed over the 
 veto of Governor Oglesby a law extending, or purporting to 
 extend, from twenty-five to ninety-nine years, not only the char- 
 ters of the companies then operating horse railways in the city 
 of Chicago, but their franchise rights in the public streets of the 
 city as well. In response to the public protest against the prin- 
 ciple underlying this act, a provision was inserted in the consti- 
 tution of 1870 designed forever thereafter to prevent interference 
 with the principle of local control in such matters. That pro- 
 vision is : "No law shall be passed by the General Assembly 
 granting the right to construct and operate a street railroad 
 within any city, town or incorporated village without requiring 
 the consent of the local authorities having the control of the street 
 or highway proposed to be occupied by such street railroad." 
 
 Under the new constitution the Legislature in 1874 passed a 
 general law relating to horse railroads, which, among other things, 
 limited to twenty years all grants thereafter to be made by any 
 local authorities. 
 
 From the discussion growing out of street railway measures 
 enacted or considered by the last three legislative assemblies of 
 Illinois it plainly appears to be the popular desire that the prin- 
 ciple of local control and the policy of short term grants be main- 
 tained. 
 
 Starting with these two features of State policy as a basis the 
 Street Railway Commission, in accordance with the instructions 
 of the City Council given in the resolution creating the Commis- 
 sion, is attempting to formulate such other features of street 
 railway policy and to outline such courses of action as the situa- 
 tion seems to require. As said before, the problem presented is 
 complicated and difficult of solution and the Commission has not 
 been able, in the time at its disposal, to go thoroughly into all 
 its phases. It has given attention first to those aspects of the 
 question that demand consideration in connection with proposed 
 State legislation. The resolution creating the Commission points 
 out that the existing laws and ordinances concerning street rail- 
 way franchises and the municipal regulations of the operation of 
 street railway systems are antiquated and were enacted at a time 
 when the city of Chicago had not reached its present stage of 
 development, and that such acts and ordinances are wholly
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 13 
 
 inadequate to meet the needs and requirements of the city of 
 Chicago at the present time. Fully agreeing with this view, and 
 believing that legislative action is a necessary prerequisite to any 
 thoroughly satisfactory solution of the problem by the City Coun- 
 cil, the Commission, as the first step in its work, has prepared and 
 herewith presents the draft of a street railway bill, the purpose of 
 which is to confer upon the municipality the power to work out 
 such a solution of the street railway problem as may best suit 
 its inhabitants, without, however, conferring upon the present 
 generation the power needlessly to tie the hands of succeeding 
 generations. 
 
 Except for two features, the bill presented is a mere grant of 
 power to local authorities. The operation of the bill, if enacted 
 into law, is intended to insure proper publicity of the affairs of 
 street railway companies and to prevent future overcapitalization 
 without action on the part of local authorities. The provisions 
 of the bill in other respects, however, are in the nature of enabling 
 legislation, and merely confer upon local authorities power, sub- 
 ject to restrictions and safeguards, to deal with street railway 
 problems in such manner as may seem to them wise. No 
 attempt is made in the bill to settle or determine any question of 
 policy for any municipality. 
 
 Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the bill submitted are substantially 
 the provisions of the existing street railway law. Section 7 is a 
 modification of the present statutory provision relating to front- 
 age consents that is embodied in the city and village act. The 
 other sections of the bill embody street railway provisions that 
 are new to Illinois. 
 
 In framing the bill the commission naturally has had the 
 needs of Chicago particularly in mind, but of necessity a bill 
 designed to displace the existing street railway law must be 
 general in its scope. For the most part, however, the important 
 new features of the bill are made applicable to cities only. The 
 general aim has been to change as little as possible the status 
 and powers under existing street railway laws of municipalities 
 other than cities. 
 
 The discussion that follows is not confined to points embodied 
 in the bill submitted, but consideration is also given to some
 
 14 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 features of street railway policy that seem to require treatment 
 in- this connection. 
 
 The most important questions of street railway policy with 
 which the Commission has deemed itself called upon to deal, may 
 be considered under the following headings : 
 
 I. UNIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT. 
 
 The street railway business should be recognized as a monop- 
 oly business and treated accordingly. 
 
 II. PUBLIC CONTROL AND DURATION OF GRANTS. 
 
 These two subjects should be treated together because of the 
 intimate relations they bear to each other. If street railways 
 are to remain under private management some means must be 
 devised for rendering public control more effective. The Com- 
 mission favors the reservation to the Council of broad powers of 
 control and for the exercise of the powers thus reserved it rec- 
 ommends the creation of a new standing committee on Local 
 Transportation, modeled in the main after the Committee on 
 Track Elevation. This committee should have regular quarters 
 in the City Hall, which should be open during business hours 
 for receiving complaints from citizens. The committee should 
 have at its service such expert and clerical assistance as might 
 be found necessary. 
 
 III. MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP. 
 
 Cities should possess the power, under proper restrictions and 
 safeguards, to own and operate street railways. The city may 
 not deem it expedient to exercise this power, but with such a 
 power in reserve to be used in case of need, the city would be in 
 a position to make much better terms with private corporations. 
 The Commission, while believing it wise and important to give 
 the power to operate, would not look wth favor upon the propo- 
 sition to have the city of Chicago operate street railways in the 
 immediate future. It has no notion that such a proposition would 
 meet with the favor of the people of Chicago at this time. Prob- 
 lems of the future may safely be left to the decision of the future. 
 The Commission is of the opinion, however, that it would be wise 
 for the city, at the earliest practicable time, to acquire ownership 
 of the trackage and of whatever may form a part of the public
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 15 
 
 street, without going to the extent of ownership and operation 
 of rolling stock. 
 
 IV. REFERENDUM. 
 
 In so far as practicable, the people should be given a direct 
 voice through the referendum in the settlement of the most im- 
 portant questions of street railway policy. 
 
 V. PUBLICITY. 
 
 Street railway companies are entrusted by the public with the 
 management of a public business. The affairs of such companies, 
 therefore, should be open and known to the public to the same 
 extent as if the business were managed by the public directly. 
 
 VI. CONTROL OF CAPITALIZATION. 
 
 The law should forbid overcapitalization. 
 
 VII. FRONTAGE LAW. 
 
 Frontage consents should be required only when it is first 
 sought to lay down tracks upon a street. The right of abutting 
 property owners to prevent a street from being used for street 
 railway purposes, regardless of the public need for a proposed 
 railway, should not be absolute and unqualified. 
 
 VIII. LABOR POLICY. 
 
 The public has a right to demand uninterrupted street railway 
 service. To that end, it has a right to insist that everything 
 reasonably possible be done to prevent strikes and lock-outs. 
 Companies, in accepting grants, should be required to submit all 
 labor disputes to arbitration. 
 
 IX. MOTIVE POWER. 
 
 The Chicago street railway field is profitable enough to war- 
 rant the use here of the most desirable form of motive power 
 which experience has shown to be practical. The overhead trol- 
 ley should not be permitted in the business district. 
 
 x.r .SUBWAYS. 
 
 The Commission is of the opinion, in so far as it is qualified
 
 1 6 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 to judge without the assistance of engineering experts, that 
 Chicago should have a system of subways in the down-town dis- 
 trict for the accommodation of street cars entering that district, 
 thus making possible the removal of such cars from the surface 
 of the streets within such subway district. The subject, however, 
 is one calling for a careful and detailed investigation by engineers 
 employed for that purpose by the city before any decisive steps 
 are taken. Legislation should be secured at once permitting the 
 construction and ownership of such subways either by the city 
 or by a private corporation, which legislation should authorize 
 the people themselves to say, through the referendum, which form 
 of ownership they prefer, or whether they want subways at alL 
 
 XL RATE OF FARE AND COMPENSATION. 
 
 These are matters requiring a more careful study than the 
 Commission has yet been able to make of them. The two should 
 be considered together, for obviously the lowering of fares would 
 reduce the possibilities in the way of compensation to be paid 
 into the public treasury, and vice versa. The question of low 
 fares vs. compensation and the question of the uniform fare as 
 opposed to graded fares or the zone system of fares present them- 
 selves for consideration. The Commission believes the question 
 as to the amount of compensation for franchise grants should 
 be left open until the terms of the grant otherwise are virtually 
 decided upon. 
 
 XII. CO-ORDINATION OF SERVICE. 
 
 The Commission is of the opinion that there should be more 
 co-ordination between surface lines and steam and elevated roads. 
 
 XIII. LEGAL QUESTIONS THE 99 YEAR ACT. 
 
 When the companies now in control in Chicago receive any 
 further grant of privileges from the city they should be required, 
 as a condition of such grant, to renounce any claim of rights under 
 the so-called Ninety-nine Year Act of 1865. 
 
 These various features of policy, in the order enumerated, will 
 now be considered more at length.
 
 TEXT OF_THE REPORT. 17 
 
 UNIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT. 
 
 The theory underlying the street railway policy of Chicago 
 heretofore, in so far as Chicago may be said to have had a policy 
 on this subject, has been that the street railway business is a 
 competitive business; that competition should be fostered in the 
 interest of the public and that the possibility of competition should 
 be ever present as a means of keeping traction managers alive to 
 their duties to the public. That theory is incorrect and unsound. 
 Moreover, in practice it is everywhere found impossible to in- 
 duce, persuade, require or compel public service corporations 
 engaged in the same line of business to compete with one another 
 except for comparatively short periods of time. Sooner or later 
 rival companies of this kind will consolidate, or they will divide 
 the territory among themselves and each will keep in its own 
 territory, or there will be secret agreements or understandings 
 that will suffice to eliminate all effective competition. The various 
 gas companies of Chicago which were given franchises on the 
 promise that they would compete with one another are now con- 
 solidated under one management. The principal street railway 
 companies have carved Chicago into sections, each' agreeing, 
 tacitly at least, to serve a particular section and not to encroach 
 upon the territory of others. Where one company has been given 
 a franchise to enter the field of another company, as in the case 
 of the General Electric, which was authorized to invade City Rail- 
 way territory, the usual effect has been only to increase the 
 amount of outstanding securities upon which the people will be 
 expected to pay dividends. 
 
 One street railway company can serve the city better and more 
 economically than can several. The street railway business is by 
 its nature a monopoly business. Therefore, instead of trying to 
 foster unnatural competition which cannot possibly be main- 
 tained for any considerable period of time, the wise thing to do 
 would seem to be to recognize the monopoly nature of the street 
 railway business and to deal with it accordingly. 
 
 If the slate were clean, so to speak, and the city of Chicago 
 were in a position to deal with the problem in the manner that 
 might be deemed most wise, the Commission would unhesitat- 
 ingly recommend granting to a single corporation the exclusive
 
 l8 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 right to operate street railways within the limits of the city, sub- 
 ject, of course, to the conditions that should logically attend such 
 a grant. It would under no circumstances favor authorizing a 
 competing company to enter the field. If the company given the 
 exclusive right to provide street railway service could not or 
 would not satisfy the public, the proper remedy would be for the 
 city to terminate the grant and take possession of the property of 
 the company suitable to and used by it for street railway pur- 
 poses, compensation to be made for the same on the basis of its 
 value for railway purposes but without any allowance for fran- 
 chise value. 
 
 But the slate is not clean. Existing complications must be 
 reckoned with. Taking the situation as it is, the Commission 
 would discourage permitting any new company to enter the field 
 except, perhaps, as a successor to some or all of the companies 
 now in control, in the remote and improbable contingency that 
 some of such companies might be unwilling to deal with the city 
 on terms that could be accepted. The Commission does not go 
 to the extent of favoring an actual legal monopoly. It does not 
 believe that to be necessary or expedient. But it does believe 
 that the people of Chicago are ready to deal with the street rail- 
 way business as a monopoly business and that if the decision is 
 left to them no franchise will be granted to a competing company 
 so long as the company in control is making anything like reason- 
 able efforts to satisfy the public. Therefore the Commission has 
 provided (Section 10 of the proposed bill) that no street railway 
 franchise shall be granted to a competing company unless the 
 ordinance making such grant be approved by the people by direct 
 vote. Such a provision, the Commission believes, will amount 
 to virtual assurance of a monopoly to any company disposed to 
 deal fairly with the people. 
 
 Besides opposing further grants to competing companies, the 
 Commission would recommend that the city use its influence to 
 bring about unification of management, so far as possible, either 
 through actual consolidation of the different companies now in 
 existence, or through operating agreements, to the end that the 
 street railways of Chicago may be operated upon the basis of a 
 unified system. Therefore the Commission, in the bill submitted 
 (Section 26), authorizes street railway companies to sell or lease 
 their property or to consolidate or make operating agreements
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 19 
 
 with other companies, subject to the approval of the public 
 authorities granting the right to construct the railways in ques- 
 tion. The provision calling for the approval of the public author- 
 ities is important, as otherwise sales or agreements might be 
 made in derogation of the public interests. 
 
 Of course, if a company is to be given a grant on the assump- 
 tion that it is to be permitted to occupy the field alone, that 
 company, on its part, must undertake to occupy the field com- 
 pletely and to the satisfaction of the public. It must build and 
 operate not alone such lines as it chooses, but it must furnish all 
 the service within the territory assigned to it which the public 
 interests may require. Especially must such a company be re- 
 quired to extend its lines or to establish new lines as needed. It 
 would be well for the City Council, therefore, in grants that may 
 be made hereafter, to reserve the right to require the establish- 
 ment of new lines as needed. 
 
 n. 
 
 PUBLIC CONTROL AND DURATION OF GRANTS. 
 
 These two matters should be considered together because of 
 the intimate relation one bears to the other. 
 
 The primary object in granting to private corporations the 
 right to encumber the public streets with car tracks is to secure 
 street car service. Unless this primary object is accomplished 
 the street railway policy of the city must be said to be a failure, 
 no matter how large revenues may be secured for the public 
 treasury, nor how advantageous for the city the terms of a fran- 
 chise grant may be in other respects. How to secure adequate 
 service at reasonable rates is, therefore, the essence of the street 
 railway problem. All other considerations, comparatively speak- 
 ing, are of secondary importance. 
 
 One way that suggests itself of securing adequate service is 
 to stipulate for it in the franchise. But franchise stipulations 
 of this kind are not self-executing. It is one thing to insert in 
 a grant provisions requiring certain things in the way of service. 
 It is quite another matter actually to get the things done. More-
 
 20 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 over, it is absolutely impossible to make stipulations today that 
 will fit the changed conditions of tomorrow. No person is wise 
 enough to formulate for insertion into a street railway franchise 
 that is to be interpreted as a contract, all the stipulations that 
 will be necessary to insure good service for the period, say, of a 
 generation for which the franchise may run. In fact, the more a 
 street railway franchise partakes of the nature of a contract, 
 which cannot be altered in any material respect except with the 
 consent of both parties, even to meet changes in conditions which 
 could not be foreseen at the time the grant was made, the less 
 satisfactory is it certain to prove in operation and the more is it 
 likely to militate against healthy and progressive development. 
 On the other hand, the more such a franchise partakes of the 
 nature of a mere license, being subject to complete regulation and 
 control by the public authorities at all times, the better for the 
 public at large. Mere property interests of a government, like 
 the property interests of an individual, may properly enough be 
 contracted away. But governing authorities ought not, by con- 
 tract, to divest themselves of governing functions. Control of the 
 public streets and of the public means of transportation thereon, 
 is a governing function which should, so far as possible, be vested 
 in the proper governing authorities at all times. Such control 
 should be continuous and properly ought not to be surrendered 
 beyond recall, either by contract or in any other manner. But, 
 of course, it is surrendered to a greater or less degree by the 
 ordinary definite term street railway grant with which we are 
 familiar. The present widespread dissatisfaction with street 
 railway management in private hands, it would seem, may in 
 large measure fairly be attributed to the fact that public authori- 
 ties have not retained continuous control, as they should have 
 done, but have permitted themselves to be divested of it by con- 
 tract. British and German cities generally have a reputation for 
 marked ability in making contracts with public service corpora- 
 tions, and some of the agreements made by those cities, conferring 
 franchise rights, are remarkable for the ingenuity and detail with 
 which they seek to guard against future contingencies. But the 
 results under these very carefully drawn contracts do not seem 
 to be satisfactory, because, as the contract periods expire, British 
 and German cities are rapidly adopting the policy of municipaliza- 
 tion. Some contend that the careful restrictions of the contracts
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 21 
 
 made by British and German cities tend to hamper and discourage 
 private enterprise and thus to preclude satisfactory street railway 
 development under private management. Whether this or some 
 other explanation be accepted as the correct one, the fact remain! 
 that the system of regulation by contract has not proven satis- 
 factory in British and German cities, as attested by the fact that, 
 this system is being abandoned with considerable rapidity for 
 the policy of municipalizaton. Prof. James, of the University 
 of Chicago, who has lately returned from a trip of investigation 
 of German cities, tells an incident which helps to an understand- 
 ing of the movement toward municipal ownership in Germany. 
 In reply to a question as to the reason why the city of Cologne 
 was proceeding to take over its tramways, the Mayor of that 
 city said to Prof. James : "We are taking over the tramways 
 because it was found impossible thoroughly to safeguard the 
 public interests under any contract with a private corporation 
 that could be drawn." 
 
 There is unquestionably in American cities a strong popular 
 trend in the direction of municipalization of street railways. It 
 seems also to be unquestionable that the growth of municipaliza- 
 tion sentiment is due in large measure to the failure, or supposed 
 failure, of many American cities to get satisfactory results from 
 public service corporations with which they have attempted to 
 deal on the contract basis. 
 
 One of two things appears to be inevitable. Either a system 
 of really effective continuing public control over street railways 
 must be developed or street railways are virtually certain to be 
 municipalized sooner or later. Manifestly, therefore, it should 
 be the part of those who look with disfavor upon the idea of 
 municipalization to do what they can to assist in developing a 
 system of control over street railways that will prove satisfactory 
 to the public. 
 
 In attempting to devise a system of effective public control, 
 the important considerations are : ( i ) That adequate powers of 
 control be reserved to the governing authorities to be exercised 
 by such authorities in their discretion at any time; (2) that 
 special machinery be created for the purpose of insuring the in- 
 telligent exercise of such powers of control in the interest of the 
 public. 
 
 As has been said, franchise stipulations designed to insure
 
 22 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 adequate service are not self executing. There must be some 
 supervising body, whose special business it is to see that the things 
 stipulated are actually done. Moreover, specific franchise stipu- 
 lations cannot possibly cover all points in relation to service that 
 may arise. The proper governing authorities should be able at 
 any time to make such regulations, or to order such improvements 
 in service, as the needs of the public may require. Therefore 
 broad powers of control should be reserved to the governing 
 authorities, to be exercised as need may arise. Section 6 of the 
 proposed bill aims to reserve to city councils broader powers of 
 control than are now possessed. If this bill should not become 
 a law before the settlement of the pending franchise-renewal 
 problem, the City Council by all means ought specifically to 
 reserve such powers of control in any grant that may be made. 
 
 Having reserved the right of control, special governmental 
 machinery for the exercise of such right must be devised if the 
 control is to be really effective and of benefit to the public. Chi- 
 cago today has rights of control which are not exercised for the 
 lack of any supervising body whose special business it is to 
 recommend regulations for the improvement of the service and to 
 see that existing regulations are properly enforced. 
 
 What should this machinery be? Two plans or methods are 
 naturally suggested for consideration. One is the creation of a 
 Commission to be entirely independent of the Council. The other 
 is to have the desired machinery of control developed within the 
 Council. The Street Railway Commission gives its approval to 
 the latter plan. 
 
 It would recommend that a new standing committee of the 
 Council be created, to be known, perhaps, as the Committee on 
 Local Transportation. This committee in many respects might 
 well be modeled after the Track Elevation Committee. It should 
 not be large in number. It should have regular quarters in the 
 City Hall, which should at all times during business hours be 
 open for receiving complaints concerning service from citizens, 
 and for the imparting of information. This committee should 
 have such expert and clerical assistants as might be required. 
 These assistants should be under the protection of the civil 
 service law, to the end that their tenure of employment should be 
 permanent or during good behavior, in order that the city may 
 have the benefit of their experience after they have become
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 23 
 
 familiar with the problems to be dealt with. The most important 
 feature of this plan is the one providing that the Council, through 
 its committee on this subject, should have at its service a per- 
 manent force of experts to advise and assist it in dealing with 
 the various problems of local transportation as they may arise. 
 
 Naturally, too, this same committee, with its expert advisers 
 and its mass of accumulated information and experience, is the 
 one to which ordinances conferring the right to construct or 
 operate street railways would be referred. This committee, act- 
 ing for the Council, would be better qualified to conduct the 
 preliminary negotiations with a private corporation over fran- 
 chise terms than would a committee that is only occasionally called 
 upon to consider street railway matters. The present plan of re- 
 ferring street railway ordinances to one of three committees 
 (Streets and Alleys, West, North or South, as the case may be), 
 according to the part of the city in which it may be proposed to 
 locate the road, is especially objectionable as tending to foster 
 the sectionalism which it should be the object of a well considered 
 street railway policy to obliterate. If the street railway systems 
 of the city ought to be unified as far as possible, and the Commis- 
 sion believes they should be, the City Council itself ought to take 
 the first step in that direction, by having one committee to con- 
 sider all street railway matters, rather than three committees, 
 made up on strictly sectional lines, as is the case at present. 
 
 ALL GRANTS SHOULD EXPIRE TOGETHER. 
 
 In order for the city to control the situation satisfactorily it 
 must be able to deal with the problem as an entirety at any given 
 time, which it is not in a position to do when some outstanding 
 grants expire at one time and some at other times. It ought to 
 be the policy of the city in the future, therefore, to make pro- 
 vision to have all grants expire at the same time. This is a 
 matter of much importance. 
 
 DURATION OF GRANTS. 
 
 It was said at the opening of the discussion under this heading 
 that the question of duration of grants was closely related to the 
 problem of public control. The nature of that relation will now 
 be considered. 
 
 As has already been stated, efforts to control public service
 
 t 
 
 24 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 corporations through contractual agreements generally have 
 proven unsatisfactory wherever tried, whether in this country or 
 in Europe. The Commission, in the plan recommended for the 
 reservation of broad powers of control, hopes to secure better 
 results than can possibly be secured through contract stipulation* 
 in the franchise with reference to service. But the Commission 
 does not delude itself with the hope that the results under this 
 plan will be entirely satisfactory and perhaps they may not in 
 practice prove even approximately so. It is difficult to compel 
 a corporation enjoying definite term rights in the public streets 
 to do what it may desire for reasons of self-interest not to do. 
 The only way for the city to be certain of its ability to exercise 
 complete control over its public streets and over the means of 
 transportation thereon is for it not to surrender beyond recall 
 any rights of use or of occupation in such streets. The city can 
 control completely only when it is in a position to terminate at 
 any time the right of use claimed by any person or corporation 
 that may choose to defy the will of the city in any respect. In 
 other words, the grant terminable at any time at the will of the 
 city authorities is the only kind under which the city can be sure 
 of its ability to dominate the situation at all times. And it is 
 precisely in the communities where that form of grant obtains 
 that the best results generally are secured, and it is in such com- 
 munities that the relations between the corporations and the pub- 
 lic are the most satisfactory. We refer to the State of Massa- 
 chusetts and to the city of Washington, D. C. 
 
 In Massachusetts street railway grants do not run for any 
 definite period. A company is simply granted a "location," that 
 is, it is permitted to lay its tracks in a street. But the location 
 may be revoked at any time. Until recently the power of revoca- 
 tion rested absolutely with the local authorities, but the act has 
 lately been amended so as to give the right of appeal to certain 
 State authorities where the company may feel that it has been 
 treated unfairly. But the principle of a grant revocable by the 
 public authorities at will has not been altered. This power of 
 revocation, it is true, has seldom been used, but its existence ha* 
 served to keep the corporations on their good behavior at all 
 times, and to keep the public authorities complete masters of 
 the situation at all times. Moreover, capital has not been wanting
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 25 
 
 for street railway enterprises in Massachusetts under these con- 
 ditions. 
 
 The only careful and thorough-going official study ever made 
 in this country of the subject of the proper duration of street 
 railway grants, so far as this Commission is aware, was that 
 made by a Massachusetts committee, of which Mr. Charles Fran- 
 cis Adams was chairman. The report of that committee, which 
 was submitted to the Legislature of Massachusetts in February, 
 1898, is so enlightening and instructive that lengthy extracts from 
 it are appended to this report. The Massachusetts committee, 
 after an examination of the different varieties of grant in use, 
 declared in favor of the continuation of the Massachusetts sys- 
 tem of indefinite term grants. "In theory," it says, "such a fran- 
 chise is to the last degree illogical." Yet it cannot be said, the 
 Commission further adds, "that the system has for the half 
 century it has been in use worked otherwise than on the whole 
 satisfactorily." On the other hand, the term franchise, wherever 
 its results were studied, the committee says, "has been productive 
 of dissension, poor service, scandals and unhealthy political ac- 
 tion." The committee adds: "There is probably no possible 
 system productive of only good results and in no respect open to 
 criticism; but, in fairness, the committee found itself forced to 
 conclude that the Massachusetts franchise, which might, perhaps, 
 not improperly be termed a tenure good behavior, would in its 
 practical results compare favorably with any. Certainly those 
 results are as immeasurably as they are undeniably better than 
 the results as yet produced in Great Britain." 
 
 The important thing in the testimony of the Massachusetts 
 committee is the assertion that the Massachusetts system of in- 
 definite term grants has worked well in practice. It is important 
 to know, too, that the system is satisfactory both to the compa- 
 nies and to the municipalities, for at the hearings of the committee 
 neither asked for any change in the form of franchise grant in 
 this respect, except that the companies suggested some "par- 
 tial measures of protection against possible orders of sudden, 
 ill-considered or aggressive revocation." 
 
 Turning to the city of Washington, we find this same indefi- 
 nite term grant in use, with most satisfactory results. Washing- 
 ton is one of the smaller cities of the country, and therefore does 
 not furnish as profitable a field of operation from the street rail-
 
 26 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 way manager's point of view as do the larger centers of popula- 
 tion like Chicago, Philadelphia or New York. Nevertheless, 
 Washington has the best street railway service of any city in 
 the country and it has led most other cities in the introduction 
 of improvements in service. 
 
 In Washington franchise grants are conferred by act of Con- 
 gress, and all grants are subject to alteration, amendment or 
 repeal at any time, at the will of Congress. Under the power thus 
 reserved Congress orders such improvements in service as it may 
 deem desirable, and whenever it deems them desirable, and the 
 orders are at once executed without parley or litigation. The 
 overhead trolley was never permitted in Washington. When 
 the underground trolley was shown to be feasible, Congress passed 
 an act reading in part as follows :* 
 
 "That the said Metropolitan Railroad Company be, and the 
 same is hereby authorized, empowered and required to equip and 
 operate the lines of its cars upon and along * * * with an 
 underground electric system for the propulsion of such cars." 
 
 Under this order Washington was the first city in the country 
 to secure the underground trolley. 
 
 Under the reserved power to alter, amend or repeal grants at 
 will Congress has required different companies to make arrange- 
 ments for issuing transfers from the line of one company to those 
 of another, and it has also required different companies to use 
 certain tracks in common where the public interests would be 
 served by such an arrangement. 
 
 In framing franchise legislation for Porto Rico Congress made 
 provision for this same form of indefinite term grant, -j- 
 
 In view of the fact that the indefinite term franchise has 
 worked so well in practice, it may be in order to question the 
 statement of the Massachusetts committee that found in favor 
 of this form of grant that "such a franchise is to the last degree 
 illogical." Things that are illogical usually do not work well, in 
 the long run at least. The fact that the indefinite term franchise 
 
 *Section 2 of an act to authorize the Metropolitan Railroad Company to 
 change its motive power for the propulsion of the cars of said company. 
 Approved August 2, 1894. 
 
 f See text of the Porto Rican franchise legislation in the appendix to 
 this report.
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 2"J 
 
 has actually produced such satisfactory results in practice must 
 lead one to inquire if it is not really correct in principle, despite its 
 seeming illogical character. 
 
 As the Massachusetts committee very clearly and very cor- 
 rectly points out, the street car, in evolutionary development, is 
 "nothing more nor less than an improved omnibus, and the tram- 
 way a special feature in the pavement of the public way; a 
 feature adapted, it is true, to the car's special use, but not neces- 
 sarily excluding from general use the portion of the street in 
 which it is laid. This is all the street railway was fifty years ago, 
 when first laid ; it is all it is now an improved line of omnibuses, 
 running over a special pavement. If this fact be firmly grasped 
 and borne constantly in mind, the discussion, and the principles 
 underlying it, are greatly simplified. The analogy throughout is 
 with the omnibus line, and not with the railroad train; with the 
 public thoroughfare, and not with the private right-of-way. 
 Upon this distinction, indeed, all the questions now to be dis- 
 cussed, whether of taxation or of franchise privilege and obliga- 
 tion, will be found to turn." 
 
 Now, the omnibus is operated under a license that gives no 
 right as against the authority granting the license that cannot be 
 altered or taken away at any time. All would concede the un- 
 wisdom and impolicy of making the license for the omnibus a 
 binding contract for a definite period of time that could not be 
 altered or revoked by the granting authority, no matter how con- 
 ditions might change, and no matter how arbitrary and overbear- 
 ing the manager of the omnibus line might be in his dealings with 
 the public. And yet the indefinite term grant or revocable license 
 for the street car, which is only an improved omnibus, is con- 
 ceived to be illogical. We cannot think that it is so. On the con- 
 trary, the indefinite term grant is nearer in accord with the correct 
 principle than is the term grant. 
 
 Because of the great outlay involved in establishing a street 
 railway system, it is said, the owners of such property ought to 
 have some assurance that their property value will not be de- 
 stroyed by some hasty act of revocation. And so they ought. 
 But the assurance should be that, if their rights to use the streets 
 be revoked, their property suitable to and used for street railway 
 purposes should be taken off their hands at a fair valuation ; not 
 that they should be privileged to remain in undisputed possession
 
 28 STREET RAILWAY COMMIISSION 
 
 of the public streets for a definite period of time, whether they 
 serve the public well or ill. 
 
 The Street Railway Commission believes that the definite 
 term grant, whatever its duration, is open to serious objections. 
 It is of opinion that a grant of indefinite duration but subject to 
 termination at any time upon certain conditions, one of which 
 should be the taking of the property of the grantee at a fair val- 
 uation, would be productive of much better results. But this 
 idea is so much at variance with commonly accepted views in this 
 State concerning franchise grants, and would mark such a radical 
 departure from present policy, that the Commission has hesitated 
 to do more than to commend the idea to public favor. It has not 
 sought to incorporate the idea into the draft of the bill herewith 
 submitted. As a modification of this idea, however, and as a 
 means of controlling the situation in the interest of the public,, 
 the Commission would recommend that grants hereafter made 
 contain a provision giving the city the right to terminate the grant 
 and to take over the property at an appraised valuation at the end 
 of every five year period. This provision should be inserted pri- 
 marily with a view to its use only in case public dissatisfaction 
 with service and conditions should be so great as to make a 
 change in management imperative. With such a provision in 
 the grant there is much less likelihood that there would be cause- 
 for public dissatisfaction. 
 
 The Commission has not thought it wise to make any change 
 in the term named by the present law, twenty years, for which 
 street railway grants may run. But it has sought to define some- 
 what more clearly the status and rights of the parties to the trans- 
 action (the company receiving the franchise on the one side and 
 the local authorities granting the same on the other side) at the 
 expiration of any grant hereafter made. The provisions of the 
 bill in this respect have reference only to future grants and do 
 not apply to outstanding grants which were given and received 
 under the existing law. The bill stipulates (Section 12) that the 
 authorities making the grant shall have the right at the expiration 
 of the grant to take over the property of the grantee at a fair 
 valuation. More than that, the company holding the grant is 
 given some rights as against the local authorities, as will be seen 
 by further perusal of Section 12 of the bill. This feature is an
 
 TEXT OF THE REEORT. 29 
 
 important modification of the twenty year term limitation in the 
 direction of the indefinite term grant, heretofore discussed. 
 
 The language of that portion of Section 12 which prescribes 
 the method for determining the valuation of street railway prop- 
 erty to be taken over by the public authorities is taken bodily 
 from the British Tramways Act. That language has been ad- 
 judicated by the highest courts of Great Britain and. has been 
 interpreted (British Law Reports, 1894, A. C. 456) to mean 
 substantially that cost of duplication less depreciation is to be 
 taken as the basis for determining valuation. In taking over the 
 language of the British statute the British judicial interpretation 
 of the language would naturally be accepted too, and presumably 
 our courts would follow the British decisions, should the lan- 
 guage in question become the subject of litigation. 
 
 m. 
 
 MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP. 
 
 The bill as drafted and presented by the Commission gives to 
 cities the power to own and operate street railways. It does not 
 follow from this, however, that the Commission favors the early 
 adoption by Chicago of the policy of municipal ownership and 
 operation. In fact, the Commission is quite distinctly of the~j ^ 
 opinion that it would be unwise for the city of Chicago to attempt / 
 .at the present time to operate its street railways. Nor has the 
 Commission any notion that the people of Chicago, if given the 
 opportunity through the referendum to express themselves upon 
 the subject, would at present favor municipal operation. What 
 the decision of the people might be upon this proposition at some 
 future time and under different circumstances can only be a matter 
 of conjecture. But if in the future the people, for reasons that 
 should seem sufficient to them, should desire to operate the street 
 railway system, they should have the power to do so. To guard 
 against the experiment ever being entered upon without due de- 
 liberation the bill presented provides that no city shall undertake 
 to operate street railways unless the proposition to operate shall 
 first be submitted to popular vote and approved by four-sevenths 
 of those voting thereon. 
 
 In the discussion of this general topic the distinction between 
 municipal ownership without operation, and municipal ownership
 
 . ^JAS. -nr 
 
 33*; cx^ $aiiTaa>Jj: *r -su ^JX; v^srt ^c Jse^ois: anf :R*wirn^; 
 
 r>e ^ar TSU s^ 5mr i ^eci. xrrm Jt $o?;ss: -SfcT*m?n; 
 :s3sr i serrrcsifcr -GJO* jc -SJC*L T^srtssOTEc. if ^ie ci: 
 -al xne sjjigai: *e^3S r nan- TS- ctaiaEr^ i? Knwcr al 
 ist -ss t 3cr: js: ^c wmcwejt 
 ^st sac it: ^se 5aa s. -tsacat ss- "kassc casemjs 
 PCTTc^iBr ^n7i: JJT "cjiscatek. 
 ass it ^ ^aecaa: sere: jt: 
 "Tit ?*- UVJ^KT a>ir os!*2Sfc S 
 -ar T*C Jc! saansates: SGT IOTS: 3*Kass:: s^ajsactes nxsTic arse 
 vsoa: mafc ^fc-trnijat :ne ^sscscsc n: sascat 
 lasaaaci ~tt SBTSSS: n: sact airwcs: ir -rsszTxe TT ie xsw: 
 .... 5t*^. dv&: r^r i5t car a i. 
 
 rr x& JRUMS ^ra: urrssct tti^guas. c-ir same ir- 
 
 aaec 
 
 tsyiii^ TT ixcs jgwn.. iwe 
 
 IV.TSSL mm 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 '
 
 32 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 other. The question, according to Prof. Laughlin, is chiefly 
 dependent for its decision "upon expediency and local conditions." 
 
 The Legislatures of progressive States are rapidly coming to 
 recognize and concede the right of cities to determine these ques- 
 tions for themselves. Most city charters of recent adoption confer 
 the power, either immediately or ultimately, to own and operate 
 railways. The Greater New York charter authorizes the city to 
 acquire and operate street railways at the expiration of any grants 
 hereafter made. The new charter of Baltimore follows the Greater 
 New York charter in this respect. While the new charter of the 
 city and county of San Francisco goes even further and declares 
 it "to be the purpose and intention of the people of the city and 
 county that its public utilities shall be gradually acquired and ulti- 
 mately owned by the city and county." To this end the requisite 
 powers are given by the charter. 
 
 Congress, in its franchise legislation for Porto Rico, has rec- 
 ognized that the policy of public ownership may under some 
 conditions be desirable by stipulating that grants to public service 
 corporations shall provide "for the purchase or taking by the 
 public authorities of their property at a fair and reasonable val- 
 uation."* 
 
 Recent examples of public ownership are furnished by Boston 
 and New York, both of which cities own but do not operate the 
 subways or underground roads recently completed or now under 
 construction. 
 
 If it be conceded that Chicago may desire to municipalize the 
 street railway system at any time within, say, the next twenty 
 years, or if it be desired to incorporate into the ordinance renew- 
 ing grants that are to expire in 1903 provisions for city purchase 
 at the expiration of the next grant, legislation permitting the city 
 to acquire street railways should be secured before the renewal 
 ordinances are granted. Otherwise a purchase clause inserted in 
 such renewal ordinances may prove of no value to the city when 
 the time comes to exercise the supposed right of purchase. 
 
 The first ordinance under which a street railway line was 
 constructed in Chicago, granted by the City Council in 1858, con- 
 tained provisions looking to purchase by the city at the expiration 
 
 *See the text of the Porto Rican franchise legislation in the appendix 
 to this report.
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 33 
 
 of a period of twenty-five years, or in 1883. When the time came 
 for the exercise of this right of purchase, the situation was com- 
 plicated in several ways. For one thing, it was claimed that the 
 Legislature, by the act of 1865, had postponed to ninety-nine 
 years from 1858 the right of purchase given by the ordinance of 
 1858. Moreover, the Legislature has never authorized cities to 
 acquire street railways, so that the right of purchase, if valid as 
 against the company, could not be exercised by the city for lack 
 of power. But these considerations aside, Mr. Francis Adams, 
 the then Corporation Counsel, in an opinion delivered to the City 
 Council July 23, 1883, and concurred in by Mr. Julius Grinnell, 
 the then City Attorney, held that the purchase provisions of the 
 ordinance of 1858 were absolutely void and of no value to the 
 city. Following is an excerpt from that opinion bearing on the 
 point in question :* 
 
 "First, were Sections 10 and n of the ordinance of August 
 16, 1858, valid when passed, in so far as they relate to the purchase 
 of the railways; and if not, have they been validated by subse- 
 quent legislation? 
 
 "The answer to this question depends upon whether the city 
 of Chicago, at the date of the passage of the ordinance, had power 
 by its charter, or any law of the State, to contract for the purchase 
 of a railway, with its appurtenances. A municipal corporation 
 is the creature of law ; it exists and acts only by virtue of law. 
 The power which the law confers upon it, either in express words 
 or by necessary implication, it may exercise. When it attempts 
 to exercise powers not so conferred, such attempts are abso- 
 lutely null and void. The rule of construction of public and 
 private charters is the same, and is, that the corporation can exer- 
 cise no power not granted in express words or by necessary 
 implication. 
 
 "Neither the charter of the city, nor any law of the State, in 
 force August 16, 1858, conferred upon the city either in express 
 words or by necessary implication, the power to purchase or con- 
 tract for the privilege of purchasing a street railway. I have, 
 therefore, no doubt that Sections 10 and n of the ordinance, in 
 
 *See Chicago City Council Proceedings for 1883-4, page 80.
 
 . N 
 
 m- i~ 
 
 
 
 ier..-."r-i :: ' 
 
 Ulltl ~~ "-' 1 H^ ~~~l ' 1~ 
 
 *i TT^~ ~~r~^^*< i ~ " 
 
 r- 1-03, 
 
 
 cr i
 
 :f 
 
 LiSmil in this 
 wonld be vcne the cxedk of the cny pledged to the payment ott the 
 
 L'.r._i _r :-r~._z.i3.:t:r I-:" ::ni. 
 It 
 
 ~-_ n~- . _. 
 
 I 
 
 : to be cxnstincied, why cannot the aly do the sanK r 
 llie Chicago Union Elevated Loop wnl serve as a good ne- 
 
 vtsion tor Ac issuance of bonds to Ac tace value at S^oooj 
 and off stock to Ac 
 ofiewd to Ac pidilii in Ac 
 they were turned over to Ac 
 the same interests as Ae 
 
 IT on to Ae maiiH. Ae prevannMr mice of 
 
 the bonds being ahont io8L and of Ae stack abont 90. Thns she 
 
 market valne off Ac loop seenrvjes ontstanding is ahont SIOUOOOL.- 
 Mo> one except Ac pranoters knows Ae cost of Ac
 
 36 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 for injuries to abutting property, could not have equaled the face 
 value of the bonds issued, or $5,000,000. As the cash value of 
 the loop securities outstanding is twice that amount, the elevated 
 loop franchises represent a gratuity to the promoters of not less 
 than $5,000,000. 
 
 Now, the Elevated Loop is an undertaking admirably adapted 
 to municipal ownership. An income of more than the amount 
 needed to meet interest charges on bonds is absolutely assured by 
 the leases with the operating companies that use the loop. The 
 expenses of maintenance are light, and the owner is not called upon 
 to operate. 
 
 Had the city possessed the power to do so, we have little 
 doubt that under the plan of raising money for street railway 
 purposes provided for in the bill, the city could have borrowed 
 all the money needed for the construction of the Elevated Loop, 
 and would now have in its possession a very valuable revenue- 
 producing property. 
 
 IV. 
 
 REFERENDUM. 
 
 The provisions relating to the referendum in the proposed 
 bill are self-explanatory and therefore do not call for much 
 comment. It is the opinion of the Commission that the deci- 
 sion of important questions of street railway policy may very 
 properly and very profitably be left with the people themselves, so 
 far as such a course may be practicable. It is therefore provided in 
 the bill that the local authorities may submit to popular vote any 
 proposition or ordinance relating to street railways. 
 
 It is sometimes contended that the law should require every 
 ordinance of the city council conferring franchise rights to be 
 submitted to popular vote. Such a provision of law, the Commis- 
 sion believes, would make it the duty of the people to pass direct 
 judgment upon a considerable number of ordinances of compara- 
 tively minor importance with which they would rather not be 
 bothered. It is only the most important measures upon which the 
 people are likely to desire a chance for the direct expression of 
 their wishes, and that opportunity for direct expression of the
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 37 
 
 popular will the Commission has aimed to give by the provisions 
 of Section 8, which requires submission to popular vote of certain 
 ordinances in case a specified proportion of the voters shall ask for 
 such submission. 
 
 V. 
 
 PUBLICITY. 
 
 The provisions of the proposed bill relating to accounting 
 and publicity are based upon the conception that the street 
 railway business is a public business, and that therefore the 
 affairs of companies entrusted with the management of such 
 a business should be open and known to the public to the same 
 extent as if the business were managed by the public directly. 
 In line with this conception, the Commission, in the bill presented, 
 has made substantially the same plans for accounting and pub- 
 licity applicable to street railway companies and to municipalities 
 that may either own or operate street railways (Sections 22, 23, 
 24, 27 and 28 of the proposed bill). 
 
 The city is sometimes said to be a partner in the street railway 
 business. It furnishes what is oftentimes the most valuable part 
 of the assets, namely, the franchise. Yet when it comes to re- 
 newing the partnership agreement the city, under present ar- 
 rangements, is not able to act intelligently because the main 
 facts necessary to intelligent action are kept from it. 
 
 The bill requires annual reports covering the important fea- 
 tures of street railway operation and management. But a system 
 of publicity through reports, to be satisfactory, must be based 
 upon a proper system of accounting. Therefore the Commission, 
 in the bill presented, has also provided that accounts shall be kept 
 in a uniform manner upon a system to be prescribed by public 
 authorities. In the main, this provision is modeled after the 
 Massachusetts law upon the same subject. The provision for 
 uniformity will give the published reports a value for purposes of 
 comparison that they otherwise would not possess. 
 
 After consideration of the subject, the Commission arrived 
 at the conclusion that it would be best, on the whole, to make 
 the State auditor the officer for receiving reports and for pre-
 
 38 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 scribing and supervising- methods of accounting. In this way 
 uniformity over the entire state can be secured. Publicity is 
 desirable not alone for railways operating entirely within the 
 limits of a municipality. Street railways connecting cities and 
 towns are growing rapidly in number and such railways are becom- 
 ing a factor of ever increasing importance in the rural life of the 
 state. Therefore the state ought to be possessed of information 
 concerning these railways that will enable it to deal intelligently 
 with problems concerning them whenever the necessity may arise 
 for legislation. The needs of local authorities for information 
 concerning local railways are not overlooked, however, for the bill 
 requires companies operating railways within any municipality 
 to file with the financial officer of such municipality a duplicate- 
 copy of the report transmitted to the State Auditor. Moreover, 
 the financial officer of the municipality, for the purpose of verify- 
 ing the accuracy of such report, is given the same right to examine 
 the books of the company as by the bill are given the State 
 Auditor. 
 
 VI. 
 
 CONTROL OF CAPITALIZATION. 
 
 Over-capitalization is a favorite device for concealing large 
 profits. The putting on the market of large quantities of watered 
 securities is objectionable, too, as introducing complications 
 which it is better to avoid. The Commission is strongly of the 
 opinion, therefore, that provision should be made by law to 
 prevent, if possible, excessive over-capitalization by street rail- 
 way companies. 
 
 To accomplish this object, something more is necessary than 
 a mere declaration of law against over-capitalization. The con- 
 stitution of Illinois contains a provision (Article XI, Section 91 
 designed to prevent stock watering, but it has proven of com- 
 paratively little value. In order to prevent over-capitalization 
 there must not only be a law against it, but there must be adminis- 
 trative machinery of some sort to pass upon all bond and stock- 
 issues to see that the law is complied with before the securities 
 are put out. Massachusetts has such special administrative
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 39 
 
 machinery and the results of its operations appear to be fairly 
 satisfactory, as is attested by the following excerpt from the 
 report (page 37), made to the Massachusetts Legislature in 
 February, 1898, by the special committee on street railways: 
 
 "The laws of Massachusetts as to capitalization have been 
 strictly drawn and rigidly administered, nor has any evidence 
 been adduced showing that they have been peculiarly ineffective. 
 On the contrary, using round numbers only, the capitalization 
 per mile in stock and bonds ($46,000) is less in Massachusetts 
 than the average ($49,500) in the New England states, not a third 
 of what it is in New York' ($177,800) or half what it is in Penn- 
 sylvania ($128,200), less than half what it is ($94,100) in the 
 United States as a whole; and it is less than in Great Britain 
 ($47,000)." 
 
 In this connection some figures concerning the capitalization 
 of the principal Chicago companies may be interesting. The report 
 of the Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics for 1896, which dis- 
 cussed at considerable length the subject of street railway capital- 
 ization, gave the following (see page 47 of the report) as the 
 mileage and capitalization of the three great companies at the close 
 of 1896: 
 
 Outstanding Total 
 Mileage. Obligations. per mile. 
 
 Chicago City Ry. Co 184.22 $16,619,500 $ 90,216 
 
 N. Chicago St. R. R. Co 101 14,780,900 146,346 
 
 West Chicago St. R. R. Co. . . . 202.62 30,291,900 149,500 
 
 Totals 487.84 $61,692,300 $126,460 
 
 Since 1896 mileage and capitalization have both increased, so 
 that new calculations will be necessary to determine the present 
 capitalization per mile. The Chicago City Railway Company 
 has a mileage of 205.48. The par value of the stock outstanding 
 is $13,500,000. The bonds outstanding amount to $4,619,500, 
 making a total capitalization of $18,119,500, which would be 
 $88,172 per mile. 
 
 The North Chicago Street Railroad Company and the West 
 Chicago Street Railroad Company about a year ago were merged 
 into the Chicago Union Traction Company, which company, with- 
 out creating any new mileage, has added $32,000,000 of stock to the 
 amount already resting upon the mileage of the West and North
 
 4O STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 Chicago systems. The total bond and stock obligations of the 
 north and west side systems assumed by the Union Traction 
 Company, less stock in the treasury of the Union Traction 
 Company, are given by the Investor's Manual for May 5, 1900, 
 as follows : 
 
 Total West Chicago Bonds and Stocks $29,201,200 
 
 Total North Chicago Bonds and Stocks 13,913,900 
 
 Total $43,115,100 
 
 Adding the $32,000,000 stock of the Union Traction Company 
 makes the total capitalization $75,115,100. The mileage of the 
 West Chicago system is 202.70; that of the North Side system, 
 94.33. The total mileage for the two systems is, therefore, 297.03. 
 According to these figures, the capitalization resting upon the 
 tracks of the West and North Chicago systems after merger 
 into the Union Traction Company would be $252,912 per mile. 
 
 But the Union Traction Company, through an operating 
 agreement, also controls the lines of the Consolidated Traction 
 Company, which has a mileage of 205.71. (The mileage figures 
 here given are all on the single track basis.) Perhaps it would 
 be better, therefore, as a means of getting the present capitaliza- 
 tion per mile, to spread the total capitalization over the 502.74 
 miles of single track, by taking into calculation the mileage of the 
 Consolidated Traction Company, as well as that of the North 
 and West Side systems, more directly controlled by the Union 
 Traction Company. 
 
 The Consolidated Traction Company has issued stock to the 
 amount of $15,000,000, but as that stock is held in trust for the 
 Union Traction Company it will be left out of these calculations. 
 There is one issue of bonds outstanding, guaranteed by the Union 
 Traction Company, of $6,750,000. Other bond obligations out- 
 standing amount to $5,435,000, making a total of $12,185,000. 
 This amount applied to the mileage of the Consolidated Traction 
 Company alone, 205.71, would make a capitalization per mile 
 of $59,237. Adding to the amount heretofore obtained, $75,115,- 
 100, the $12,185,000 outstanding bond obligations of the Consoli- 
 dated Traction Company, and dividing the sum $87,300,100 
 by the total mileage controlled by the Union Traction Company 
 502.74 there is secured a quotient of $173,644, which may
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 41 
 
 be said to be the capitalization per mile of the lines controlled 
 by the Chicago Union Traction Company. 
 
 Whatever the basis of figuring, therefore, the West and North 
 Side systems show a considerable recent increase of capitaliza- 
 tion per mile. 
 
 To return to consideration of means of preventing over- 
 capitalization. Massachusetts seems to have accomplished the 
 object in view with a fair degree of satisfaction by requiring 
 all bond and stock issues to be approved by designated public 
 authorities. The Commission has aimed in a general way to 
 follow the Massachusetts plan. Section 25 of the proposed bill 
 prohibits excessive over-capitalization and the State Auditor, 
 the Attorney General and the State Treasurer are constituted a 
 board to pass on stock and bond issues to see that the prohibitions 
 of the law are recognized. 
 
 The manner of constituting this Board was a matter which 
 the Commission did not find easy of solution. As the duties of 
 such a board will not be onerous it seemed undesirable to create 
 entirely new offices. In Massachusetts the duty of passing upon 
 stock and bond issues of street railway companies is made to 
 rest with the State Railroad Commission. The Street Railway 
 Commission was averse to recommending the adoption by Illinois 
 of this feature of the Massachusetts law because of the fear that 
 such a recommendation might be made use of as a dangerous 
 precedent for giving the Illinois Railroad Commission an amount 
 of control over street railways in other respects that would be 
 objectionable to popular sentiment in the cities of this state. On 
 the whole, therefore, it was deemed the most advisable course 
 to vest ill the state officers indicated the duty of passing on 
 stock and bond issues with a view to preventing over-capitali- 
 zation. The Auditor, as one of the members of this board, will 
 have in his possession the information concerning street railways 
 of the state that may be requisite to the passing of correct 
 judgment on the issues presented. 
 
 VII. 
 FRONTAGE LAW. 
 
 The existing frontage consent law (embodied in the City 
 and Village Act, clause 90 of section 62, Hurd's Revised Stat-
 
 42 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 utes) seems to require modification in some respects. Front- 
 age consents should be required only when it is first sought 
 to lay down tracks upon a street. Where a railway is in 
 operation upon a street no such consents should be necessary 
 to the granting of an ordinance to continue the use of such a 
 street for railway purposes. Probably the existing law would not 
 be interpreted to require consents for such purpose, but it is 
 well to have all doubt removed by making the language of the law 
 clearer in this respect, which the Commission has aimed to do 
 in the draft of the bill presented. (Section 7.) 
 
 According to the theory of the frontage consent law the prop- 
 erty owner is a trustee for the public. It is expected that he will 
 give his consent freely if the road is needed, and that he will with- 
 hold his consent if a proposed railway is not in the public interest. 
 In practice, however, this theory frequently is out of harmony 
 with the actual facts. Sometimes the abutting property owner, 
 for personal considerations, gives his consent without any regard 
 whatever to public interests. In some instances, too, stubborn 
 property owners, by withholding consent, may block the construc- 
 tion of a road for which there is an imperative public need. 
 While the wishes of the abutting property owner are deserving 
 of consideration, his right to object to the construction of a 
 street railway which the public welfare may require should not 
 be absolute and unqualified. Other states with frontage laws have 
 found some such modification to be necessary. In New York*, for 
 example, when the abutting property owners refuse their con- 
 sent to the construction of a street railway, it is possible to 
 override their objection by appeal to the courts. The court, on 
 petition, appoints three commissioners to investigate and report 
 whether the public welfare would be served by the construction of 
 the proposed road. If the commission finds in the affirmative, the 
 road may be built, notwithstanding the objections of the abutting 
 property owners. 
 
 The custom of entrusting administrative duties to the courts is 
 open to objection. Therefore, the Street Railway Commission, 
 instead of following the New York plan for accomplishing the 
 
 * Section 4 of an Act of New York passed May 6, 1884, entitled "An 
 Act to provide for the construction, extension, maintenance and operation 
 of street surface railroads and branches thereof in cities, towns and vil- 
 lages."
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 
 
 object in view, has simply provided that frontage petitions shall 
 not be required for the passage of any ordinance that may 
 be approved by popular vote. It would seem that if the peo- 
 ple of the entire city favor a railway upon a given street, their 
 wishes should govern. On the other hand, it is believed that 
 the people at large can be depended upon not to do wanton 
 injury to any street or neighborhood by inflicting upon it a 
 needless railway. 
 
 There are instances in which petitions several years old have 
 t>een made the basis for ordinances against the protest of the 
 property owners, who had signed originally when conditions 
 may have been quite different. To guard against repetition of 
 abuses of this kind the proposed bill provides that no petition 
 of property owners shall be valid, any of the signatures in which 
 were obtained more than two years before the passage of the 
 ordinance. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 LABOR POLICY. 
 
 The Street Railway Commission is strongly of the opinion 
 that, when the time comes for the passage of franchise renewal 
 ordinances, the City Council should insert provisions designed 
 to prevent interruptions of service through strikes or lock- 
 outs. As the bill submitted is in the nature of enabling leg- 
 islation, it was not deemed necessary to incorporate therein 
 any specific provisions relating to labor. The authority given 
 the City Council to impose terms and conditions is sufficient to 
 warrant the incorporation into a franchise grant of such terms as 
 to labor as the Council may favor. 
 
 European and Canadian cities very commonly insert in fran- 
 chise grants stipulations concerning the maximum length of the 
 working day and the minimum wage for employes. In some 
 instances other provisions in the interest of employes are inserted. 
 The most elaborate provisions of this kind with which we are 
 familiar are those made by the City of Paris for the benefit of 
 employes on the new Paris system of subways, or underground 
 roads. A summary of these provisions will be found in the
 
 44 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 address of Prof. James on the Paris Subways, in the appendix 
 to this report. 
 
 As a rule, franchise grants by American cities are silent on the 
 matter of labor conditions. One of the recent Detroit franchises 
 is an exception to the general rule in that it stipulates that employes 
 shall not be obliged to work more than ten hours a day. In 
 some instances, however, states by legislation have attempted to 
 regulate the hours of employment for labor of this kind. Legis- 
 lative enactments requiring the vestibuling of cars in winter ana 
 other measures of similar kind indicate a growing disposition 
 on the part of the public to consider the welfare of this special 
 class of labor. 
 
 Considerations of humane regard for the welfare of those who 
 toil have their weight in support of measures of this kind, but 
 these measures are justified primarily on quite different grounds. 
 Fair treatment of street railway workers is demanded by the public 
 primarily as a means of insuring efficient and continuous service, 
 free from the interruptions that are likely to grow out of contro- 
 versies over labor conditions between the employing corporation 
 and dissatisfied employes. Recent street railway strikes in other 
 cities have emphasized the importance of doing whatever may 
 properly be done to guard against the possibility of similar inter- 
 ruptions of service here. 
 
 The Street Railway Commission is of the opinion that the 
 best way* to accomplish the object in view would be to insert in 
 all future franchise grants a provision requiring the company, 
 in case of a disagreement with its employes that threatens to 
 interfere with service, to submit the same to arbitration and to 
 abide by the decision of the arbitrator. This would be a system 
 of arbitration compulsory upon the company and not upon the 
 men, it is true. But in the opinion of the Commission this fact 
 does not constitute a valid objection in this case, as it would if 
 the attempt were to be made to apply the same system to indus- 
 trial disputes generally. The city has no direct dealings with 
 the employes which give it warrant to require special things of 
 them. But the company comes to the city as a seeker for privi- 
 leges, and as the city may grant or withhold the privilege at will, 
 so it may properly grant the privilege subject to conditions, and 
 
 *Ald. Mavor and Aid. Jackson do not concur in this recommendation.
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 45 
 
 one of those conditions may properly be an agreement upon the 
 part of the recipient company to submit disputes with its employes 
 to arbitration. It is as competent for the city to exact such an 
 agreement from the company, as a condition of the grant, as it is 
 for the city to exact compensation, or to require the company to 
 carry policemen and firemen free, or to do a number of other 
 things which the city does require of street railway companies 
 but not of ordinary industrial corporations. 
 
 Now, as to the practical operation of this plan. If the com- 
 panies always stand ready to arbitrate, there is very little likelihood 
 of interruption of service as the result of street car strikes. Street 
 car strikers cannot win a contest in which they are not supported 
 by public sentiment and public sentiment would be almost unani- 
 mous against a group of street railway employes who would go 
 on strike without first seeking a settlement by arbitration, when 
 such a remedy should be open to them. There is every likelihood 
 that the street railway employes would be glad to make use of 
 arbitration as a means of adjusting grievances. There is every 
 likelihood, therefore, that a system of arbitration compulsory 
 upon the company receiving the grant would remove most of 
 the danger of interruption of service through strikes or lockouts. 
 
 Continuous service is the thing above all others which the 
 public must have from its transportation agencies. If the city 
 itself were managing the street railway system employes would 
 be treated in such a manner as to insure a service free from inter- 
 ruption on account of strikes. In so far as fair treatment of 
 employes may be necessary to continuous service, private corpora- 
 tions operating street railways under a franchise from the city 
 should be required to treat employes as fairly as the city itself 
 would treat them were it their direct employer. 
 
 The Commission is prepared at this time to outline only the 
 general features of the plan which it recommends. Before the 
 time shall come for action upon important franchise renewal 
 ordinances the Commission hopes to have the details of the plan 
 worked out. 
 
 IX. 
 
 MOTIVE POWER. 
 Motive power is one of the subjects which the Commission
 
 46 STREET RAILWAY COMMISSION 
 
 was instructed by the resolution creating it, to investigate. 
 The Commission has been able thus far to consider this ques- 
 tion superficially only. The subject calls for further study and 
 investigation by engineering experts. The Commission would 
 recommend that the City Council, in the next appropriation ordi- 
 nance, include an item for this purpose. 
 
 The overhead trolley with which the people of Chicago are 
 familiar answers very well for the less thickly settled parts of 
 the city, but it is for several reasons an objectionable form of 
 motive power for the populous areas. In view of the fact that 
 some other and more desirable forms of motive power seem to 
 be practicable the Commission is of the opinion that the overhead 
 trolley ought not to be permitted in the central business district- 
 Just as soon as the managers of companies entering the downtown, 
 district understand that the opposition of the city to the overhead, 
 trolley in that district is unrelenting they will be willing to adopt 
 a more desirable method of propulsion. The experience of New 
 York is enlightening upon this point. The authorities there 
 simply would not permit the stringing of overhead trolley wires, 
 even when the alternative seemed to be long continued use of 
 horsecars. As a consequence street railway development in New 
 York City seemed belated for a time and the service was poorer 
 than in cities that admitted the overhead trolley. But New York 
 City is now reaping its reward. The principal lines of the city 
 either have been or are rapidly being equipped with the under- 
 ground trolley and extensive practical experiments are being 
 made with compressed air as a motive power on New York lines. 
 
 The underground trolley is in successful operation in New 
 York and Washington, as well as in several European cities. The 
 London County Council recently had an investigation made by an 
 engineer, Mr. J. Allen Baker, whose recommendation was in favor 
 of the underground trolley. A like investigation for Birmingham, 
 England, led to a similar recommendation as to motive power for 
 that city. Following is an extract from the report to the London' 
 County Council, which was submitted Oct. 15, 1898: 
 
 "With the examples of Washington, the capital city of the United 
 States, and New York, its commercial metropolis, on one side of the 
 Atlantic, and Paris, Edinburg, Birmingham and other cities on this side, 
 in which the overhead has been prohibited and other forms of mechanical' 
 traction have been successfully installed, it becomes a grave question!
 
 TEXT OF THE REPORT. 47 
 
 as to whether the trolley wire should be permitted in any of our London 
 streets. No one would think of advocating it for the busier streets or 
 the more central parts of the metropolis, and whilst it might possibly be 
 put up without serious disadvantage (except its unsightliness) in some 
 of the suburban streets, any economy in the first installation would be 
 largely counterbalanced by the inconvenience of having to change from 
 one system to another on the same routes and necessitating all the cars 
 that run on the combined system being fitted with overhead trolley poles. 
 
 "I believe the stand taken by the Birmingham Corporation is a safe 
 one for us to take also. In that city there are already in operation tram- 
 way lines run by steam, cable, electric accumulator and horse, while in 
 the immediate vicinity there are several installations of the overhead trol- 
 ley. During the past year arrangements were nearly completed with 
 a Canadian company for the installation of a combined system the con- 
 duit for the central and busy streets, the overhead for the suburbs but 
 the town council, not feeling satisfied to have any of their streets dis- 
 figured with the trolley wires, sent a special deputation of its members to 
 visit continental cities which were working both trolley and conduit, with 
 the result that they decided that the overhead wires be not allowed in any 
 part of the city. After giving an acount of their impressions in each city 
 visited, their committee sum up their conclusions thus : 
 
 " 'From a public point of view, and apart from the question of first 
 cost, there does not seem to be much doubt as to which system is the 
 better one. The overhead wire gives reliable and efficient service, but 
 the underground conduit is equally capable of doing the same. It has been 
 in successful use for several years, often under more adverse circum- 
 stances than would be met with in Birmingham. The only point against 
 it is that its construction is said to involve a more prolonged disturbance 
 in the streets, but your subcommittee do not think this argument of much 
 weight, and especially if its depth is only such as has been found sufficient 
 in other places no great disturbance of gas or water pipes need be antici- 
 pated. When the work is done there is no room for doubt as to the 
 appearance of the streets as presented by the two systems. In one case, 
 the appearance, whatever it was, remains unaltered ; in the other case, we 
 have a number of poles and overhead wires, which, wherever seen, can be 
 considered nothing but a disfigurement. 
 
 " 'The conclusion to be drawn from this inquiry has been a matter 
 of anxious consideration to your subcommittee. They recognize that it is 
 not merely a matter of the cheapest form of traction to be used on some 
 of the present tramways, but a much larger one, affecting in many ways 
 the best interests of the whole town. Due weight has been given by 
 them to the considerations that should enter into such an important ques- 
 tion, and they strongly recommend that no consent be given for the erec- 
 tion of overhead ' wires in any part of the city. They believe that less 
 objectionable and equally efficient methods of applying electricity to the 
 working of the tramways are available and at a reasonable cost.'