Page images
PDF
EPUB

sought to repudiate all limitations in favor of the city, claiming that the General Assembly of 1865 really intended a system grant, and that every concession since made by the city added so much to their ninety-nine-year possessions.

The city, on July 30, 1883, to set at rest for the time being its controversy with the companies over the NinetyNine-Year Act, made a general extension grant for twenty years without prejudice to the conflicting claims of the parties. Under this and many subsequent grants similarly limited for extension and cross lines, the cable and electric lines of the companies have been constructed and operated. At no time have the companies operated any of their lines under the Ninety-Nine-Year Act unsupported by city grants.

The state, by a general act of 1874, provided for corporations to construct, maintain, and operate "Horse and Dummy Railroads." Under its provisions the cities of the state might make grants of rights in their streets for terms not exceeding twenty years. This act, never sufficient for the protection of the public and private interests involved, gradually became more and more inadequate for these purposes. With the transformation of pioneer horse lines into costly cable and electric systems having hundreds of miles of trackage, great power plants, thousands of employees, and millions of dollars in annual receipts, the need of new legislation became more and more apparent. However, the growth of the public service corporation from small beginnings had been so rapid, its corrupting influence was so insidious, and the citizens were so occupied with their private concerns, that as yet there was no clearly defined public policy to be expressed in new legislation.

The people of Chicago, while still groping for a policy, as long ago as 1896 realized that the employment of private capital in the conduct of the public business is the direct cause of municipal mis

rule and the real issue in municipal politics; that the question in every American city is whether the public authority shall be exercised by the people for public ends, or by allied public service corporations for incorporated greed; and that it will soon be determined whether the city of the people is to become a private municipality.

The City Council, for oft-repeated good and valuable considerations, had long been a corporate possession of the street railways and their allied corporate inter

ests.

With the first attempt of the people to recover possession of the legislative authority of the city, these interests took alarm. Under cover of the exciting national campaign of 1896 they in advance acquired title to the incoming Governor and General Assembly of the state. Early in the legislative session of 1897, the street railway companies caused to be introduced into both houses of the General Assembly a bill to extend for fifty years their disputed rights in the streets of Chicago, in wanton disregard of public interests. This bill promptly passed the Senate by a large majority. It was bitterly opposed by the people and press of Chicago, and was finally defeated in the House. The companies thereupon caused to be introduced and passed a simple measure authorizing the several cities of the state to make grants to street railway companies for periods not exceeding fifty years.

The Act of 1897 operated to extend the term for which franchise grants might be made by municipalities from twenty to fifty years. It was passed by means that disgraced the state, and aroused bitter feeling from Chicago to Cairo. How keenly the people of Illinois resented this debauchery of their state government was shown a year and a half later, at the next election of members of the General Assembly. Of sixteen retiring senators who voted for the obnoxious measure of 1897 but two were reëlected; and of the eighty-two represen

tatives who so voted but fourteen secured reëlection. There was, perhaps, never such a slaughter of state legislators. The memory of the tragedy of 1898 still haunts the corridors of the state capitol at Springfield. Indeed, since that memorable election the General Assembly of Illinois has dealt with much fear and trembling with the subject of street railway legislation. At its next session, by unanimous vote in the House, it repealed the Act of 1897, and restored the former statute. The Governor who signed the obnoxious measure of two years before gave his official sanction to the new act restoring the situation. Meantime the street railway companies, which for two years had vainly sought fifty-year extensions from the City Council of Chicago, stood idly by, unable to avert the bitter humiliation of utter defeat.

Thus closes the first chapter of the story of recent street railway legislation in Illinois. Pending the struggle above outlined, an affirmative public policy for the better control of street railways was taking form in Chicago. Leaders in the movement for the protection of public interests had framed a comprehensive bill looking to public control and possible public ownership, which they offered at the legislative session of 1899. However, public opinion was not yet ripe for constructive legislation in the public interest; and the General Assembly, almost entirely composed of new members, was afraid to experiment with so dangerous a subject.

The movement to make the City Council representative of public interests had so far succeeded, that from the year 1900 its able Committee on Local Transportation properly assumed the leadership on behalf of Chicago in the effort to secure adequate street railway legislation. The committee, having made an extensive study of the conditions, submitted to the General Assembly of 1901 a comprehensive bill for a general street railway law.

It was assumed by the framers of

this measure that local transportation should be treated as a monopoly; that, while conducted by the public service corporation, it should be subjected to strict public control; and that the right of municipal ownership should be reserved and safeguarded. The bill, drawn on these lines, although ably supported by the Council Committee at Springfield, was strangled in the House Committee to which it was referred. After repeated public hearings this committee simply failed to report. The bill was not relished by certain of the street railway interests; and it is believed that the inaction of the House was not solely due to legislative timidity.

Two years now quickly passed, during which the struggle on behalf of public interests steadily gained ground in Chicago. The general extension ordinance of 1883 was to expire on July 30, 1903. In the spring of 1902, under a recent act permitting the submission of public questions to popular vote, the electors of the city, by a majority of about five to one, expressed their opinion in favor of the municipal ownership of the street railways. However, as many grants of particular streets made at different times to the companies will not expire for several years, and the city is not in financial condition for so great a purchase, early municipal ownership is impracticable even if desirable. The popular vote of 1902 favoring it must be regarded as an expression of hostility to the street railway companies rather than as a demand for immediate municipal ownership.

The failure of the comprehensive street railway bills of 1899 and 1901, and the conservative attitude of leading country members to legislation uniformly branded"socialistic" by the owners of the securities of public service corporations, led the Committee on Local Transportation of the City Council of Chicago and its supporters to propose a more simple measure at the session of the General Assembly of 1903. The end

sought was to reverse existing conditions, and place the city, instead of the companies, in control of the situation. To accomplish this, it was deemed necessary to obtain for the city power to acquire, own, and operate its street railways. Hence there arose, prior to the opening of the session, a wide demand for enabling legislation as a condition precedent to the further extension of the expiring franchises of the street railway companies. Bills to empower the cities of Illinois to acquire street railways, and to reserve the right of municipal acquisition in franchise grants, were promptly offered by the Council Committee and others.

It was known prior to the organization of the House that the effort to pass such a measure would be the chief feature of the session. The Governor, representing the spoils faction of his party, of course desired to have his supporters control the House. The party boss of Chicago, Mr. William C. Lorimer, for purposes of "politics" wished to possess the House. The editor of the Inter-Ocean, Mr. George W. Hinman, brought from New York by Mr. Charles T. Yerkes when he purchased that stalwart party organ and made it the avowed champion of the street railway corporations, had, in his capacity of organ grinder, acquired some party influence outside Chicago, which gave him a place in the combine to control the House. These allies, by the utmost effort, including the use of state patronage, controlled the caucus by a bare majority and secured the organization. They chose for Speaker a weak and unknown man, pledging him to obey orders. It was subsequently understood in the House that as a condition of his election the Speaker was required to promise to carry out Hinman's orders on all street railway measures, and to use the gavel when necessary to defeat objectionable legislation. Mr. "Gus" Nohe, - Lorimer's member from his own legislative district, when asked whether there

[ocr errors]

was to be any traction legislation, replied: "I don't know. I do whatever the old man tells me to; and he tells me to do about traction as Hinman says." Hinman himself announced that there would be no traction legislation at that session. The companies, thus safeguarded by the organization of the House, were not openly represented at Springfield.

The City Council of Chicago sent to the General Assembly, with its indorsement, a bill for an enabling act prepared by its Committee on Local Transportation. A special committee, composed in part of members of the Council, presented a somewhat more radical measure. Several members offered individual bills largely copied from these two. A bill, mainly drafted by the Secretary of the Municipal Voters' League of Chicago, and offered in the Senate by Senator Mueller, became known as Senate Bill No. 40.

While the situation at Springfield was thus confused, the mayoralty campaign came on in Chicago. The platform of the Municipal Voters' League, on which more than two thirds of the members of the Council had been elected, was heartily indorsed by the conventions of both parties. The Mayor had actively participated in the development of the street railway programme embodied in the League platform. His Republican opponent, who was without a traction record, actively exerted his influence to advance the "Mueller Bill" at Springfield. In part because of his efforts, and in response to the unanimous demand of the public press of Chicago, Senate Bill No. 40 passed the Senate just after the municipal election in Chicago.

The House organization now set itself to suppress the Senate measure and to defeat all street railway legislation, meanwhile pretending to meet the popular demand. Messrs. Lorimer and Hinman went to Springfield and openly assumed personal direction of the House.

The municipal committee, composed almost entirely of machine puppets, promptly suppressed the Senate bill, reporting a substitute prepared by its chairman, Mr. Cicero J. Lindley, under the immediate supervision of Messrs. Lorimer and Hinman. These open supporters of the Yerkes legislation of 1897 now posed as saviors of the city from the alleged evil designs of the reform leaders. They insisted that there should be no grants, even if made from time to time in succession, for more than twenty years in the aggregate. They claimed that their "Lindley Bill" was the only genuine municipal ownership measure. The bill itself was a blundering abstract of parts of the Senate bill. The provision of that measure authorizing cities to borrow money on special certificates with which to acquire street railway property was carefully emasculated. Other changes and omissions pointed unmistakably to a desire to protect the existing companies.

It may be asked, why did Lorimer, absolute dictator of the House organization, offer a substitute for the Senate bill in the House? Why did he not suppress the obnoxious measure and have done with the matter? The answer is that public opinion was so aroused in favor of enabling legislation, the suspicion of corporate interference with the public programme was so general, that even Lorimer did not dare openly to defy it. The plan was for the House to pass pretended enabling legislation, and to have it fail between the two houses.

The popular demand for the Mueller Bill became so insistent that on the night before the substitute was set for second reading, Mr. Lorimer became alarmed. The Democrats and minority Republicans that night held separate caucuses to plan for the substitution of the Senate measure. How many votes could be mustered against the organization, believed absolutely to control the fate of all pending measures in the then closing hours of the session, was not clear; but VOL. XCII. — NO.555.

8

it was evident that the revolt was formidable.

Late that night a memorable conference was held at the call of William C. Lorimer. The place was his private chamber at the Leland House, in Springfield. The time was from about 11.30 P. M. to 3.30 A. M. The subject discussed was the pending street railway legislation. There, in his lair, the boss and his subordinates received the representatives of public interests. Mr. Lorimer was supported by Mr. Hinman, and Messrs. Lindley, David E. Shanahan, "Gus" Nohe, and "Ed" Morris of the House. Mr. Frank O. Lowden was present in the dual capacity of friend of the organization and of the city. Messrs. Bennett, Mavor, and Eidman, of the Council Committee, and Mr. Graeme Stewart (late Republican candidate for Mayor of Chi-, cago), Mr. E. L. Reeves, and the writer, of the Chicago delegation, were present on Mr. Lorimer's invitation.

We were promptly asked, "What do you want?" Our reply was, “We care nothing for names; but, in substance, we want the Senate bill. Nothing less will serve." Mr. Lorimer emphatically told us that the Senate bill was dead and buried, and that the only hope of legislation at that session lay in the enactment of the Lindley substitute. We were urged to accept that measure, and invited then and there to submit amendments. It was assumed throughout the conference that we were "up against the real thing;" that whatever amendments Mr. Lorimer might accept that night would go through the House the next day. The attitude of the members of that body on the principal question of the session was assumed to be wholly immaterial.

It makes one, who regards the people as the source of political authority and the General Assembly as a means for the expression of their will, feel somewhat queer to participate in a midnight gathering called by a voluntary political boss to dispense legislation of vital public con

cern. However, under present conditions, only thus may one be sure to get next to the "powers that prey." Thus only may one reach the source of legislation affecting privileged interests and study it in process. In this instance we knew full well that our presence that night behind the scenes was solely due to ominous signs of revolt in the House. The boss sought to avert the storm.

ten heated discussion

of

The night wore on in discussion of the defects of the substitute bill. That measure, as it then stood, was a bungling imitation of the Senate bill, so emasculated as to render it practically valueless. It bore unmistakable marks of tender regard for the traction interests. It appeared on its face to provide for municipal ownership, but withheld the means for its accomplishment. By the omission of the provision of the Senate bill, broadly authorizing the municipality to grant streets already occupied by street railways to any corporation, without new frontage consents, it was sought to make it necessary for the city to deal with the present companies and to confirm them in their possession of the streets.

These chief defects of the substitute bill were stoutly defended, the first as an alleged protection to the public from the possibility of grants for more than twenty years; the second out of a professed regard for abutting property own

ers.

Amendments to cure several minor defects, and one covering frontage consents so worded as not to fall within the title of the bill, were finally offered us. The boss thereupon delivered his ultimatum, in substance as follows: "You must accept the Lindley Bill with these amendments, pull down all opposition on the floor of the House and from the Chicago press, and actively support the bill. It is the Lindley Bill or nothing."

A few hours later, as the House assembled to consider the Lindley substitute on second reading, the Chicago dele

re

gation, about twenty in number, composed of the Mayor, citizens appointed by him, and the Council Committee, jected by practically unanimous vote the Lorimer ultimatum. This action, taken with full knowledge that it might mean present defeat instead of a weak compromise with the machine, was taken the more readily because Lorimer by giving out the proposed amendments had already committed himself to them, and because the representatives of the city believed that it was his intention to pass the amended substitute through the House and kill it in the closing hours of the session.

The fight on the floor of the House was now on. The Speaker, who, the day before, on the written demand of a majority of the House, declined to say whether he would recognize the constitu tional demand of five members for a yea and nay vote on all proposed amendments, arbitrarily postponed the second reading of the bill to two o'clock that day, and then until nine o'clock the next morning. Meanwhile the recalcitrant members were subjected to one of the most severe of machine tests. Some seventy-five bills making appropriations for the state government and the public institutions throughout the state, and many other bills of local or special interest to the members, stood on the calendar on third reading. Those favoring the Senate traction bill, led by Mr. Oliver W. Stewart, the able prohibition member, had given notice that none of these measures should pass until the traction question was acted on by the House.

The organization leaders now presented two carefully chosen appropriation bills for passage. The first was the appropriation bill for the maintenance of the State Normal School at Macomb, the home of Mr. Sherman, leader of the Republican opposition. It was permitted to fail, the friends of Senate Bill No. 40, including Sherman, refusing to vote. A second appropriation bill shared the fate

« PreviousContinue »