TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY - 575 heavy load for the city to carry. At one time the Northwestern Company supplied gas also to Fremont, Sandusky, Bellevue, Clyde and Norwalk. As the gas production declined in Ohio, an effort was made to get a supply from Canada, then a promising field, but this had to be abandoned, and later a line was laid into Fairfield County, Ohio, whence a fair supply of gas was obtained, but in 1902 the Ohio fields were abandoned and lines laid to West Virginia where the raw material for Toledo use is at present obtained. The company does a large business in Toledo, the source of the fuel supply for many residences. TELEPHONE SERVICE The first telephone in Toledo was placed in operation on January 20, 1878, between the Western Union Telegraph office, at the corner of Adams and Summit streets, and the railroad ticket office in the Boody House, at the corner of St. Clair Street and Madison Avenue. The second telephone line connected two stores owned by F. W. Preston—one on the corner of Summit and Walnut streets and the other on Monroe Street. This line was about three-fourths of a mile in length. The success of the Preston telephone awakened an interest in the new method of communication and was influential in bringing about the establishment of a general system. Later in the year 1878 the Bell and Edison companies both established exchanges in Toledo. The Bell Company was represented by John M. Wheeler and S. C. Schenck, and the Edison exchange was under the management of James M. McNamar. After a few months the rival interests were consolidated under the name of the Midland Telephone Company. Still later the Toledo exchange became the property of the Central Union Telephone Company, which still owns and operates the system under the name of The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, with Andrew J. Mellen as district manager. The first long-distance telephone connection established in Toledo was with Detroit, a distance of sixty miles. The line was opened for the transmission of messages on August 25, 1882. Newspapers in both cities commented upon the events as a "wonderful achievement," though forty years later it is nothing unusual to talk over the wire for hundreds of miles. Men from Toledo and nearby towns in northwestern Ohio were early in the independent telephone field. Their operations extended into distant parts of the country and the city became an important focus for opposition to the Bell monopoly. On July 26, 1902, having organized the Ohio State Telephone Company—commonly called the Home Telephone Company for the purpose—the independents installed their first telephones in Toledo. This company at that time had only about a score of patrons, but its business has grown until in 1922 it had nearly twenty thousand instruments in the city and also operates exchanges at Holland, Maumee and Whitehouse. The Bell Company at the same time had an equally large list of subscribers in the city. The officers of the Ohio State Telephone Company in 1922 were : C. Y. McVey, president ; F. R. Huntington and F. L. Beam, vice presidents ; W. L. Cary, secretary ; E. R. Sharp, treasurer. All these officers were located at Columbus and A. W. Surrell was manager of the Toledo district. Steps were taken early in 1922 for a merger of the two companies, which was effected under the corporate name of The Ohio Bell Telephone Company. Merger of operations, however, was necessarily delayed because of physical difficulties. 576 - TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY THE TELEPHONE STRIKE In another chapter is noted the labor disputes with the street railroad company. In the labor history of the city a few other controversies in the nature of strikes have occurred respecting public utilities. That which needs notice at all, and by far the most serious, was the one originating in November, 1916, affecting the Ohio State Telephone Company and conducted under the auspices of Local 245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. This strike was accompanied by a great deal of violence, directed to individuals who were attempting to serve the company and also, in a very large measure, affecting the physical organization of the company. At more than a 'score of places the company's lines and cables were cut, in some instances in such a way as to make detection of the locality of injury difficult of ascertainment, the work having been done by skilled striking employes. By violence repair crews were intimidated in making proper connections, a large number of assaults, accompanied, in some instances, by physical injuries, being reported. At one time the lines serving all the city function, including the fire department and the police and all of the city hospitals, were damaged beyond use. The part played by the company as an instrumentality of interstate commerce became very seriously impaired. This situation furnished jurisdiction to the Federal Court into which, in December, 1916, a number of citizens, joining in a representative suit, entered with a complaint asking for a mandatory injunction for the restoration by the company of inter-state service, and for such control of its operations in the performance of service that would secure the same. The evidence showed that local agencies for preserving the peace were .ineffectively accomplishing their duty. The union named above also became a party to the proceeding on its own application. An injunction was issued by the court to secure both performance of its duties by the company and protection to the company in such performance. Under the influence of the court's action, disorder subsided, and the strike gradually wore itself out. The case, 240 Federal. p. 759, has been extensively and approvingly cited. CHAPTER XXVIII THE STREET RAILWAY CONTROVERSY AND THE INDEPENDENT MOVEMENT ELECTIONS OF JONES AS MAYOR-STATE LAWS AFFECTED BY THE DISPUTE-BEGINNING OF THE STREET RAILWAY CONTROVERSY-THE BIRTH OF THE INDEPENDENT PARTY-THE DEN M AN-DOYLE-PUGSLEY ORDINANCE- THE "PETITION IN BOOTS" -THE WHITLOCK ADMINISTRATIONS, 1906-1911— THE COMPANY'S AFFAIRS EXAMINED-W HITLOCK'S FOURTH ELECTION- DEFEAT OF THE INDEPENDENTS THE SCHREIBER ORDINANCE- EXPERT OPINION AGAINST THREE-CENT FARE-THE DOH ERTY SUIT-FREE RIDING; THE CITY 'EN JOINED-THE CITY VOTES FOR MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP-THE DOTSON ORDINANCE-STRIKE OF 1916—COMMUNITY OF INTEREST PLAN-THE ELECTIONS OF 1915, '17, '19—STRIKE IMMINENT IN 1918-THE OUSTER ORDINANCE-WORK OF THE COMMISSIONSSERVICE-AT-COST PLAN ADOPTED-END OF THE STRUGGLE. Enmities engendered through the rivalries of the old street railway companies, the exasperating inconveniences suffered by the public because of the character of service, and the large capitalization and indebtedness of The Toledo Railways & Light Company upon which the people were led to believe fares would be based were some of the factors of the prolonged dispute over franchise conditions, referred to in a previous chapter and which lasted substantially twenty years. To these were added antagonisms because of political indiscretions and tactlessness which the new company's necessities led it into. That a new franchise was highly desirable from the standpoint of both sides was obvious, but neither was sensibly disposed to make concessions which, it is now seen, would have been mutually profitable at the time. Public . opinion finally reached so irritable a condition that the question soon invaded municipal politics and, practically at every election for eleven years beginning with 1904, sometimes forcibly, sometimes naturally, it became the principal issue. Generally, the business element pressed for a franchise as a stabilizing influence, but other classes, more interested in individual service, were antagonistic. It came to pass that the dispute began to affect, profoundly, the business morals of the city, finding a culmination, in that particular, in the free riding of 1914. To a very noticeable extent, also, the citizenship became divided socially. There can be no question but that the prolonged agitation had a serious tendency to retard the city's advancement in population and prosperity, and to impede the development of a unity of feeling and established civic sentiment without which no community may reach its best prosperity. - 577 - 578 - TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY ELECTIONS OF JONES AS MAYOR While the Independent movement in local politics began before the street railway agitation became very active, in fact the two became so interwoven that they must be treated together, therefore, in order to obtain a better grasp of the matter, it is necessary to go back a few years and notice the elections before the street railways were consolidated. In 1897, a deadlock in the Republican city convention brought about the nomination for mayor of a "dark horse," Samuel M. Jones, a prominent manufacturer. The election gave Mr. Jones a plurality of 534 votes, a poor showing at that time for a Republican candidate. It was due, however, not to any 'question of the candidate's worthiness, but to factional rivalries which his candidacy did not heal, as he was not in the ordinary acceptance a politician. Of an independent spirit, he soon became resentful of what he conceived to be unwarrantable dictation by his party organization looking to control of his official action. In 1899 the question of his re-nomination was seriously disputed, the Republican city organization undertaking to defeat him, and many of the ward gatherings choosing delegates to the convention were marked by violence, with charges of fraud. By that time Mr. Jones had acquired a very large and determined personal following which admired his independent course. A number of his friends, fearing fraud at the convention, by breaking down doors forced entrance to the spectators' section of Memorial Hall where the gathering was held. On the first ballot, out of 253 delegates elected, 251 voted, Mr. Jones receiving 126, and the organization candidate, Charles E. Russell, 125. The chairman declared there was no nomination, on the theory that it took a majority of all the delegates elected to nominate, and ordered a second ballot. This, had after some delay, gave Mr. Russell a clear majority. A great turmoil ensued, in which charges of fraud were reiterated by Mr. Jones' friends. After much confusion, the latter succeeded in announcing his determination to stand as an independent candidate to dispute. the Russell nomination as not honestly produced. The vote which followed exhibits the extent of public feeling. The independent candidate was opposed by every daily newspaper, no one of which allowed him even paid publicity. Men of prominence in business, professional and social affairs, whose party loyalty generally was secure, exerted themselves very actively in the campaign, which, on the part of the Jones candidacy, was accompanied by all the old-time incidents of parades, lively mass meetings and the like. The election gave Mr. Jones 16,773 votes to 4,266 for Mr. Russell, Republican, and 3,128 to Patrick H. Dowling, Democrat. After two years of somewhat stormy administration, Mr. Jones was re-elected in 1901, receiving 12,576 votes as an Independent to 9,435 for William V. McMaken, Republican, and 398 for Henry Bowers, Democrat. In 1903, Mr. Jones was elected for the fourth time, the vote then standing, Jones, 10,350, John W. Dowd, Republican, 7,491, C. M. Edson, Democrat, 4,266, T. A. Bragg, Socialist, 538, the Republicans electing most of the city officers and a majority of the Council. The steady decline in the Jones independent vote in the two succeeding elections after 1899 was not due to any lack of appreciation of his character or disapproval of his independence in political matters, but to a disagreement among many law-abiding people with his "Golden Rule" theory as applied to law-breakers, it being charged with some degree of proof so far TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY - 579 as the city's criminal statistics were concerned, that this theory was making of the city a harbor for criminals. STATE LAWS AFFECTED BY THE DISPUTE As a result of one of the contentions between Mayor Jones and the Republican organization, an historic upheaval occurred in the state laws concerning the organization of cities. Local interests were effective in persuading the Legislature of 1902 to pass the Act of April 17 of that year, 95 Ohio Laws, 203, which gave the governor the power to control the police force in Toledo through the appointment of police commissioners. Mayor Jones resisted the entry into office of the commissioners appointed by the governor under this Act, whereupon mandamus proceedings were begun against him and the existing police board in the Supreme Court. That court decided, June .26, 1902 (66 Ohio State Reports, 453), that this Act, being a special act for the government of cities, was unconstitutional. The effect of the decision was not only to upset all special acts relating to municipal government, of which there were several, but to force a calling of a special session of the Legislature to enact a new municipal code, having general force throughout the entire State. The Legislature convened in extraordinary session August 25, 1902, and passed such an Act, which is, with sundry amendments of detail, in force at the present time throughout the State except where, under the home rule provisions of the new Constitution, special .charters have been adopted, which is now the case in Toledo. BEGINNING OF THE STREET RAILWAY CONTROVERSY It was not until the fourth term of Mayor Jones had begun that the street railway question was definitely injected into political contentions and began its heated career. The mayor had for subordinate officers and a majority of the councilmen those who owed their positions to the political organization which he had been persistently fighting. In the spring of 1904, the Council passed an ordinance extending to The Toledo Railways & Light Company a street railway franchise for twenty-five years. This the mayor vetoed. It is probable that this measure was dictated by the company for it aimed at little more than to extend, on old terms and for a definite period for all the lines, the many franchises whose expirations varied 'and many of whose periods were approaching conclusion. Opposition to it had many points of justification, but the feeling between the mayor and the rest of the city officiary left no room for cool and cooperative deliberation to meet a situation which then needed dispassionate solution to meet the city's best interests. The Council made preparation to override the veto, having votes to accomplish this result, but a large body of citizens gathered outside the council chamber and registered such indignant protests that the subject was postponed. Soon after (July 12, 1904), Mayor Jones died, and Robert M. Finch, president of the Council, succeeded to the unexpired term. THE BIRTH OF THE INDEPENDENT PARTY The death of Mayor Jones left his followers somewhat at sea. The Independent party was then essentially personal, and the mayor's death left it without a 580 - TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY head. To discuss the situation, a meeting was held July 26, 1904, at the office of Elisha B. Southard, attorney, in the Nasby building. Eleven citizens were present at this meeting, namely; A. A: Moody, E. M. Beard, L. W. Morgan, A. E. Overmyer, William Cowell; Johnston. Thurston, C. M. Robinson, L. F. Towers, W. S. Thurstin, Sr., E. B. Southard and Frank H. Geer. An organization was effected, perfected at adjourned meetings rapidly held, until each ward was effectively entered and men to be trusted selected to join in an independent movement, to concern itself generally in local affairs and to develop thereby an effective opposition to political machines and machine methods. At the ensuing election a full Independent ticket was in the field, supported by committees, local and general, whose personnel commanded respect and assistance. THE DENMAN-DOYLE-PUGSLEY ORDINANCE In the meantime a serious attempt was made at a satisfactory ordinance. A resolution passed the Council, after the mayor's veto, devolving the duty of preparation upon City Solicitor U. G. Denman, who asked that the best talent in the city be induced to assist him. In this' way was obtained the collaboration of Hon. John H. Doyle and Hon. I. P. Pugsley of the Common Pleas Court, who approved the work as it was submitted for the Council's action. This measure was a sincere and able attempt to safeguard the city while, at the same time, to deal justly with the service company. The state of confusion then existing is shown by the measure's recitation of ninety ordinances and resolutions of Council and the County Commissioners, then effective and throwing a great variety of obligations upon both the city and company, but which were to be superseded by the new legislation which bound the company to surrender all its previous rights. A blanket franchise was provided with a life of twenty-five years, with an option in the city to purchase at the end of the period at a valuation to be then ascertained, of which a franchise was not to be considered as a factor. Service was to be regulated' by the City Council, and forty improved cars were to be immediately put into operation. Within the first nine years the company was to expend two million dollars in extensions and betterments. The fare to start with was to be five cents cash ; children under six, free; children from six to twelve, two cents ; six tickets for 25c or twenty-five tickets for a dollar. A provision was had for the reduction in price of tickets to seven for 25c when gross receipts reached a certain relation to car miles, exhibited by operation, and a further reduction to eight tickets for 25c when the relation of gross receipts to car miles changed still more definitely in favor of the company. This ordinance was submitted to the Council in the early fall of 1904. The committee to which it was referred reported favorably October 19, and the 24th of that month was appointed for its consideration by the full Council. The fact that the complexion of the Council might soon be modified was one of the things which prejudiced the measure at this time. The Legislature had. recently changed the time of city elections from spring to November and it came about that at the election of 1904 were to be chosen one-half of the city's war representatives in Council and one councilman-at-large. TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY - 581 THE "PETITION IN BOOTS" In the meantime, the movement for the re-organization of Independent voters had been going steadily forward, and a call was now issued for them to meet at a hall on Superior Street, near Jefferson Avenue, an hour before the time for the Council meeting to open on the evening of October 24. The number in attendance was too large for the hall. Mr,. Southard presided, and Johnston Thurston outlined the program for a. "petition in boots." A committee was sent ahead to gain access to the Council chamber and keep those on the outside informed as to what was going on. This committee asked the Council to hear their spokesman, but the request was not heeded. The signal was then given to those outside and from six hundred throats came the cry : "This is call number one. Let franchise alone !" This was repeated three times, then an ominous silence followed for a few minutes. Then came the admonition : "We retire to our hall, to return tonight if necessary." The "petition in boots" returned to the hall on Superior Street and a few minutes later the committee came in with the information that the Council had adjourned without taking any action on the franchise ordinance. The main objection to the proposed ordinance was that it gave the company the right to charge a five-cent cash fare, or twenty-five cents for six, tickets. Immediately after the council meeting of October 24, 1904, the members, or a majority of them, decided to amend the ordinance, requiring the street railway company to sell seven tickets for a quarter. The amended ordinance, above referred to, came before the council on the evening of October 31, 1904, right on the eve of the city election. The council was accused of trying to take "snap judgment" by forcing through an ordinance just before election, and again the "petition in boots" was assembled, much larger than on the former occasion. Fully one thousand men gathered outside the Valentine building, in which the council was in session. The street rang with such shouts as "Let the franchise alone!" "There is no hurry !" "You have not our confidence !" etc. But this time the council was not to be intimidated. The ordinance passed by a vote of 13 to 3, after Mayor Finch had earnestly counseled its postponement. The thirteen members who voted for the ordinance were escorted home., by policemen and the mayor and the three opponents were greeted with cheers by the populace. A few days later Mayor Finch vetoed the ordinance. By common consent the question was allowed to rest during the remainder of the life of that council. As a matter of retrospect, it is difficult to see any fair objection to the Denman-Doyle-Pugsley measure. To meet the requirements of necessary service, it had Much to recommend it, as well as its provisions for adequate expansion of service as the city grew. Respecting the restrictions on opportunities for imposition on the public by the company, it was far in advance of most franchises in other cities, then allowed or under consideration. But already there had grown up a feeling against a five-cent fare as excessive, and many people were becoming stubbornly of the opinion that three cents were sufficient when made the basis of sale of tickets. The clash between the mayor and the council over the first ordinance in the spring of the year intensified the division of the people and so embittered opinion that the later ordinance undoubtedly never obtained the calm considera- 582 - TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY tion to which it was entitled. One thing is certain, as proven by subsequent events, this ordinance would have bankrupted the company had it been effective throughout the subsequent period of contention and, had the company been able to do business under its restrictions which is now known to have been impossible, for the terms would have forced a receivership within fifteen years, millions of dollars would have been saved to the people of the city in street railway fares. The election of 1904 resulted in a substantial victory for the new Independent party. Its candidate for councilman-at-large, Adam Schauss, swept the city, receiving a plurality over A. D. Hobart, Republican, of 2,474, although the Republican presidential ticket received 12,845 plurality. The Independents also elected several councilmen as well as minor city officers. THE WHITLOCK ADMINISTRATIONS, 1906-11 One of the men prominent in the Independent movement, having filed a brief in the action in the Supreme Court, ref erred to above, was Brand Whitlock, who was chosen by the Independents as their candidate for mayor in 1905. The vote on this election stood, 'Whitlock, Independent, 15,326 ; Robert M. Finch, Republican, 10,517; C. M. Edson, Democrat, 8,129; Dr. Reed, Socialist, 859; Clarence Willard, Independent, 331. The Independents also elected the city solicitor, C. S. Northup, and made complete their control of the council. Nothing effective marked the first Whitlock administration respecting the street car question. In 1907 Whitlock was re-elected, the vote standing, Whitlock, 15,787 ; R. A. Bartley, Republican, 9,277 ; B. C. Stephenson, Democrat, 1,060 ; T. C. Devine, Socialist, 672. Nor was anything substantial accomplished on the street car question during the second administration of Whitlock who was elected for the third time in 1909, receiving then 15,642 votes ; with 10,582 for David T. Davies, Jr., Republican ; 741 to William Patterson, Socialist ; 491 to Joseph F. Eger, Democrat. During Whitlock's third term, many of the important franchises expired, but no progress was made towards any settlement. The feeling against the company was so intense and growing so steadily that no one known to favor the street car company had any chance of election. Substantially the only definite action taken on the subject was the passage in July, 1911, of an ordinance providing that on streets where franchises had expired the street railway company should pay a rental of $250 a day unless the company would consent to give a three-cent fare. THE COMPANY'S AFFAIRS EXAMINED The rental ordinance served no office but to widen the breach between the Independent administration and the company. Undoubtedly most, if not all, of its sponsors were sincere, but its terms were so impossible that only a heated mind could see anything but futility in it. To have enforced it would either have destroyed transportation or have thrown the company into bankruptcy. Out of the contentions the ordinance developed, however, came an informal agreement, effective with January, 1912, that the fare should be on all lines five cents cash, six tickets for a quarter, with five tickets for fifteen cents, good only for two hours in the morning and two in the evening, with one cent charge for a child. These rates, put in operation in January, 1912, remained in effect until April, 1916, when they were changed as hereafter noted. TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY - 583 The company also proposed to bear all of the expense of an expert examination to bring about a showing of facts supporting a proper rate, the city to choose the examiner. The city selected the well known auditing firm of Nau, Rusk and Swearingen, of Cleveland, who made the proper examination, reporting exhaustively April 24, 1913, with a summary and explanation addressed to Mayor Whitlock privately, but in his official capacity, by Mr. Carl H. Nau under date of April 27, 1914. Mr. Nau had personally conducted the investigation for his firm. The investigation, which cost the company $25,000, started after May 1, 1912, and the period of four months from January 1, while the morning and evening three-cent rate was in force, was put in comparison with the corresponding period of 1911, although, for general purposes, the entire business of the company for the years 1909-1912, inclusive, was put under analysis. The result of this audit will be noted later. WHITLOCK'S FOURTH ELECTION In 1911, Mr. Whitlock was elected mayor for the fourth time and received as an Independent candidate, 11,590 votes, Carl H. Keller, Republican, receiving 8,531; William F. Ries, Socialist, 5,197, and C. S. Ashley, Independent Democrat, 3,197. During the period to and including 1913, skilfully played upon by influences and interests, many of which were undoubtedly selfish, but, supported by many sincere citizens, the sentiment that a three-cent fare was ample under all circumstances for street railway revenue grew in intensity. The public had been fed with so much discussion of over-capitalization that many of the voters ceased to have any regard for the obligation to provide adequate returns for the real investment. Discussion of the question from a business standpoint was not listened to. Almost hysterically a very large portion of the electors embraced the three-cent fare as if it were a sanctified institution. Anyone who attempted by urging from cold facts to show the inadequacy of revenue so limited was likely to be denounced, even publicly, as a purchased friend of the "Big Con" and an enemy of the people. In the spring of 1913, a New York partnership, Henry L. Doherty & Company, acquired control of The Toledo Railways & Light Company, and took over the management of its interests, beginning negotiations for renewed franchises, a task soon found to be impossible, as public sentiment then affected the situation. DEFEAT OF THE INDEPENDENTS-THE SCHREIBER ORDINANCE Mr. Whitlock refused to be a candidate for the fifth time, wherefore in 1913 the Independents named Judge Charles E. Chittenden of the Circuit Court bench. The Republicans again nominated Carl H. Keller, and a third candidate came into the field, also as an independent, in the person of Cornell Schreiber, who had been identified with the Independent movement and who was city solicitor in the fourth Whitlock administration. The street railway question, for the first time in ten years, was not an issue at the election, for every candidate on every ticket was definitely pledged not only to work for but to fight for the sacred rate of three cents. In his campaign for mayor, City Solicitor Schreiber first broached the 584 - TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY idea of utilizing the expiration of the Robison franchises in the following March as a means to force the company to accept this rate. He, by speech and publication, promised to bring it about for all lines in three months after his term began should he be elected. The other candidates, however, were so acceptable on this issue that the vote was as follows : Keller, Republican, 16, 897 ; Chittenden, Independent, 9,507; Schreiber, Independent, 4,073. This election marked the end of the Independent party, without having settled a question toward which most of its efforts were addressed. Many law-abiding citizens were finding the same fault with Mayor Whitlock's views of the handling of crime which impelled them to leave Mayor Jones, and the adoption of a provision for home rule as an amendment to the State Constitution which promised to give the people of Toledo a chance for a non-partisan system of city government weakened the reasons for a continued existence of the party. Many citizens also began to feel that control of the movement was being absorbed by those who had purely selfish interests to serve. Its influence, however, survived and was a large factor in the adoption, in 1914, of the present city, charter which attempts to secure, as far as a fundamental law may, non-partisanship in municipal affairs. Another temporary Influence entered into the campaign of 1913 which was also effective in obscuring the Independent principle. Mayor Keller and every member of the council elected in 1913 was not only pledged to three-cent fare, but there was framed and hung up in the council chamber this pledge in writing, signed by the councilmen. The Robison franchises, disintegrating the street railway system, were due to expire with March 27, 1914, and all the principal other franchises were already out-lived. Soon after the election in November, 1913, and six weeks before the new administration came into power, the old Council, at one session under suspension of the rules and without notice to the public or to the street railway company, passed an ordinance known as the "Schreiber ordinance" fixing the street railway fare all over the city after March 27, 1914, at three cents, with universal transfers, and directing the city solicitor to enter the State courts for an order to enforce obedience in case the company failed to comply with its terms. This ordinance was immediately approved by Mayor Whitlock. Such was the situation when the Keller administration came into office. Its enemies, defeated at the polls, had laid down for it lines of action which, unless the new administration abandoned its definite pledges, would bring about a fight to a finish with the street railway company on the subject of three-cent fare. EXPERT OPINION AGAINST THREE-CENT FARE It is the duty here of the candid historian to note a circumstance which did not become public for more than a year, but which, in the interest of public enlightenment, and, at the same time, to sober public sentiment, it would seem should have been brought to the attention of the people with little delay. It has been shown that an exhaustive report was made in April, 1913, by the city's own experts, of the necessities of the company which should be regarded in fixing fares. The detailed report involved, among other things, a comparison of the first four months of 1911 and 1912 in an effort to find data on the mooted question whether reduction of fares would sufficiently increase revenues through TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY - 585 increased patronage. In great detail, also, the report exhibited the company's business experiences and necessities for the years 1909. to 1912, inclusive. Mr. Nau's private letter to the mayor, of April 27, 1913, already noted, was written to summarize his report, in its effect, on the vexed and acute subject of three-cent fare as an adequate rate. It was introduced by this paragraph : "It occurred to me, however, that it would be interesting to you to have me point out for your private information just what these figures seem to mean translated into a rate of fare." The letter proceeded with an analysis of the summaries of the report, assuring the mayor that, as the latter was reminded, Mr. Nau had theretofore privately and orally advised him, "a flat three-cent fare would not be possible" under existing conditions, and whether it ever would be possible would depend upon several factors, first, the determination of a fair valuation upon which a rate of return could be based, and later, upon a re-routeing and general rehabilitation of the system and a study into present conditions of prices and wages, saying that, "in terms of money, of course, the rate of fare is fixed but the prices of material and the wages for labor are not so fixed in the terms of a cheapening money unit." Of course it should be left to speculation what effect a timely publication of the fact that the city's own street railway expert, basing his conclusions upon an exhaustive research into the experiences of the company, had advised the mayor that a three-cent fare was impracticable, might have had in stemming the growing public determination to insist on that rate, a determination so inflexible that it afterwards resulted in an exhibition not creditable to the city's good sense. Whether the Council and City Solicitor Schreiber knew of Mr. Nau's advice to the mayor when the Schreiber ordinance was passed is not known. The city was forced to admit, in the litigation which ensued, that the measure was unfair and improvident in the extreme, and in this litigation the fact was also made a matter of testimony that the officer who signed it as Executive of the city had this definite information from his trusted advisor for more than six months before approving the Council's action. The detailed report of the Nau examination, which was in evidence before the Federal Court in 1914, proved conclusively the utter futility and impossibility of a three-cent rate, corroborating Mr. Nau's conclusions of its effect as he ventured his opinion to Mayor Whitlock. THE DOHERTY SUIT In January, 1914, an action was commenced in the Federal Court by Doherty & Company as a creditor of the street railway company demanding the appointment of a receiver. Before this case was heard, the new city administration signified its intention to enforce the Schreiber, ordinance, bequeathed to it by its predecessor, although the city solicitor made no effort to obtain an order of enforcement from the State court. A supplemental petition was filed, therefore, in the Federal Court asking for a restraining order against the city on the ground that the provisions of the ordinance were confiscatory and in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions. Much inflammatory publication was indulged in as a result of this court proceeding, and mob resistance to any possible order setting aside the ordinance was openly advocated. An order was denied at first by the Federal Court, pointing out that the ordinance was not self-enforcing, and that the company had its remedy 586 - TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY in the terms of the measure itself through the power to resist in the State court an application for an enforcing order. The city solicitor, Mr. Thurstin, again failed, however, to enter the State court to test its validity, as provided by the ordinance, thus throwing upon the railway the burden of arguing the matter out with passengers. FREE RIDING-THE CITY ENJOINED To avoid numerous controversies which seemed certain to follow in case the company's conductors undertook to collect more than a three-cent fare, the company then adopted the policy of carrying free upon its cars all those who refused to pay more than three cents, trusting to the sober good sense of the community that this situation would not be abused. So inflamed, however, was public sentiment, and so infatuated were the people with the three-cent notion, that an extraordinarily large number of passengers insisted upon paying no more than three cents or no fare at all. Within the next four months, under such conditions, the company, to avoid disorder, was compelled to carry more than nine million free passengers. It then appealed to the city administration for protection, notifying the mayor that, after a certain date, the conductors would be instructed to eject any passenger who refused to pay more than three cents. This brought from the city officials the threat that the cars would be manned by policemen and by specially deputized officers to insure obedience to the ordinance. The city solicitor still refraining from asking the State Courts .f or an enforcing order, the company again appealed to the United States Court on the ground that the city's threat involved taking the company's property without due process of law. This issue was accepted and heard by the court in September, 1914. There the evidence showed so conclusively that the ordinance was confiscatory in its effect that the city, by its solicitor, acknowledged the fact in open court. An injunction followed, restraining the city from an attempt at enforcement. This judgment was never appealed. As the contentions between Mayor Jones and the local political organizations initiated a radical change in Ohio laws respecting municipal corporations, so out of the warfare in the Federal Court over the Schreiber ordinance came a settlement of the Federal law of contempt of court respecting the privilege of newspapers to comment on pending court action. The Act of Congress of 1831, theretofore uncertain in its application to newspapers, received, in a case involving the Toledo News Bee, a construction which freed Federal courts from embarrassment from unfair newspaper publications made of a pending case (247 Supreme Court Reports, 402). THE CITY VOTES FOR MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP While the excitement over the resistance of the company to the Schreiber ordinance was tense, the council submitted to the electors a municipal ownership ordinance involving all of the utilities operated by The Toledo Railways & Light Company. This was carried at an election held at the same time as the State primaries, August 4, 1914, with a vote of 10,597 "yes," and 9,409. "no." The measure provided for the issuance of eight million dollars of six per cent twenty-year bonds, with which to acquire all of the properties of the company, although there had TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY - 587 been no dealings with any company representatives in the matter of setting a valuation, or in any way preliminary to the preparing of such a measure. It provided, also, that the fare should be adequate to take care of maintenance, depreciation and other contingent charges, and attempted to provide a way to keep operations out of politics. Certain provisions for qualification of employes were written. The bonds were never put upon the market, every one realizing that the legislation was inadequate for such a far-reaching and all-inclusive project. THE DOTSON ORDINANCE In the winter of 1914-1915, a serious and able attempt was made at a settlement, an ordinance having been framed and submitted to the electors by the council, the measure taking its name from Mr. Frank M. Dotson, attorney, member of the council, and chairman of the committee having the work in charge. This plan entered into all the phases of settlement. It was in the nature of a franchise to the company which was designed to safeguard the city. It was very strenuously attacked by the interests which had bolstered the Schreiber ordinance and had encouraged the three-cent agitation. The passions of the past were earnestly appealed to. Very vigorous argument was offered against it because of a provision giving the Federal Court the power to appoint a third arbitrator in case of a disagreement between the city and company respecting the person of that officer, the appeal in that behalf being to whatever resentment existed against the Federal Court because of the injunction against the Schreiber ordinance. This measure was defeated at the election of November 2, 191, at which 15,565 votes were cast for it, and 21,781 against it. As times developed, this ordinance would have proven very advantageous to car riders, just as would have been the fact had the Denman-Doyle-Pugsley measure gone into effect. It would, however, have bankrupted the company. STRIKE OF 1916 March 28, 1916, the street railway conductors and motormen struck, and for two weeks the city was without transportation service of any kind. The strike was for higher wages, and was marked by no disorder whatever. The company was on the friendliest terms with its men who realized that better wages could not be paid without increase of company revenues. April 11, the strike was ended by action of the Federal Court in the litigation begun in 1914, and then still pending. The occasion was an application for an order against the city. The court held, among other things, a necessity for increased wages to the men and for an improvement in service, and that these results could not be obtained, or necessary street transportation be resumed, without an increase in fares. It was found that if the three-cent fares were abolished, revenues would be increased approximately twelve per cent. It was ordered that this be done and that half of the enlarged revenues be devoted to increasing wages while six per cent of all fare revenues be paid over to a custodian appointed by the court to be used for improving service, which was ordered by the court. The arrangement respecting the custodian's fund remained in operation until January 31, 1921. This fund, in this period, reached the aggregate amount of $822,263.81. Sixty cars of modern pattern, with increased 588 - TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY capacity and the latest improvements for expeditious and comfortable service, were ordered on trust certificates issued by the company and charged against the accumulations of this fund which also bore the expense of much double tracking, and many other important improvements in trackage and appliances and facilities of many characters. The custodian appointed by the court was John Craig, the well known founder and president of The Craig Shipbuilding Company, who had retired after the sale of his shipyard to the present company. The fund was divided as follows : On improvements of trackage and appliances, $558,023.31 ; on car trust certificates and interests, $281,128.05 ; expenses of administration, including custodian's compensation, $6,112.45. The improved service which resulted from this action of the court, at an administrative cost of less than three-fourths of one per cent, was an important element in modifying, in spite of increased fares, the attitude toward the company of the car-riding public. In this instance the application was also pressed for a receiver for the railway company. A conditional order was made, April 9, appointing Captain Craig receiver, to be effective at 8:30 Monday morning, April 10, provided that by such hour the company and its employes had not agreed on a wage scale within the court's suggestion that half of increased fares be devoted to that purpose and that, pursuant to such agreement, street car service should not have been resumed by that hour. An hour before the time appointed when the court's operation of the service through a receiver was to become effective, cars started again under the agreement between the company and men suggested by the court, after two weeks of walking by Toledo citizens. THE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST PLAN The next step was a more or less informal effort to write an ordinance on a new basis by an unofficial body appointed by the mayor and called the Toledo Street Railway Commission, consisting of Negley D. Cochran, editor of the News Bee, N. G. Wright, editor of the Toledo Blade, Edward P. Usher, of the Central Labor Union, and Johnston Thurston. These men entered into an earnest effort to devise some means of reconciling the situation. Many months were consumed, largely in negotiation and discussion with the parties interested in the street railway company, and a plan finally was evolved, called the "Community of Interest Plan," the details of which never became fully public. The proposition was given to the mayor in January, 1918, but was never submitted to the Council. In general, it provided for the purchase of the lines by the sale of shares and bonds in small denominations to the public at large, with which to buy the lines. A new company was to be created, called The Community Traction Company, to take over the lines and to issue the securities. Straight five cents, with free transfers was the maximum fare provided. A sliding scale downward was suggested, fares to be varied along the scale, according to the comparative condition of revenues and expenses, the fluctuation of rates to be controlled by the amount in a so-called Equalizing Fund which was to be kept as nearly as possible at $150,000. The very important and contentious question of valuation this commission was unable to settle, and the measure proposed by it was never, in fact, completed. Some of the suggestions of this proposition were undoubtedly helpful to the service-at-cost commission, which later framed a settlement acceptable to the TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY - 589 people. The financing of this attempt to write a franchise was taken care of by several citizens of large means, according to common report, never denied. THE ELECTIONS OF 1915, 1917 AND 1919 Except for the submission of the Dotson ordinance in 1915, the street railway question was not an issue in any of the municipal elections following that of 1913. .A decided majority of the electorate was definitely so hostile to the street railway company that, in the city generally, in all but three or four wards, it was recognized that every one favorable to a settlement on a basis other than for three-cent fare was doomed to defeat for any municipal office. In 1917 and again in 1919, Cornell Schreiber, who, as city solicitor, prepared the ordinance of 1913, was elected mayor, but, in each instance, without any special regard to his attitude on the street railway question. STRIKE IMMINENT IN 1918 By 1918 living conditions of wartime became so difficult that the street car men's wage scale of 1916 was acknowledged to be inadequate. April 30 of that year the scale contract expired and the company insisted that it should be allowed to raise the fares fixed in 1916 in order to be able to meet the justifiable demands of its men. The issue came definitely to the point of an imminent walk-out of employes. Prolonged negotiations were had between the company and representatives of the men and Mayor Schreiber. Again the city employed an accountant of its own selection to determine the relation of the company's income at the rates of fare established in 1916 and the raising of wages equivalent to six cents per hour, which, at least, all parties conceded the men should have. The city then stood admitting that a raise of rates was necessary, but the difference was as to the extent thereof. On the company's insistence that the facts and the accountant's report showed that it should be permitted to modify the old rates by abolishing the privilege of buying six tickets for a quarter, and by an allowance to charge one cent additional for transfers, Mayor Schreiber issued what the company construed to be an ultimatum that, so far as he could influence the situation, a greater raise of fare than eleven tickets for fifty cents, with free transfers, would not be permitted, and, if the company should suffer a strike or be unable to maintain its service on that basis, that he would see that the cars would run nevertheless. It was assumed by the company that this implied threat involved some sort of official attack upon the company, which again entered the pending case in the Federal Court with a supplemental bill stating the situation and asking that the city be enjoined from interfering with its demand of rates which should be seen to be necessary. This issue was heard and decided August 2, 1918, the court finding the increased rate to be needed to meet the enlarged expenses of the company flowing from its necessary raise of wages, enjoining the city from interfering, but preserving to the city the right to order the car service to be discontinued altogether. The city appealed from this decree, but the local court was affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Pending appeal, the new rates of fare went into effect and remained operative until November 9, 1919, when service ceased again for four weeks. 590 - TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY THE OUSTER ORDINANCE The affirmance of the decree against the city issued the year before the local court was announced June 4, 1919. The decisions of both courts placed emphasis on the proposition that the city had but two alternative courses which it might pursue. It must allow the company to charge fares that would produce a revenue sufficient to meet its expenses, operating and fixed, and; in addition, to give it a fair return on the actual value of its investment, or definitely close the streets altogether to its occupancy. The council chose the latter alternative, passing, June 30, 1919, an ordinance, prepared by the mayor, directing the company to forthwith cease operating street cars, and to remove from the streets all property devoted exclusively to car operations. Under charter provisions, effectiveness of the measure was suspended for a referendum. At the election of November 4, 1919, the electors approved the ordinance by a vote of 19,919 "yes" to 19,108 "no." The result having been officially declared by the following Saturday, on Sunday morning, November 9, 1919, Toledo citizens awoke to find that the company .had taken the city at its word and that by the previous midnight all cars had been removed into Michigan. All interurban traffic within the city limits was necessarily stopped. After experiencing a makeshift transportation system for four weeks, to the very great inconvenience and physical discomfort of the people, the city itself appealed to the. Federal Court for suggestion of relief, filing a motion, December 4, in the case pending since 1914, showing that on the 3rd the ouster ordinance was amended suspending its operation until March 31, 1920, provided that the company would resume operations within three days, upon conditions prescribed by the court. The motion demanded a mandatory injunction compelling resumption of service. As a result of the submission of this motion and subsequent proceedings, the cars were brought back at noon of December 5,,1919, from which time operations were continued under the old company upon conditions fixed by the court and without interference by the city, until a final settlement became effective February 1, 1921. During 1920 it became again necessary to raise fares because of the company's burdens of operation, and in the last part of this period fares were seven cents, with two cents for transfers. WORK OF THE COMMISSIONS As part of the amicable arrangement just referred to, Judge Killits was invited to appoint two commissions to devise alternative plans for a settlement of the long dispute, one to prepare an ordinance providing for municipal ownership, and the other to draft a measure for operating the cars on what is known as the service-at-cost plan, which was to follow generally the lines of the Tayler settlement at Cleveland, with such modifications as later experience might suggest.. The municipal ownership commission was composed of Henry W. Ashley, William S. Brown, Gabe Cooper, Walter C. Gunthrup, John B. Merrell, William Renz and Walter Starner, with Mr. Ashley as chairman. This body, after several months' consideration, drafted two ordinances to be submitted to the electors of the city. The first provided for an issue of bonds to the amount of $3,000,000 "for the purchase of a street railway system" (the purpose being to TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY - 591 purchase part of the system already in existence), and the other authorized a bond issue of $4,000,000 "for the purpose of constructing a public utility, to wit, a transportation system for the city of Toledo, supplying transportation to the inhabitants, thereof." These measures were prepared and left with the Council in time to be submitted to the electors at the primary election in August, 1920. In the preparation of these ordinances little, if any, negotiation was had with the owners of the street railway system. The commission explained that they were developed on the theory that the city's transportation needs should be met by a cooperative employment of a street railway system and a bus system, the former to occupy the congested part of the city only, with transportation to be continued by motor vehicles to the sparsely settled portions. Both ordinances were submitted at the primary election in August and defeated, the first by a vote of 12,468 to 8,534, and the second by a vote of 11,543 to 7,901. The service-at-cost commission was composed of Robert H. Bradley, William W. Knight, George L. McKesson, William L. Milner, F. G. Redd, George Roulet and John Wickenhiser, with Mr. Milner as chairman. As it was the understanding that this commission's measure should be developed out of the present street railway system, it was necessary for it to negotiate with the owners with great care. The commission worked throughout the winter and spring, its chairman, particularly, studying the street railway problems of many cities of the country. The late William L. Milner specially earned the gratitude of his fellow citizens for the earnest devotion to civic duty, at great personal sacrifice, which he exhibited throughout the exasperating period of six months during which the preparation of the Milner ordinance was in progress. By June, 1920, an ordinance had been developed, complete except in two particulars, the commission reporting its uncompleted work to the Federal Court, with the advice that it was unable to go further because of inability to agree with the company. Among other things, the commission was obliged to determine a valuation for the property, and this was the main point upon which' the insoluble disagreement arose, the other being a matter of administration and financing, of much less importance. On the question of valuation, the commission held out for $8,000,000, and the company stoutly insisted upon $9,000,000. Judge Killits summoned the commission together and suggested a modification of the lesser item of dispute which proved to be acceptable to both sides. He then completed the ordinance by arbitrarily inserting the valuation at the commission's figure, viz : $8,000,000, after which he submitted it to the council for consideration, subsequently succeeding in getting the company to yield its demand for $9,000,000 and to accept his valuation. SERVICE-AT-COST PLAN ADOPTED This result was accomplished too late, however, to permit the service-at-cost ordinance to be submitted to the people at the August election, at which time the municipal ownership ordinances were to be voted upon. The council had municipal ownership proclivities and refused to permit the service-at-cost ordinance to go before the people at the election on November 2, 1920, unless it were coupled, by way of re-submission of the defeated municipal ownership ordinances, with such alternative proposals. It followed, therefore, that in November both propositions were voted upon by the electors, following an animated campaign of discussion 592 - TOLEDO AND, LUCAS COUNTY of their respective merits and demerits. The arsenal of past bitterness was drawn on freely for arguments against the service-at-cost measure, and new weapons of attack forged in reliance upon an assumed hostility of the people to the Federal Court for the part by it played in preventing the three-cent fare. At the, election the vote on the service-at-cost ordinance stood as follows : For, 45,990, against 16,029. The municipal ownership ordinance authorizing a $3,000,000 bond issue was defeated by a vote of 16,469 to 46,369, and the one providing for a $4,000,000 bond issue to engage in bus transportation was defeated by a vote of 14,325 to 47,786. The service-at-cost plan was thus adopted by a vote of nearly three-fourths of the people. END OF THE STRUGGLE A short time before the ordinance went into effect on February 1, 1921, a complication arose which for some time threatened to restore unsettled conditions, the situation becoming exceedingly acute, although not a matter of public knowledge. For several weeks it was the subject of anxious deliberation, participated in by the new Board of Control, the Mayor, the City Director of Law, the representatives of the street railway company and of the firm of Henry. L. Doherty & Company, holding the railway company's stock, and Judge Killits. By the terms of the ordinance, Henry L. Doherty & Company were to redeem $1,900,000 of .securities of the old traction company, which had been' hypothecated, and which were required to be taken out of the way before the securities of the new company, based upon the $8,000,000 valuation, could be negotiated and before the city was properly safeguarded in the plan. Owing to the financial condition of the country, the raising of this amount of money ,for retiring the securities was temporarily out of the question. At the last minute a solution was reached, temporarily staying the matter, but fully protecting the city's interests, and the ordinance went into effect, the financial question subsequently reaching the adjustment contemplated by the ordinance. The settlement of this vexatious and long-pending question is already seen to have been highly beneficial to the city, both in a material and sentimental way. The passions engendered by the controversy are gradually disappearing. In the city's life a unity of feeling is in process of development which seemed impossible while the controversy subsisted, and the ordinance itself is working out in practice in a way to reflect great credit upon its devisors as will be seen in the facts set out in the preceding chapter. However, the influences of the old passions were visible during the remainder of the .Schreiber administration which finished the year 1921, exhibited in sympathy accorded to competition by private bus lines which were allowed to parallel and take over the best of the patronage of several of the important routes, notably that to West Toledo. The licenses granted to private busses by the Schreiber administration, which expired in the summer of 1922, were not renewed in the same way by the Brough administration. Their down-town connections were restricted to Erie Street, and no busses were allowed to parallel street car lines. The result was immediately visible in the increase of street railway revenues. A statement of the terms of the successful measure and of its operation to January 31, 1923, will be found in an appropriate part of the chapter on Public Utilities. CHAPTER XXIX PARKS AND PILEASURE RESORTS BEGINNING OF THE PARK SYSTEM-PUBLIC PARKS AND ACREAGE-BAY VIEW-BEATTY- CITY- COLLINS - HIGHLAND - JERMAIN - NAVARRE -- OTTAWA -- RAVINE - RIVERSIDE - STERLING WAITE - WALBRIDGE - THE ZOO - WILLYS - WILSON - THE BOULEVARDS - PLEASURE RESORTS - BOY SCOUTS RESERVATION. In the matter of public parks, the history of Toledo does not differ materially from that of other American cities. During the early years, when vacant lots and "commons" were abundant, when fresh air was plentiful, little thought was given to places for recreation and amusement. As the city grew buildings were erected on the vacant lots and the population became more and more congested. Then thoughtful citizens began to turn their attention to the establishment of parks and playgrounds, not only as places for rest and recreation, but also as conservators of the general health. Tracts of land were acquired in different parts of the city, sometimes by purchase, sometimes by donation, and in the spring of 1922 Toledo had fifteen public parks. These parks, with their acreage, as given in the Toledo newspapers during "Park Week" in June, 1922, were as follows :