And so by a vote of forty-eight to twenty the city council has passed an ordinance placing the streetcar system and the elevated lines of Chicago in the hands of nine trustees. The nine are to create a company operating these municipal systems until the year 1928. As a result of this the entire transportation system of Chicago is to become the property of the city.

The fate of this bill, however, depends upon the approval or the veto of the Mayor. It is the general belief that the Mayor will sign the measure. If, on the other hand, he acts contrarily and vetoes the ordinance, it is expected that it will be possible to gain the necessary two-thirds majority vote to make the law effective.

The aldermen who voted in favor of this measure are convinced that there will be no protests or opposition from the people. They are certain that the ordinance will succeed in the forthcoming referendum. These aldermen base 2their arguments on the contention that the general public is very little concerned over this matter. This was evident in the vacant gallery seats in the city council chamber at the time of the discussions on this bill.

They say that the public approves and gives tacit consent to what the city council passes. For the sake of avoiding an argument let us say that the public approves.....The truth of the matter is that only a few people know what the whole thing is about. To add to the confusion of the issue, suddenly numerous arrests have taken place, and investigations have been made of several aldermen charged with obtaining graft from the transportation companies. This will becloud the issue so much the more, since the people did not have the plan presented clearly to them, nor do they understand the benefits of having a municipal ownership of our city's street transportation systems. Experience shows that in order to gain any one's interest, it is necessary to present an issue from all sides and to prove its benefits. In this case there was no interest on the part of the public.

It might be worth while to ask ourselves how the voters will look at this matter, and whether such a city ordinance as passed by the aldermen will in the referendum be endorsed or defeated. It is certain that there will be very little opposition to the measure. Why? Because the people are convinced that if the proposed system fails to prove better, it certainly will not be worse than that now in effect. True, not every one is an expert or a mathematician able to collect data and statistics and to summarize all the pros and contras. But it must also be remembered that an American usually likes to consult his common sense and then act accordingly. His practical business sense informs him that a single unified management, a single system, must be better than several independent systems. He will see that the taking over of the street transportation system, the future construction of a Chicago subway by the city administration, and the building of new lines must of necessity correct that evil of our transportation system that is daily evident. The present system is characterized by lack of uniformity, lack of new cars, and neglect of the principal needs of the public. How often has one seen women and 4children faint in intolerably crowded streetcars? How often are passengers riding on the platform step exposed to serious injury by losing their footing or being brushed off by parked automobiles or wagons? Every one has undoubtedly been inconvenienced at one time or another by riding past his or her destination simply because it was impossible to squeeze out of the crowded streetcar. The system as now operated is responsible for people's arriving late to work. It causes them inconvenience on rainy days because the streetcars are so closely packed that it is impossible for them to take on any more passengers.

All these are, unfortunately, well-known facts. Hence there is no need to prove them. As a result there is one common question in the minds of all the people, namely: Is there any way to offset this evil? The only answer to that question lies in the municipalization of the transportation system in our city. This seems to be the only cure for such an evil. Public ownership grows more and more in popularity. Today the people see that the Federal Government is doing likewise with other branches of public utilities, that is, with railroads, steamship lines, and telegraph and telephone systems. It is rumored that our central government is seriously considering taking over the control of mines and perhaps 5even of factories. In general, the trend toward the socialization of institutions that are concerned with public welfare seems to gain momentum throughout the whole world. Consequently the people of Chicago do not protest and are apparently passive with respect to the proposed municipalization of our street transportation. We have seen, for instance,that the question of water meters, which is of much less importance, has aroused greater interest in the public than has the transportation question. This may be attributed to the fact that the former is more readily understood by all and directly affects the pocket of every resident of the city.

We repeat that the proposed transportation ordinance is not understood by the people. The only reason why there is no opposition to it is that the ordinance is covered up by the popular cloak of "socialization". It might be worth while to have the people look more deeply into the matter and investigate those who are to manage the system. Civic bodies and committees should demand that their aldermen present the matter clearly at their ward meetings. Readers should demand that the American newspapers explain and clarify the principles and the 6basic ideas of the project. The American press should not simply say that it is unquestionably a good traction bill without presenting any proof or arguments.

Every one will ask himself the question: Why is it that the companies failed to protest against the proposed purchase of their property by the city? On the contrary, rumors have it that money was passed out by these companies when they urged the aldermen to vote in favor of the ordinance. The citizens will ask why the city council failed to propose a project similar to the Federal Government's assumption of the administration of railroads and telegraph and telephone systems until the time when the present transportation system becomes the absolute property of the city. What is the purpose of these nine trustees, and what are their powers? What powers will still remain in the hands of the companies? To judge by the way the present ordinance reads, the companies would still have a great deal to say. They would be free to raise the fare at will, but the proposed ordinance fails to define clearly the duties and obligations of these companies.

Questions of that type can create an enormous interest among the voters. They 7can awaken so much caution in them that they will not fall prey to concealed trickery. Should this happen, then if the project proves to be unsatisfactory, the voters can reject it and bring in a new one, a project fairer and more beneficial to the public. It is, however, possible that the Mayor will not sign the measure, and the people, confronted by the investigations of the State's Attorney, will demand a revision of the whole project.

It is therefore well that State's Attorney Hoyne has taken the matter under consideration. He has used the power of subpoena and has summoned those suspected of bribery to appear in court and explain themselves before a grand jury. This might awaken caution among the citizens to such an extent that they might even demand a clear presentation of so important a change as that proposed in the city's transportation system.