Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1906-04-13
(H|(AG0RAhWAY VOTE.
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP
NOT WHOLLY DEFEATED
CITIZENS DECLARE FOR OWNER
SHIP BUT NOT IMMEDIATE
OPERATION OF ROADS.
VOTE ANALYZED.

Chicago. April 3.-Under the result
Of the city election held today. In which
the question of the municipal owner
ship of the street railways was the
vital issue. the city Of Chicago can pro-
coed to acquire and cfn'rUl the rail-
ways. but cannot operate thcm. At tho
same time the voters. while. declaring
that the city shall not proceed to oper-
ate the railroads, declared that as q
question of policy II would be desirable
for the city to do so.
Three propositions were submitted
to the voters. the first Of which was:
shall the city Of Chicago proceed To
operate street railways"
This proposition required 60 per cent
OF the total vote cast In order to be-
come effective. The total vote was APP
proximately 23l,l7l. or this number
the proposition to proceed TO the I'M
mediate operation Of the street rall-
ways secured hut l20.9ll votes, about
| l7.792 short Of the necessary three.
tfths.
The second proposition involved the
approval Of an ordinance previously
passed by the City Council pruyiduG
FOR the issue Ui strCc.-railway CCrtill'
Gates In the amount not to exceed Sih,'
O0O, 900 for the purchase. ownership AMI
maintenance OF the street railway
This was carried by llUUOS to l06,669
The third question. which was sim
ply on the question Of public policy
and has no legal CftCct whatever, is
shall the City Council proceed with
out delay to secure the municipal own
ershlp and operation OF the street rail
ways under the Mueller law, instead q
granting franchises to private com
panies?"
This proposition was carried By
lll.SG2 10 lUS,025
Mayor Dunno construed the passage
OF the s75,OOO.OOO certificates and pub
lie policy propositions as victory fol
municipal ownGsship. but expressed hi,
disappointment over the defeat Of tn,
proposition for municipal operation.
The election was one of the most In
teresting to Chicago voters that has
been held In many years. The yut,
was much larger than had been expect
ed. and all day the contest for an
against municipal ownership was Bit
terly fought. Party lines were large
lly ignored, and the eligibility Ul can
dlda;cs depended more upon their ntti
titude toward municipal operation U
street cars and high license for saloon
than upon their party records.
, or the thirty-iiye Aldermen who wCr
elected today, Mayor Dunno claims tina
nineteen are avOwed champions OF mu
Jnicipal ownership. and that he vii
have less difficulty In passing measure
relating to that doctrine through tn
City Council than heretofore. The fac
ton opposed to municipal OWNERSHIP
declares that they still hold the COntrO
OF the council.
Besides the question Of muniClpl
ownership, the issue was made in man
OF the AldermnniC contests Of whCthu
tie saloon licenses OF the city shall b
$500 or $1,000. The low figure was Il
existence up to March 5th. when In
City Council by close vote and aft,
a hard fight passed an ordinance rails
ing the amount to $1,000.
The liquor interests made a slrun
fight against every Alderman who Wa
mp for reelection who had voted 10
the license of $1,000. OF the fifteen me,
against whom they put their irnu
onCe. twelve were elected and three de-
fcated. or the nine Aldermen up lu
reelection who had voted for the con
tinuancc OF the $500 license, all wCr
, returned to their seats In the Council
There Is little danger, however that ia
high license will be repealed.