Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-04-06
Trolley Measures Defeat
Due TO Powerful In
fIuenCe Of the STAR.
SENATOR WAKELEE IS
DEFIANT TO THE LAST
Senate's Decisive Action Has
Probably Disposed of
Matter Forever.

Powerful inf1uence-the Evening and
Morning sTARs-defeated ahe Lee-trol-
ley bill.
1t was another great victory for thase
pie against other powerful influence
corporate interests.
The trolley bill, which sought To
benefit the Public Service Corporation
and abridge the peoples rights. was
defeated in the Senate, as told In the
final edition of the EVENING STAR
yesterday by the decisive vote of L.
to 4. two senators refusing to vote.
To the people it was a most satiE-
factory outcome of the trolley COM
panys attempted unfairness toward
private property rights, but to the
sponsors of the bill, who were sanguina
of success to the last, and to the here
tofore powerful lobbyists, the defeat
was crushing.
Publicity killed the bill In exposing
its unfairness the STARS have been
alone. The fight has attracted State
wide attention. The success OF
the outcome shows an influence on
the part of these newspapers that Is
winning the admiration and apprecia-
tion of the public.
Senator Wakelee. of Bergen county.
was defiant to the last His defense OF
the bill was neither flattering to him
self nor to the interests which he has
represented. He expressed his in
difference to criticism of his course
and displayed his bias in face
OF the crushing defeat Of the bill by
changing his vote. with the avowed pur-
pose of moving its reconsideration. II
is doubtful il any of the members OF
the Legislature, House or Senate. would
have had the effrontery to SO publicly
faunt contempt for the popular Will
The Lee bill is dead. The public
thanks to publicity-can feel secure
that their rights regarding the grant
ing of trolley franchises are not to be
swept aside The traction act of sew
enteen years standing, requiring prop
erty owners consent, is not to be SO
ruthlessly overridden as the promoters
of the measure had hoped; yes. con-
fidently expected. A heated debate
preceded the death of the BILL
Senator Osborne, who was among the
fifteen opposed to the bill, prefaced the
discussion of its merits by explaining
effort to sway sentiment either one way
or the other. explaining that he pre-
sented the bill merely because he con-
sidered it his duty as a representative
from Essex to at least describe bill
fathered by an Assemblyman from the
same county.
Fight Long Franchises.
After the Osborne explanation Mr..
Mills took a shot at the bill. He said
his objection was based principally
upon the fact that it did not give the
abutting property a chance TO
express themselves on the question OF
whether the trolley tracks should or
should not be laid in front of their
doors He also took exception to the
provision allowing the franchise 70 seH
for fifty years, and held that twenty
years, in his opinion. would be plenty
long enough.
Mr.. Gebhardt continued the attack on
the measure by arguing that the fran
chise should not extend for more than
| twenty years. The point had been
raised, he said, that capital could not
I be secured on franchises that were
! limited to twenty years. But, he argued,
no such claim could be made with re-
gard TO this particular case, il view OF
! the fact that it was the Public Service
! Corporation which sought the privilege.
which stood in need of no financial
/ support TO carry through the undertake
/ ing proposed. He also declared that
4 the consent of the property owners
/ should be obtained by all means.
1t was Mr.. Silzer, however. who made
the most peppery attack upon the bill
and the influences urging its passage.
He said he had been approached by
| lobbyists in behalf of the bill. and he
agreed TO give the matter careful at
tention if they would have the measure
so altered as to make it applicable only
to first-class cities. But they refused
to make any such change in it's pro-
visions added Mr. Silzer, and stated
that similar extensions were contem-
1 plated by the corporation in Camden.
/ Plainfield and other places.
! 'I regard this as the boldest grab
since the Morris Canal abandonment
bill" exclaimed Mr.. Silzer ''If we
pass this measure we ought to re-
christen our State The state of Public
Service Corporation It's pretty nearlv
| time we looked after the interests ot
individuals in preference to those OF
the Public Service Corporation. This
corporation wants to gridiron this
State with its trolley tracks without
/ condescending to ask the permission
of the property-owners affected. To
my mind. it is the most vicious kind OF
! legislation
| "uhen this bill first came mp far
final passage In the House of Assembly
there were eighteen votes in the af1rns-
ative and fbirty-eighf against II. Yet
/ few days later thirty-four members
of that body voted for ii and twenty
four against ID. Why such decided
change: The lobbyists for the Public
service Corporation have been hanEins
around these corridors for weeks bsst-
tonholinE every member OF this body
and the House. II Is high time W.