South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1915-07-23
JITNEY BUS LAW
SENT TO COUNCIL
Drafts of Ordinance Mailed
Anonymously Believed to
Have Come from TraC-
ton Heads.

That the Chicago. South Bend &
Northern Indiana Traction Co. is in
fact as well as theory a party 10 the
suit OF the Terre Haute. Indianapolis
< Eastern Traction interests against
the jitney buses. Instituted before the
state public service commission, be-
came evident yesterday in "A telegram
from indianapolis announcing the
presence there at the hearing Of Atty.
w A. McInerny TO represent the local
concern. simultaneously, councilmen
OF South Bend were i'm receipt of a
new draft OF an ordinance for passage
hy the city. mailed anonymously, but
quite evidently the concept of the
traction Interests. McInernyr at IN
dianapOlis, according 10 the telegram.
makes the covert threat that unless
regulation by the commission proves
available as the result of the suit. no
more money will be invested IN trac-
ton lines. Practically all the big
traction companies of the state have
interpleaded with the Terre Haute pc
titiOners and are being heard by the
commission ia an effort TO put the
tftneys under state regulation; this
notwithstanding that the legislature
at the last session refused TO confer
such power upon the commission.
The presence of Atty McInerny at
Indianapolis on this case "a counsel
for the Northern Indiana, might be
something Of a surprise were the local
traction magnates to be taken serious
incident 20 their recent -denials as TO
their being interested in the Terre
Haute petition 4 knowledge Of the
petition and of the contents of the
convincing briefs Of counsel. calcu-
lated 10 convince the commission that
the legislature meant 20 empower il
90 regulate something that did not
exist at the time OF passage of the
commission law, however. has here
,Ofore been admitted The hearing
Of the Terre Haute petition is said TO
have been augmented" by the en-
trance of all the big traction interests
Into the case.
COuncilInen Are Puzzled.
COuncilmen in receipt of the anOny-
nous jitney ordinance are puzzled, an
ncipating its source. that such law
should be wanted, with the local trac-
ion interests taking part in the case
before the commission. Such, how
over, is the expression OF those who
have been interviewed on the subject
Perhaps it is concluded, that such is
10 be the type Of regulation to be
asked OF the commission, but more
likely what the traction company will
nb WlnllB 10 accept SnOuau the COLL
mission suit fail Attention is called
10 tho fact that one of the Murdoch
brothers recently purchased a half
million dollar home in Indianapolis,
probably with the money that the
local street railways have been run
hing behind, not only since the jitneys
faTne, but for years previous, prevent
ing the payment of any dividends.
Attention Is also called TO the fact
haf fha, FG4 To Iar-
he city liable for accidents Of jitney
buses, through accepting bonds from
them to protect the city. a responsible
ity that does not now exist. other
features Of the proposed jitney ordi-
nance follows:
Proposed Ordinance
A license fee of SIS a year for
the first vehicle, $40 for the second
and IS each for every other vehicle
in service.
An annual bond Of $1,000 for
payment of damages resulting
from accidents, etc.
Vehicles must adhere 10 the
principles of the present traffic or
dinance.
Must follow directions of patrons
instead of operating only on streets
where there are at present street
car tracks
Jitney bus drivers must not shout
TO patrons, but must wait until
they are applied 20 for service.
Fixes the maximum fee for each
passenger at % cents trip but
fails TO set forth a minimum fee.
Tn cases where long trips are
asked. the driver may ask a fee of
50 cents if the trip is one of
more than one mile.
Provides for q suspension of IL
CenSe if lights of a reasOna BILE
brightness are not displayed on
either side and ON the inside of
each vehicle.
Passengers of doubtful character
or intoxicated persons are not to
he accepted by jtney bus drivers
If i'm their opinion the objection
able ones are detrimental To the
security and peace of the other
passengers
Provides for fine not exceeding
500 If the provisions of the ordi-
nance are not adhered to. and a
Jail term of not exceeding 30 days.
con- the whole, 10 appears the pro-
posed ordinance is comparatively more
favorable TO the jitney bus drivers than
was the former one, aS II provides
Tor "a bond of only $1,000, which while
lab at the city's financial welfare.
Viu he welcomed 10y the iitney bus
man such n bond viii cost. If Sc
cured through a. security company -
standing. not more than $50 a year,
50 here it was expected that that bond
would not exceed $4,000, or nearly
$3.50 To the driver
However the drafters of the ordi-
nance failed evidently. 10 weigh the
results of $1,000 bond. Aside from
placing the city i'm "A responsible posi-
ton whenever a damage suit was in
sugatcd. 1t would allow the jitney
driver 90 withdraw from whatever
cases might arise. and allow the city
o. fight them alone III has been the
experience of American cities and
specially Indiana cities. that the