Pierre weekly free press. (Pierre, S.D.) 1889-19??, 1915-03-25
The Case "Aoin" the Jitney.

From the Cincinnati Commercial Tribune.
AS a factor in transportation of passen-
gers the jltney bus is coming for perma-
nent stay. AT present 1t is looked upon as
an experiment by many of the public, with
relief by the straphangers and with dread
by the traction companies.
In that feeling of dread. thinly yelled
with smiles of Indifference, the certainty
OF the Jltney bus Is admitted by traction
magrltes. Legislatures, particularly thSt
of California, have enacted laws designed
on the face of the papers-in the interest
OF the public, but in face, in the interest
or the dominating traction companies
The commissioners of Oklahoma City at
tempted to put the jitneY bus out Of ex-
istence before 1t concluded its first trip.
They decreed that the jitney bus shall not
operate on any street "longitudinally' II
a traction car uses the same street. Lii
censes are within the discretion of the
commissioners and the owner Is required
TO Insure the safety of his passengers.
The Texas legislature has enacted that
the Jitney bus operator must take out a
license In the sum of $50, that he must be
responsible for any accident to any pas
senger and must give bond to the mayor
OF the city in sum of 5000 to make good"
the accident.
The council Of Denver requires each
1itney bus to have a franchise from the
city and the county under penalty Of
from 500 to $500, or Imprisonment not ex-
ceeding 80 days, or both, with each trip
constituting a separate offense. There are
other instances-and the query arises why
are the regulations. especially as to acct
dents, so severe against the j!tney bus and
so ien1ent when the traction companies
are considered?
The answer Is given in the following
from the Municipal Journal of February
Is. 1915:
~ but five iitney cars are allowed to
operate unlicensed and ~unregulated,
they can rob us of all our earnings and
eventually force us into bankruptcy"
Is what Charles II. Bosler, of Dayton,
Ohio. president of the Tulsa Street
X q yrn II Az, rn1 ~ L ala 49,
missioners in supper of a proposed
ordinance which would place a heavy
tax and stringent regulations on git
neys." The Tulsa Street Railway com
pany had an investment Of 10000. ac-
cording to Bosler, at Port Arthur, Tex,
Where the same company owns the
street railway system. Jitney cars
have reduced street car revenue almost
to nothing. Bosler said in Tulsa they
nave cut heavily into the revenue since
their advent. At Enid jitney cars are
making themselves a menace to the
street railway, also owned by the Ros-
Ter interests.
Ihere Is no city wherein the citizenship
wants TO reduce the earnings of the trac-
ton companies to nothing. There is no
desire to force them into bankruptcy
There Is. however. Il desire on the part
OF the citizenship for good and for adee
Quate service,a seat for a nickel and not
a nickel for the privilege of st~raphangine
the long continued rule of action by frae-
ton companies In all cities, with long term
irrevocable franchises, contempt for tha
PUBLIC comfort and sneers at public de-
hands. ~ oe-
| The severity OF the legislation directed
! against the jltney bus, an enterprisa a1ta
gether lawful and enterprising, is not IN
the interest Of the public, but in the in
terest OF the traction companies. The fact
Is made plain by the terms of the legisIa.
ton and scarcely needed the frank admis-
sion Of President Bosler to emphasiza TIC
intent and meaning of Legislators and
OF the three elements involved-the trac.
ton companies. 4he jitney bus and the citi-
traction companies only? Is straphane,neo
to continue simply because the ira rfin6
mpanie make money by it? Is the lit
1t completes with the traction Gonna ieso