A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY 273 
board as fast as the votes could be taken, and against the 
earnest protests of the minority members. They openly 
charged that the ordinance had been drawn by, and for, 
and in the interests of the traction company. The charge 
was not denied. It also transpired that the Railroad Com- 
mittee, Councilman T. W. Jackson chairman, had, “with- 
out any right or authority” from the council, eliminated 
the twenty-year term limit to the franchise previously 
agreed upon. 
On June 13, 1904, the ordinance was before the East 
Orange City Council for final action. The council room 
was packed to suffocation. The exciting scenes of the pre- 
vious meeting were repeated. It was a repetition of the 
old, old story of the conflict between popular rights and 
the exercise of mercenary corporate power wielded by the 
few. For six hours, until nearly two o’clock in the morn- 
ing, the struggle went on. Neither the logic of facts, en- 
treaty nor appeal to protect the city availed. When the 
committee of 100 found it useless to consider the parkways 
matter, and that every indication pointed to an agreement 
having been made before the meeting to pass the ordinance 
on the corporation’s own terms, G. S. Hulbert, in speaking 
for the committee, after reminding the council that not 
a single organization representing public opinion had fa- 
vored the railroad, while the reverse was true as to the 
parkway, urged that the experience of other cities, in lim- 
iting franchises and securing fair compensation,, be con- 
sidered before action be taken. The official records, showing 
the suicidal policy of giving away a perpetual franchise, 
such as the one under consideration, were quoted from at 
length. Expert estimates were also given as to the present 
cash value of the Central avenue franchise, which a ma- 
jority of the city representatives (?) then evidently pro- 
posed to grant for the insignificant (compared with its 
value) sum of $1,000 per year. “Solemn protests” were en- 
tered by a number of citizens. About midnight a motion 
to postpone consideration of the subject until June 27 was 
defeated. The majority were manifestly determined to 
