[PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh Railways and City Duke it Out, 1912

[Edward H. Lybarger]

But it wasn't Byllesby in 1912.  They didn't come into the picture until
1924, when the Philadelphia Company changed hands again, this time to
Standard Gas & Electric.  In 1912, the owner was United Railways Investment
Company.  And that November 30 article doesn't show much cordiality on the
part of the mayor, which was the norm.

This early history is largely little-known, though we're assembling enough
contemporary news clippings to begin to wade through it and come to some
understanding of what actually happened.  My own knowledge is abysmal
through this time period.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Fred
Schneider
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:19 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Pittsburgh Railways and City Duke it Out, 1912


I too can copy things...note how cordial the relationship was in 1911
and 1912 between the City of Pittsburgh and its hometown trolley
company.   The fact that PRC had high level staff in San Francisco and
New York should be viewed in the light that it was operated by Byllsby
Management Company.
1912, November 16, Electric Railway Journal, pg 1037:  Rehabilitation
Work in Pittsburgh   In response to a request from the City Council of
Pittsburgh, Pa., for a statement from the Pittsburgh Railways of the
work it has done toward rehabilitating its system, J. D. Callery,
president of the company, has addressed a communication in part as
follows to the Council:
   “In March, 1912, I filed with you a budget totaling $5,330,000,
showing the various expenditures to be made during the term of possibly
three years, it being clearly understood – and we were let to believe by
your attitude that you were fully satisfied and would co-operate with us
in every way—that we should have your consent to re-route certain lines
to demonstrate to the public that such re-routing would be of benefit to
it, to the end that the service should be bettered.
   “We showed you our plans and asked for certain franchise rights which
in all did not cover a half mile of new track, but these franchises were
refused to us.  We finally consented to accept licenses revocable in one
year; these were granted, vetoed by the Mayor and his veto sustained by
you, in consequence of which this contemplated improvement to the
service could not be carried out.  Your requests for contributions
toward payment of expenses incurred by the elimination of grade
crossings have in every instance been complied with, and we believe we
have acted in good faith in every particular, notwithstanding the
endeavor of certain of your members to discredit our financial ability
and motives.
   “More than $2,000,000 of work of various kinds has been authorized by
the Pittsburgh Railways, and is being prosecuted to completion as
rapidly as it is possible to do so.  With the many municipal
improvements in progress in all important sections of the city, such as
the “hump” cut, Try Street crossing, River Road, Anderson Street and on
many other thoroughfares, together with our own reconstruction of
tracks, it is surprising that the schedules have been so well
maintained.”

1912, Nov. 30, Electric Railway Journal, Pg. 1124: Mayor Magee on Street
Railway Matters in Pittsburgh Mayor William A. Magee of Pittsburgh, has
addressed to the Council of that city a special message dealing with the
communication of James D. Callery, president of the Pittsburgh Railways,
sent to the Council under the date of Nov. 6, 1912, and referred to at
length in the ELECTRIC RAILWAY JOURNAL of Nov. 16, 1912, page 1037.  The
Mayor said in part:
   “It would seem to me, from the manner in which this communication
from the president of the company has been received, that it is the duty
of someone in authority to file a protest and to demand that some action
be taken expressive of the real attitude and the real interest of the
city in its behalf.  Nearly four years ago a survey was begun and
various attempts were made in the courts, in the Councils and before the
Railroad Commission to learn what the respective rights of the city and
the street railway company were to gain knowledge of the details of the
surface railway situation in Pittsburgh upon which some constructive
theory of its future treatment could be based.  This survey and study
has been completed two years.  My communication to the Council was dated
June 27, 11911.  After a period of one month the chairman of Council
arranged a meeting with the president of the Philadelphia Company, the
second vice-president of the Pittsburgh Railways and one of the counsel
from both companies at which demand was made that the city officials
meet with all officials of corresponding rank of the Pittsburgh
Railways.  Such a meeting was brought about Oct. 12, 1911.  That meeting
was attended by you and me and C. E. Bown, representing the city, and
Messrs. Reed, Callery, Smith and Tone, Pittsburgh; Patrick Calhoun, San
Francisco, and B. S. Guinness and M. B. Starring, New York, representing
the Railways company.  At this meeting, by way of opening the
discussion, I, at the request of your chairman, made a statement of the
city’s case against the company and recited substantially the facts and
reasons contained in my message to you of four months previously.  We
were entertained with a roseate picture of the intentions of the
Pittsburgh Railways with reference to its future policy.
   “After several extensions of time an indefinite postponement was
suggested and tacitly agreed to and nothing more was heard of the
subject until March 20, 1912, nine months after the subject had been
submitted to you by me.  The communication then received came from one
of the subordinates, and informed you that in connection with the
improvements expected to be carried out by this company during the
coming three or four years, we desire to submit to you the following
details . . . .’ The details consisted of the recital of the investment
of $5,875,000 in power, carhouse shops, equipment, track reconstruction
and repairs.  There was nothing said about the expenditure which was to
be made in a comprehensive scheme of rehabilitation.  There was nothing
said about improved service; of experimenting in improved looping and
routing; of extending the transfer privileges; of improving the
organization and management of the system; of the conditions in relation
to compensation, street paving, street repair and street cleaning
contained in the old charters and ordinances; nothing was said about
reorganizing the corporation on a sound financial basis.
   “Not only have the representatives of the company ignored the rights
and claims of the city of Pittsburgh during the last year and a half,
but the representatives of the city of Pittsburgh itself have designedly
or accidentally overlooked them.  The policy of investing $2,000,000 per
year in the system of the Pittsburgh Railways is no concession to the
demands of the city.  The company is bound in some manner to keep its
property moving.  It should not attempt to make a virtue of a
necessity.  From the point of view of the city and the patrons of the
company, these piecemeal improvements really tend to their detriment.
An annual deficit in excess of $1,300,000 for two and perhaps the last
three years is bound to be continued under the present policy of
management of the company.  I cannot look upon these annual deficits
with indifference because they are constantly capitalized and add still
further fixed charges.  In my humble judgment the City Council should
assume the responsibility of considering this question upon its merits
from the point of view of the city at large and all its people, no
longer expecting it in some inscrutable way to adjust itself.