The “Union Committee”(UC) collected petitions and organized meetings against the trolley ordinances, and also presented testimony before the city councils. It collected signatures from more than 7000 people living along proposed trolley routes, including almost all property holders on these streets. The hearing began on March 14 1892.

The arguments presented by the opposition against the streetcars were the following:

• Environmental—a group of artists presented a petition ‘against the disfiguration of the streets’. It said that the trolley would undermine the growing movement for urban beautification in Philadelphia. They obtained letters from prominent citizens where trolleys were already operating and pointed out that their noise was unendurable.

• They presented evidence of the dangers of the trolley. Newspaper reports on fall of some trolley wires that cause a small fire.

• It was also reported that electric streetcars in Boston had twice as many accidents per vehicle-mile than horse-cars.

• It was highlighted that no conditions were placed on the street-railway companies. In the view of the “Union Committee”(UC) the city of Philadelphia was granting the companies a highly profitable use of public property while demanding no compensation, despite the objectionable aspects of the new technology. No obligation was placed on them apart from a vague clause that they have to ensure the safety of the system. They city did not even retain a right to order the poles to be removed in case the city later decided on an alternative system.

• The opposition not only denounced the trolley but they also endorsed alternative systems—battery and underground conduits. They insisted that these were worth the higher cost. They frequently mentioned the conduit system in Budapest. The head engineer of the Edison Electric Company of Philadelphia provided expert testimony in favour of an underground conduit system, citing the success of Budapest.