The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-07-07
PINGREE'S PLAN KILLED
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT
OWN COMMON CARRIERS.
Features Of the Decision of the state
Supreme Court Against the Detroit
Street-Railway Commission.

ship law to-day. declaring it to be uncon-
stitutional in a unanimous opinion. This
act authorized the city of Detroit 10 con-
struct. acquire, maintain and operate street
railways and to construct extentions there
of.
Although the court reserves the question
whether the city, under any circumstances,
may build or buy lines of street railway in
its streets, all lying within the city limits,
and lease them to other parties to operate,
the trend of the opinion is taken to be
against such ownership.
The opinion was written by Justice Moore
and unanimously concurred in. 1t is most
comprehensive, covering twenty-five type
written pages, and although numerous ques-
tons were raised by counsel the only one
discussed was whether the act was contrary
to the provision of the Constitution which
| prohibits the State from being "a party to
or interested in any work of internal i'm
| provement or engaged in carrying on such
work, except in the expenditure of grants
| to the State of land or other property
The opinion states that the case is of vast
| Importance because of the magnitude of the
| interests involved, and because the law pro-
| poses an entirely new departure in this
| country in relation to ownership and man.
| agement of one of the most important busi-
| ness interests.
The action of Michigan and other States
| in the line of engaging in the work OF inter-
| nal improvements in an early day, which re-
| suited in the piling up OF vast indebtedness
smo the OF c EMS the bass foy
| the conclusion that having all their Glitter
experience with internal improvements
| stitution in 1850, the people of Michigan re-
| solved 20 put 1t out of the power OF the
legislature to again involve them in ex-
travagant projects
Fifteen years later the tendency toward
internal improvements at the expense OF
voting aid to railroads, but attention is
called to the fact that the Supreme Court
held that the construction or a raliroa aa
meaning of the Constitution, and that what
the State could not do It could not author
This has been the law In Michigan for more
dorses Judge Cooley's assertion that in plac-
Ing this prohibition in the Constitution the
people meant to erect such effectual barriers
that if the temptation to incur burdensome
taxation In order to accomplish public i'm
ficting injury upon the credit and prosperity
of the State should not be within the reach
of the authorities
ANSWERS TO CONVENTIONS.
In reply to the contention that it is as
competent to authorize a city to and
operate a street railway as to acquire and
maintain public park, water works. light
ing plant or fire department, to construct
drains or build sewers, the court says that
while 1t is difficult to draw the line as TO
| what a municipality may or may not prop
erly do yet all the things mentioned, ex-
cept the ownership and operation of street
| railways, are authorized and defended as
proper exercise OF police power.
The court answers the claim that if the
city cannot own and operate street railway
| pave a street or build sewer by calling at
tention TO express consti -utional provisions
which give TO townships the control Of high
| ways and to cities and villages the control
| use.
1t having been repeatedly held that a
| steam railway is an internal Improvement
| within the meaning of the Constitution, the
| court proceeded TO determine whether
street railway comes within this designa-
| ton, counsel for the Street-railway Commits
| sion having contended that the latter are in
tiles of local character and are not inter-
nal improvements. In this connection 1t was
| shown that when the reasons for placing the
provision relative to internal improvements
| In the Constitution arose the railroads were
imperfect, and that the value of all the in
| State was less than S5,00o,o00.
This was contrasted with the condition
and equipment of the Detroit street-railway
to pay upwards of 100000. and the court
| declares that Ito say that the system of
railroads as it existed in 1850 constituted
internal improvements within the meaning
| OF the Constitution and that the system Of
| roads existing in Detroit which is to be
nes e evsr p iber rnS a ana
| mission is allowed TO make agreements in
relation to the exchange of the tickets and
| provements within the meaning Of the Con-
| stitution is to deny to words in common
| use their ordinary and accepted meaning"
fhe the
may authorize the city of Detroit to enter
into the proposed arrangement 1t may au-
| thorize any other municipality to do so, and
| by concert of action between the various
| municipalities they may cover the State
| with means of rapid transit owned and
| operated by municipalities. This would en-
| able the State TO do, by means Of agencies
| called into being by itself, what II cannot
| itself do and what the Constitution forbids
| it doing"
One of the most emphatic claims of the
| friends of the law was that the Constitution
| should be given a construction in keeping
+; with the spirit of the age. The opinion says
that this argument is more properly adj
| dressed to the people than to the courts
| Constitutions. the opinion says, do not
change as public opinion changes. Their pro-
visions do mot mean be thing to-day and
| ton is the most solemn declaration of the
| people of the powers of the State. 1t was
that purpose. and it had their approval at
| the polls. The provisions of the Constitution
! involved in this controversy have been in
y,
| were construed along the lines of this de-
| cision nearly thirty years ago. The people
| Of the State have not indicated in the way
| provided by the organic law any dissatisfac-
| ton with these provisions The court can
not substitute their judgment of what the
| Constitution ought to be for what the people
| have made 1t. Its provisions must remain
and control until the people see fit to change
them In the way provided by the Constitu-
| ton ITSELF
In conclusion the court says it is not nee
| essary to discuss the serious question of
whether commission could be authorized
to buy from s. 600 TO $1S,00O000 worth of
property and subject the city of Detroit TO
the liability growing out of the operation
of upwards of one hundred miles of electric
| street railways without giving the citizens
and taxpayers an opportunity TO say
| whether they wanted to purchase and oper-
| ate such a business or not. This lack of
| necessity is due TO the conclusion that the
law is unconstitutional.
| The court declares that the law being un-
constitutional, there is no such office as the
| Detroit Street-railway Commission" that
| Governor Pingree and his fellowcommis-
sioners have no title thereto, and that a
Judgment Of custer should be entered
Surprise to Governor Pingree.
Detroit Special.