The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1910-09-30


oompel the d. U. r. to sell and nc
1 vogkingmen's tickets In the Fair
~ district and to charge but one
- from any point within the old
N limits out to this district has been
nesically won by the decision of the
DFome court reafirming the convic-
~ At the company In the recorder
NIT for violation OF the working
|ou'o ticket ordinance.
While the ID. u. r. officials have
~ yet seen copy OF the decision,
Doioent Jere c. Hutchins says that.
Ne substance OF 1t has been cor
)ctly reported In the newspapers. the
Dmpany will take an appeal to the
the ground that the decision vio-
Nd the federal constitution In the
01or OF contracts. But inasmuch as
- Michigan court holds that the case
~ not Involve an interference with
~ vested right or contract OF the
Gmpany. but revolves itself into Q
Doot1on of the construction OF an
I1Inunce,' II Is extremely doubtful
1Dthor the company would gain any
1&nG BY IN appeal, except more de-
The decision eliminates complete
any question raised by the COM
~ under the federal constitution,
3kch would weaken any appeal
no BY the company to the supreme
nrt" says Judge Phelan. The
4~mo court Of the United States,
construing statutes and ordinances
4 state or city. will follow the rub
IA1A A<x~ A,x -
1< tho state"
The chances are, therefore, that.
<<0u though the company should APP
~ Il Will lose out In the end. and
that case It will be pretty costly
1Ineeo. For months past many OF
~ patr0ns In the Fairview district
= 40 been paying their extra nickels
10er protest and keeping a careful
Eoount Of all the contributions"
(Eh view to bringing suit for the
4covory OF this money. They have
n &11o this on the advice Of Corpora
~ Counsel Hally and there are
eGably hundred of these people.
~ the event OF an appeal, these
g1tD probably would be withheld, but
- suffering patrons would continue
keep account of the nickels pend
5.44 the decision of the tribunal in
oehtugt0n and they would be joined
X IA = number Of others.
Aside from these threatened suits
H. number of damage suits are likely
ID ~ forthcoming sooner or later, the
4 1tutlns being the patrons who have
80 thrown on cars for refusing to
, ~ the nickel demanded by the con-
Dctcr.
That great pressure will be
thought to bear on the company to
0oce II 70 surrender IL regarded as
4t>ain- The manufacturers and the
pol estate men of the district are
D1of to have the matter settled and
the d. u. r. persists In taking the
oDo TO washington II il going to
cNr the enmity OF some powerful
tcrests whose support might be
coded some time.
On the other hand, the decision Is
oGnxded A very far reaching in it's
pcto on other phases of the local
yoef car situation. In the opinion
some legal minds. the company
- be compelled. under the doc
80 laid down, to give universal
nnferS. Corporation Counsel Hally
- asked for an opinion on this
ooo Of the case, but was not pre-
1x14 70 give one at this time.
That IL q bridge that will have to
ID crossed later" he said.
The Detroit United Railway, in
Nd Instance, was prosecuted for vio-
11ng an ordinance providing that the
oeroit City Railway, its successors
|014 aseigns, should furnish working
14n'o tickets within the city limits.
The concessions contained in this
T0inance were granted by the COM
D11v IN return for extensions and
S Aer concessions by the city. The
oxolt City Railway line, at the time
5 19 ordinance was passed, ended at
- Hlliott-ave., ON Jeferson-ave. Sub
<19Quentiy franchises were granted to
4 IGeront companies by the village of
4 0irview and the township of Crosse
ointe. These different companies
1900, assigned their rights to the
)etroit United Railway, as did like
Nloe the Detroit City Railway. The
4lcket ordinance provided for the rate
~ bare within the city limits ON all
3rro operated by the Detroit City
11lway, its successors and assigns.
q. The contention OF the ID. u. X. was
+ [4ot II operated the lines In Fair
<<boW under the separate franchis
tEonted by the village OF Fairview
&n4 the township OF Crosse Pointe.
+ ~ not by virtue OF any franchise OF
40 city OF Detroit. and, therefore,
(. AT II was beyond the power of the
~ Of Detroit to impose any regula-
~ in regard to fares, that, II the
NV attempted to do so. IL violated
pnovisicns OF the United States
1<ption relative to the impair
~ contracts and the taking OF
NJ without compensation.
~ Fheian held that the ID IT.
~ the successor and assign OF
40 railways. and that the or.
~ ~ question was special con.
&otuoen the Detroit City Rail-
M The city OF Detroit, which
Io6 that Ia the event OF the De-
[nty Railway operating any cars
No o(hor lines within the city
11 cho< the new fare. that Is,
+<1c<or quarter, should apply upon
6nch nnto and cars. He also held
~ ~ Do>rolf City Railway, In ac-
(1nG ne ordinance, contemplated
DE po1or roposed In the legis-
- % enlarge the city limits was
Ut q The contract, and that this
1l1l oontroct superseded and made
Ne 6fRoront franchiDes granted
~ Village q TAirview and the
NJ q 0roooo Potnte insofar as
~ Different o. contrary 20 the
4K~ <~>~-~.~1~1 <n.~H<~~~<> 1900