The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1910-01-05
DETROIT Unite
FILES ANSWER n
HALLY SUIT
Technically Defendant lai1u
Joins With Bondholdszs n 49,
Court To Declare Thrse-C
Ordinance Ultra virsa
Declares Measure Uazsanona1
Would Rssalt = 1s.stien 4
Being 0psratsa a In

BY curious legal semi.actlon
Detroit United railway Il defon1 1,,'
with the city OF Detroit In ne HalSr }
ordinances suit pending in the UnllS< /
states circnit court. Al such u.
answer to the bill OF complaint u -
Guaranty Trust Co. Of New York. - \
ing Tor the ID. u. r.. bondholdern. ~ x
nied In the ONCE Of Clerk N. J. Cnxn
naugh. Wednesday morning. Tn ~,
swer OF p. J. NJ. Hally. In behalf q
the city government. was filed sons
time ago. b ~
Very naturally. the Detroit United
railway agrees with tic position taken
by its bondholders as to the ALLEGED
unfairness, illegality and confiscafory
effect OF this three-cent fare leefsla.
ton: 1t admits the allegations con.
tanned In the original bill. and even
goes farther. The cross-bill filed with
the ID. u. r.. answer asks that the
Hally ordinance be Cancelled. annuied.
declared void and also ultra wires ana
otherwise disposed of. II joins IN the
prayer for q permanent injunction %
prevent the city from attempting o.
put into effect the provisions OF thia
ordinance by which 1--WE tickets were
to be sold for 10 cents on all routes
for which portion OF the franchise
had expired.
The cross-bill Is booklet OF about
|126 pages. It recites all the alIega-
tons previously made, charges that
the rate Of fare In the ordinance u
unreasonable SO that the street rail-
ways could not be operated except ut
a loss, declares that the penalties pro-
vided are oneroJs and unreasonable.
that the provisions for extension 81
lines into territory TO be annexed Ia
the future are unree sonable and cal
culated to deny the d. u. r. the power
to make its Investments In accord With
its Judgment as TO their wisdom.
The difference between the tw0
bills, that OF the Guaranty Trust CO.
and the d. u. r., is that the former
alleges that the bondholders Will net
Get returns on their investment. wEiio|
the other asserts, that the stockholders
will. be ruined II the ordinance goes
into dffect.. &
Thsse are excerpts from the svayee
to the court:
That the said ordinance called
the HaiIy ordinance, the enforce
msnt OF which was restrained BY.
this court pending the proceed
ings, may be adjudged to conctf
tute an impairment of the obliga'
ton of the contracts and agree
ments existing between your ora
tor (the d. u. R.) and the City
OF Detroit. fixing the rates OF fare
to be charged for the carriage OF
passengers upon its several lines
OF street railways, and in contra
vention OF section 10. article one.
OF constitution OF the United
States, and that this court will DE-
clare that this ordinance Is ultra
wires: and that the only power
which the City of Detroit posses
ses Is of O contractual and not OF
q governmental or legislative char
acter I'm fixing rates OF fare.
That the said Hally ordinance
constitutes a cloud upon the right.
title and interest Of your orator In
it's lines of railway, which IL 10
entitled to have removed and to
declare and adjudge that the same
be cancelled and removed.
The said ordinance Is further
unreasonably onerous and Invalid
because IL interferes unreasonably
with the management, control and
direction OF the business AFFAIRS
and operation OF the lines of rail.
way; II deprives your orator OF
the right to designate points OF
transfer; requires It to furnish
transfers to and on lines operated
under separate contracts with said
city. and in violation of the terms
of said contracts; requires that
service as TO kind OF cars. num-
Der OF cars and the time between
each car shall be subject TO the
regulation OF the council.