The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1910-03-12

streets 1t Is also quite apparent by
implication. that should the city at
tempt To force down the company
throat in The present controversy
terms which il considers unreasonable
II will appeal to the courts for pro
lection
viii Be Used in Hally Case
Mr.. Baker says the book will be used
as brief In the Hally ordinance ease.
now pending in the United States
court. and lin other cases that may
come up He gives as his excuse 10,
publishing in book form for general
circulation, a brief written In the inter
est OF client. that the subject of
duration OF street grants and fran.
chlses is OF great Importance 10 the
legal profession and municipal authorl-
ties. and TO bankers. trust companies
and other investors. noe only in Michi
EGn, but also throughout the Tn ted
States and Canada.
The streets and highways OF the
city OF Detroit are not the property OF
the city, or Of the inhabitants OF the
city" says Mr.. Baker. They belong
To the general public that is, to the
people OF the state and their visitors
from other states and countries. So
tar as the municipal authorities have
ueen given any title To or power OF
control over the streets, the same Is
held in trust for the benefit OF the
General public, any ordinance or reso-
luton of the common council. which
would be detrimental TO The general
public. would be a breach of the
trust and Illegal and void.
For eighteen years saws Attor-
ney Baker. i'm his preface. 1t has been
assumed. and the impression has pre-
vailed I'm municipal, partisan and
newspaper circles in the city Of De
trOit. that when a street grant to "A
public service corporation expires by
its own limitation. the municipal
authorities have power TO destroy the
property of the grantee, by compel
ling il to stop operation and to re
move from the streets, or. by impOS
ing such rates of fare or prices Tor
the services rendered, as 10 amount
10 a practical destruction OF the prop
prty. and that this can be done with
out interference on the part of the
judiciary
MY object in bringing together the
authorities on which the question
depends. and to which the learned
Judges must resort in determining H..
is 10 show that the municipal authorl-
ties have no such arbitrary and con-
fscatory power.
When an original street grant Is
made by municipality to a public
service corporation, the local authOri-
ties are in position To impose such
terms and conditions as are satisfac-
tory to them. sbut the corporation
grantee. not having yet made any IN
vestment. is in position to reject a
grant that is not satisfactory 10 1t.
Says Situation Changes.
when grant expires after the
public improvement has been con
structed and perhaps has been in op-
Grafton for, many years, the situation
of the parties Is radically different
and they are not on an equal footing
obviously neither of them ought To
have any absolute power In the
premises: and the courts, ON a proper
presentation of the controversy. ought
10 exercise their jurisdiction, and
ought 10 have power To determine,
what under all the facts and circum
stances is Just and reasonable. In
writing this brief the effort has been
TO show that such il the law
1T must not, even for moment. be
assumed that my contention Is that a
A municipal street grant, with all its
terms and conditions and rates OF
fare, or prices, is perpetual Where
the grant is for limited period. the
terms and conditions and rates do ak
pire at the end OF the period: but the
right TO maintain and operate the
property does not expire. That right
continues, but ii must be exercised,
in the absence Of new agreement,
subject TO the legal obligation OF all
nublic service corporations TO perform
the service for which they are created.
for reasonable compensation. In that
sense the right to maintain and op-