The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1910-07-27
REFUsEs TO
PREVENT VOTE ON
MOORE PLAN
~ Municipal Ownership PROPOSE
Hon Il Legislation and That Pend
ine Passage, Attempt To Annul
II Is Premature.
o. VIII Be Carried To Supreme
Court by J. L. Hudson and
Others Interested.

and Rohnert, sitting together. Tues
Il lay noon. dismissed the petition Oh
\ 5uneph L. Hudson and others for
4 orohibitory mandamus to prevent the
\, submission OF the Moore municipal
5; ownership plan to the people. The
= docision came almost Immediately
latter the conclusion of the arguments
4 of counsel and was no surprise to Hin
+; ton e. Spalding and Alexis c. ANGEL.
attorneys for the petitioners, for the
\ Judges. by the questions that had been
= 1uterposed during the arguments, In
6icated plainly what their action would
4 Be. The court holds in substance
(! that It has no jurisdiction In the mat
Ter at this time.
I'm view OF the obvious Importance
Iof anrearly determination OF the ques-
); lions involved here we have decided
TO dispose of this petition at once
}eaid Judge Mandell In announcing the
4 decision.
"There are two questions in issue.
4 a. totxhe first. rs the home rule act
IConstftutionalY we are not prepared
Int this time to answer negatively. For
( the purposes of this proceeding and
without regard to the individual opin-
50ns that may be entertained as to GER
tain features Of the act. we hold that
1.-The act is constitutional.
1T remains, then, to be determined
whether the proposed amendment
jomounts to legislation. for II it does,
then we have no right to interfere. In
Tour opinion, the whole scheme calls for
THE adoption Of law by the people
lthemselves and must be called legis-
{1ation. In view of this conclusion the
proceeding brought here is premature.
Several very interesting questions
1ore involved, but they are important
NOW as political rather than legal
1Questions. II the Moore plan is not
adopted that will be the end OF the
matter. II 1t is adopted, then, and
then only, can the court be called upon
TO pass upon its constitutionality. 1t
f0ll0ws that the application for man
dnmus must be denied and an order
Will be entered accordingly"
Attorney Spalding asked that stay
be granted pending an application in
The supreme court for a writ of certior-
ari. but the request was denied. How
ever, Mr.. Spalding announced his in
1<enti0n to take the case to the higher
court at once.
tQf the Moore plan when court con-
xened. Tuesday morning, Mr.. Hally
4 Grsf took up the bonding feature, citing
Z authorities to show that 1t would be
lawful for the commission provided
1or tn the plan to issue mortgage
bonds beyond the city's general limit
~ indebtedness and that the restric-
ton placed by the constitution on the
Issuance OF bonds applies merely to
ordinary city debts and not to public
utilities.
Mr.. Hally cited other authorities in
defense of the principle of the refer
endum.
"0n the broad question OF the con-
etitutionality of this scheme we don't
\ care to hear anything more at this
time" interrupted Judge Mandell at
this point. There Is one question,
s however, that we would like to have
answered, and that is: Is II within the
province of this commission to issue
bonds In any amount IL may see 1t
Without first submitting the matter to
the people"
will get to that later" resumed
III. Hally. He then pointed out that
tne Moore plan Is not law as yet
ana Will not be until II has been ac-
cepted by three-fifths vote OF the
people and the court, he declared, had
40 more right to step In now and say
whether such a law would be constitu-
uonal. II passed than 1t would have to
Z interfere with the proceedings OF the
3 0tate legislature"
Now. there are just three questions
~ be determined here" Mr.. Hally con-
unuod- The first is, must there be a
general revision OF the charter before
this plan can be submitted TO the
*Df0ple? Secondly, does the home rule
Dill place limitation OH the issuance
~ bonds which will make them a
cnnrGe on the public utility in qucs.
ton? Thirdly, is the initiative uncon-
\ otftutional?
III the court answers anyone OF
These questions In the affirmative we
lose III they are answered in the
negative then the petitioners are out
- court and We win, and | contend
that there 10 nothing before the court
~ this time except these three pro-
Y positions. contend that IL the en-
tire home rule bill is not unconstitu-
uonal then there is nothing for the
oourt to pass on
Following a recess Judge Mandell
Y announced:
The court feels that Il should not
now pass on the imperfections of the
Moorc plan. II the scheme amounts
E - legislation, as Mr.. Hally contends,
We have no right TO consider Il. as n
may not be adopted. We would like
- hear from Mr.. Angel on this pro.
position"
Mr. Angel asked the privilege OF
cnoosirg his own line or argument
md was permitted TO go ahead. He
4eclared at the outset that he was nor
attacking the validity OF the initia.
Our contention" he said. 'is that
Fxe are bound TO interpret the scheme
- Il now stands"
Ar. Angel declared that the cases
cited BY Mr.. Hally ON the bonding
Evaporation referred only to special
11eosment bonds and did not apply
the bonds contemplated by the
loore plan. In answerfto a question
4udso Hosmer, M Angel con.
.If the bonding provision is bad
1cn the whole scheme is bad. be-
ouoe Il rests on the bonding pro
rioo. Tho cruz OF the situation IA
u eocu11ty franchise provided for in
oore plan, and therein Is the