The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-05-10
BUDGET sQuABB[E
MAY Be THROWN
OUT Of COURT
With Arguments Finished, Judge
Murfn Intimates Strongly That It's
Moot Case With No Real
Issues Involved.
Attorney Baker Argues That In
Lieu Of Taxation" Means I'm Ad-
dition To Taxation"

Arguments in the suit brought Dy
President Milton A. McRae, OF IN"
Detroit Board of Commerce. as TAX
payer, on the relation OF the attor-
ney-general, TO sustain the validity CT
the city tax budget for 1911, were
completed before Judge Murfin In the
circuit court about l0:30 o'clock, We'd
Inesday morning Briefs were asked
for by Judge Murfin, and Attorney
Fred A. Baker, tor the relator prom
ised TO have his in the hands OF the
court by Saturday noon. Corporation
Counsel Hally was given a week from
that time in which TO make mis- reply.
Attorney Henry Ledyard will file a
brief on behalf OF the police depart
ment. IL is expected that the court
decision will be forthcoming very
promptly after the briefs are In.
At the conclusion OF the arguments.
Judge Murfin expressed himself as
very strongly OF the opinion that the
litigation amounts to nothing more
than a moot" case, that Is, case
involving no real Issue and started
for the purpose OF testing out In ad-
vance a question that might be raised
later. The court limited strongly that
II he holds this is such case, that
will end the litigation as far as his
court is concerned, In other words
the courts position is that PROPOSE
ton OF this kind cannot be submitted
in a mooted way.
Attorney Baker contended with
much emphasis that this Is not
moot" case In any sense or the word,
hut a lawful. legal procedure brought
by the encouragement OF the state
10 establish the validity of this years
tax levy, which had been questioned
by Mayor Thompson and Corporation
Counsel Hally.
Court Up In the Air.
Just what do you want me TO DO?
queried the court.
I'VE want you TO issue an in)uhc
ton restraining Mayor Thompson ana
MIR. Hally from proclaiming from the
house-tops that the proposed tax levy
for 1911, is illegal" was the reply.
isn't that pretty close to interier-
epce with the right Of free speech
mot at all. They are public om-
cials and they ought TO be stanolns
nv the action OF the common council
and the board OF estimates instead Oh
declaring the action OF those pooles
illegal
The court was forced to smile when
NJ Raker In the course OF his CLOS
ing argument, contended that In heu
- ,axationr means "in addition 10
toxation." Mr.. Hally contended, Win
rafarence to the sewer bonds, that the
omonnt raised by bonds and direct
taxes together for sewers IN any one
year could not exceed $2OO,OOo, or, IN
other words. that all sewer ponus ls-
sued in lieu of taxation must conie
within the 100000 limitation, the
amount raised by taxation also Deins
taken into consideration In arriNihs
ot the total. Mr.. Baker argued that
the CITY could levy taxes Tor sewers
mn 10 5000, 900 and could then ISSUE
bonds ''in addition to" the $Zoo'ooo VI
,,avas in any amount II saw Mt, unoer
authority of the city charter.
where do you get your authority
for constituting in lieu Of to mean IN
addition to-" the judge asked.
teotstators Short On Grammar.
"Why. your honor, legislators don
frame laws TO conform TO your non
or's idea of grammar or Mr. Hallys s.
hut that is clearly what the lesisia'
ture meant" ~
Mr.. Baker based his unusual inter
nretation on 40 years intimate con-
nection with charter and city iegis'
why. I'VE slept with the city char
tor for 40 years" he said. Back IN
1S75, I made a complete revision OF
f. and presented 1t to the legislature
IN the form of bill. but such strong
tcoptinued on page ~