The Detroit times., 1911-01-12
DUR. LOSES AGAIN
IN CHEAP FARE CASE
Judge Phelan Rules That Working
mems Tickets go" On Stretch Of
Track Out Grand River-Ave.

Juubc Tucidut III ucSioioh h""@
ed down Thursday morning. finds the
Detroit United railway guilty OF vio-
lating the ordinance, requiring II 10
sell workingmens tickets within the
specified hours, on the several com
plants filed against II, for refusing
to sell tickets on Grand Hver'ave.,
beyond the boulevard. The company
is given 10 days in which to comply
with the ordinance, sentence being
withheld in the meantime. The case
Is parallel with the Fairview case,
which the supreme court recently de-
cided In favor OF the city.
Under the decision, the ID. u. *.
is obliged, during the hours workinS.
mems tickets are good, 10 carry pas
sengers from the westerly city limits
out Grand Riyer-ave. to the easter
ly city limits out Jeffersonave., for
"a single fare.
The court assails the position as
sumed by the ID. Z. X. in sarcastic
manner.
For two years defendant has been
resisting the effect of this legislation
looking TO a greater and more pros
porous Detroit and 10 what would
be its more profitable receipts says
the opinion. Defendant seems TO
overlook the fact that IL Is a public
servitor in the carrying on OF the
business OF which IL has by years OF
strenuous activity succeeded in secur-
ing monopoly. II seemingly over
looks the fact that, even though II
has a monopoly OF carrying the pub
lie through the streets OF the city
of Detroit, ii owes greater duty to
the city than IL does elsewhere, for
upon the citizens OF Detroit II de-
ponds for money with which to carry
on it's business and keep It's rolling
stock and other properties in good
condition, all OF which may tend TO
prevent the stranger within our
gates from asking, when viewing some
of its cars, How many arks did Noah
launch and how came Detroit to get
them ALP leaving others to wonder
If the multitude hanging on behind
are flying from another flood
This, OF course. is a question of
policy of defendant, with which this
court has nothing to do except as II
appears patent to all OF its customers.
Ii knows which policy pays best, a
polio of Cancellation to a patient pub
IL vi putty VI Nlll WHiCn
there is not one shred OF common
sense), TO every remedial legislative
measure.
But the question OF whether leg
islative provision, duly evidenced by
an order duly accepted by defendants
q -ignors, wherein the policy Is de.
liberately adopted of treating the
street car lines between terminals
within the city limits as a unit for
transportation purposes, Is a strictly
judicial question. 1t has been so
considered by this court, and is again
held to be one properly enforceable in
I S pre- 'eeding an, In the cases at
bar. The ordinance qualified any right
defendant has to operate street cars
in the desi mated streets used by them
In the city OF Detroi,, and the defen-
dant Is common carrier for hire OPP
Grating in part under this ordinance
which was duly &C, ,pted for Il by its
assignors, the Detroit City railway, In
one case, and the Detroit Citizens
Street railway In the other, ard held
to be bound to give transportation.
curing the hours mentioned i'm the
ordinance, from the westerly limits
of the city on the Grand River-ave.
line. to the easterly city limits, the
liter road. so called, on the Jeffer-
son-ave line"
Judge Phelan overrules all the legal
objections raised by the defendant.
which were substantially the same as
raised in the Fairview, case-holding
that they are well founded and not
sufficient to excuse the fiagrant and
continuous violation " the ordinance.
In short. he finds that the company Is
| not warranted in law In annuling the
agreement entered into with the city
many years ago. He adds:
"All this legislation, or contract.
call 1t by any name you will-(what's
in name, for that which we call a
rose by any other name would smell
as sweet Is not unilateral, but is BIZ
lateral, and as such is enforceable any
where in any competent court"