The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-05-10
BUDGET SQUABBLE MAY
BE THROWN OUT OF COURT
tContinued from page IL

opposition developed that withdrew
II from consideration. There Is not a
branch of the city government
haven't been in contact with in litiga.
ton In the past 40 years. | know all
about that charter"
Mr.. Baker reiterated the contention
made Tuesday. that the school and H.
brary budgets are Independent OF any
limitation to which the other city
budgets may be subjected, and the
police taxes, he claimed, are really
levied by the state and hence are al
most exempt from limitation.
And II Is not for the corporation
counsel or any other city officer 70
say that they are illegal" he added.
Calls Special Acts illegal.
A question arose during the argu-
ments as to the right OF the legis-
lature, under the new constitution.
to pass special acts affecting cities.
Attorney Baker contended that II had
no such right and declared that the
water board bill and the act increas-
ing the bonding limit of the city of
Detroit from two to three per cent
are both Illegal Mr.. HRlly took the
opposite view, arguing that the leg
islatupe had the right to pass spe-
cial act where general act would
not apply. II Bakers contention
were true, be said, all the bonds au-
thorized by the estimators and the
common council this year in excess
Of 1912 900, the margin left under the
old two per cent limit, were illegal.
II was under the impression that
the new constitution prohibited spe-
cial legislation" broke in Judge Muir
fin.
Ills permitted within the limitar
ton have stated replied Mr.. Hal.
4 ly.
when was In the legislature
said the court, the passage OF
special acts was considered one OF
the greatest evils of the time, and,
IL / understand you, all efforts to
put stop to this evil have failed.
II the legislature can pass law In
creasing Detroit's bond limit what
Ii to prevent the passage OF a bill
re-creating q three-men board OF
works."
There would be nothing to pre-
vent that II, in the opinion Of the jul
dietary, local conditions were such
as to warrant such a change and a
general act would not apply"
"Then the effort to secure uniform
legislation in Michigan has failed?'
There never has been any idea ex
cept in the minds of a few people
that we were gaining uniformity by
adopting the home rule bill. Home
rule means lack OF uniformity. ina
IL. each city is left to govern itsel
!. within certain limitations, whici
constitute sort OF skeleton frame
II doesn't interfere with the power
Of any city to issue bonds, for In
stance, and the legislature still hal
power to increase the bonding limi
Y IL the conditions warrant, as wai
done I'm our case"
Mr.. Baker also contended that the
@<nendment to the home rule bill
Knitting piecemeal legislation wal
|egal.
Under the constitution, he argued
xas necessary for a city to have
neral charter revision before
~r,1Id Mace itself under the provi
rione Of the home rule act.
When the arguments were resum
"a before Judge Murfin, at S:SI
o'clock. Wednesday morning, Corpor
alton Counsel Hally launched into his
main argument in support OF his con
fcntfon that the home rule bill alb
eol,ifely. limits the tax levy Of all
cities In the state, including Detroit
Tax Limit Mandatory.
MI. Hally contended that the new
constitution makes IL mandatory on