The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-11-29
THOMPSON FRANCHISE WILL
NEVER BRING MUNICIPAL
OWNERSHIP, SAYS MOORE
Agreement To Arbitrate Value
of Railway Can't Be En-
forced, Lawyer Asserts.
CITES COURT DECISIONS.
Opponents of Mayors Measure
Busy Punching Big Holes
In Ordinance.

Already the advocates of municipal
ownership are beginning to punch big
holes In the ordinance, made public
Monday and which went TO the coun
eli Tuesday night, by which II is pro
posed TO put into effect the Thomp-
son street railway settlement plan
one OF the strongest arraignments
comes from George William Moore.
We have been repeatedly told.
said Mr.. Moore. that the Thompson
franchise would give the city the alb.
solute power to acquire the street car
lines In six months.
The proposed franchise Is now
published, and IL does not give the
city the power 10 acquire the street
car lines in six months or six years
Ct six hundred years.
The franchise provides that the
city may buy after the price has been
fixed by arbitration But the diff
Guilty is that the agreement to arbi.
rate cannot he enforced. This is an
elementary rule Of law laid down by
all the courts and repeatedly in Mich
igan. ! will cite two cases.
In McGunn VS. Hanlin. % Mich.
476, (4SD. Chief Justice Campbell in
speaking OF agreements 10 arbitrate
sLid Such agreements will not be
specifically enforced: nor will the
2rbitrators be compelled TO act
Again, in Chippewa Lumber Co.
VS.. Phoenix Insurance Co. 80 Mich,
116 G20), Chief Justice Grant said:-
orN. 1T
revoke the authority of the arbitrator
and this may be done notwithstand-
ing the agreement to arbitrate is
valid. Any person may violate the
most solemn contract he has made;
but he thereby becomes responsible
IL the injured party for such viola
ton
Can't Enforce Agreement.
These quotations establish the
fact that the agreement 10 arbitrate
cannot be enforced. And for refus
Ing 10 arbitrate the ID. L. II. might De
liable for the difference between the
contract price and the market value
q the plant, but as the arbitrators are
&c award and the city Is 10 pay the
Iaarket value the city could recover
nothing.
The provisions for the 81
fond and the $4,000 day penalty
are worthless because they do not be
come operative until after the arbitra-
tion is had and the city cannot en-
force the arbitration.
"The net result OF the Thompson
franchise Is this: The ID. L. X. gets
n franchise that II can enforce while
the city gets an option that IL cannot
enforce. Mayor Thompson cannot
blame the law or the lawyers. They
cannot change the nature of the ID.
u. r., and the people should not put
themselves at the mercy OF that or
ganiZation.
Then again, would the city, ii IL
could, have the price fixed in the way
pointed out in the Thompson fran
chise? That franchise provides that
the ID. L. r. shall appoint two arbitra-
tors, the city two, and. the four, the
fifth.
1.-The d. L. r. arbitrators will insist
that the d. U. X. appraisal which has
been made is correct; that is, that
the plant is worth s21,00O.000 The
city arbitrators will insist that the
city's appraisal which has been made,
worth $l1 900, 900 The final decision
will, therefore rest with one man who
will have the power TO take $l0,000,0O0
of the peoples money and hand II
over TO the ID. u. X.
"Will the CITY ever expose any man
TO such a temptation or it's public
treasury to such a danger?
And what of the franchise?
e.
the Codd-Hutchins franchise.
Future acquired territory must pay
double fares or rather the city fare
and five cents.
THE alleged option to buy extends
only to the present city limits.
The d. L. r. retains all its old
franchises but is exempt from all
taxes thereon. II is also exempt from
all license fees, express car fees. in
terurban car fees. rental fees, and all
other kinds OF fees. These items now
bring large yearly contributions to
the public treasury.
Bio Drain on Treasury.
THE people are TO pay out of the
city treasury the cost OF maintaining
foundations, etc. variously estimated
at S4O0. 600 to 81 100000 a -ear.
The franchise is TO continue until
Dec. e. 1924, and perhaps so long
thereafter as the city permits the
grantee to operate cars over the
streets
but WHY does Msyor Thompson in.
sist on thrusting l3.year franchise,
or any franchise az ALL between the
people and municipal ownership?
Why not let the people vote on the
question and IL they vote yes. buy or
condemn The plant.
THE Thompson plans object is
simply to defeat municipal ownership.
The only way to deal with the ID. U. II.
is first TO vote on the citys' right to
own and operate a street railway, APP
point a commission. OF five men. and
let the commission deal with the street
,ailway relative TO terms.
why should the city begin It's pur
chase of the street railway by giving
the ID. L. r. a l3-year lease Of the
property"
The printed ordinance has the
same fatal defects as the tentative
agreement as first announced" says
Justice ]. J. Jeffries In the first
place. the city. having no right 10
purchase. as We assume cannot exer-
else the option OF purchase as stated
an tho ordin.ucp IN ia had the right