The Detroit times., 1911-05-25
BUDGET CASE IS
KICKED out OF
COURT
Judge Murfn Rules That Issues
Raised Are Purely Academic and
That He Has No Authority To
Pass on Them.
Injunction To Muzzle Mayor and
Corporation Counsel Denied as Vio-
lating Free Speech Principle.

Holding that the court has no juris-
diction to pass on purely academic Is
sues, Judge Murfn, OF the Wayne CIR
cult court, In a decision handed down.
Thursday morning, In the tax budget
suit, refuses to issue an injunction
restraining Mayor Thompson and
Corporation Counsel Hally from de-
claring the tax budget approved by the
board OF estimates and the common
council illegal, or to pass on the vari-
Gus questions raised. In pther words,
- the case is thrown Out OF court
This means that the city Is in the
same position 1t was before the case
was started by Milton A. McRae, pres
ident Of the Board Of Commerce, on
the relation Of the attorney general,
and that the same doubt exists as to
Legality of the impending tax levy for
1911. There seems to be nothing left
for the board OF assessors to do but
proceed to spread the tax levy on the
rolls and take chances on the levy
being sustained by the courts II some
taxpayer sees fit to test its legality
later.
Judge Murfin. in the opinion. which
covers nine typewritten pages, after
says In part:
So far as Is concerned the
prayer that the mayor and cor
poration counsel be restrained
from giving out or proclaiming
that the tax levy and bond issues
are illegal, 1t Is obvious, almost
without the citation Of authori-
ties, that the court cannot grant
any such relief. The right OF free
speech held by English-speaking
people before the adoption even
OF the federal constitution, has D..
been uniformly throughout this
country protected in every way.
The fundamental law OF our own
state expressly provides that
every person may freely speak.
write and publish his sentiments
on all subjects, being responsible
for the abuse OF such right, and
no law shall be passed to restrain
or abridge the liberty OF speech-
So far as the other and more
serioua questions are concerned. -
the court IL confronted at the out
set with the inquiry as to whether
case Is presented authorizing
the court to make such determin-
ations as the relator requests. All
of the counsel in the case in their
oral arguments and In their briefs
urge upon the court the desira-
bility OF a decision. None Of the
counsel gives the court much as
distance on the question OF Juris-
diction. Nevertheless, 1t is an
essential question for determine
ton.
II may be said without fear Of
successful contradiction that the
settled, well-understood law OF
this country Is that courts will not
pass upon questions merely
academic. The opinion Of q court
is merely its reasoning In reach
Ing conclusion In controverted
question, where adverse interests
are claimed and are represented,
but no case can be found where
the court has permitted the
question to be put as to what
would the decision be were the
controversy presented to the
court on q given state OF facts.
In q proper proceeding, the par
ticular action or non-action may
be INQUIRED into by the court and
n determination reached. Until
that time, however, this court has
no authority to consider the case,
much less to give an opinion upon
the law of the case. The court
has no power to advise the
municipality or any Of its officers
or departments as to whether the
opinion OF the corporation coun-
sci was right or wrong, nor has II
the power, much less the disposi-
tion.. to render voluntary opin-
ion ON academic questions, no
matter how interesting or how
important those questions may
appear to be.
II necessarily follows from
these observations that the court
is firmly OF the opinion that 1t
has no Jurisdiction to render an
opinion upon the twelve ques-
tions asked, and. under the cir
cumstances, obviously, they are
not considered.