The Detroit times., 1911-03-01
coMMUNlcATIoNs.


me Honorable the Common Council.
MISUNDERSTANDING the past week
newspapers informed US. and we
80 since had the news confirmed.
Act through the LEGISLATURE to
ond the Grade Separation Act In
eh = way that the decision Of the
nrome Court would be set aside.
~ law, az II stood In 1893. re-
ro1 the City TO file It's petition In
~ Recorders Court before the work
- started This became q physical
feasibility In the first case. which
- woodward avenue. the AUDITING
<nDorty owners requested the City
80 o. try the case until such time as
70 work was actually done. and IL
same apparent to every one that
n<lco could be better accomplished
TX was done than Il could be by
@nnsing at what it's condition might
I'D before the work was started. How
~. IN order 10 make that situation
~. 90 that the City would not be
tod legally In position OF one
did not warrant. the Legislature
1903 was asked. and did pass an
>ndment to the law. permitting the
naGes to be ascertained after the
ork was finished
~ vas further apparent that at
80 II was necessary as a matter or
rnomic construction. to do more
~ one street at a time. The SUI
me Court had held that we were
m permitted 70 do more than one
Mnof at a time. and the law I'm 1903
- amended % that more than one
&oot could be done at time. In
4oe two respects, and In these two
NJ. was the law changed. Whatever
- the measure OF damages under the
~ Of 1899. In the measure OF dam
- today, and that measure OF dam
- has been defined by the Supreme
"a became apparent In the trial or
80 cases that considerable OF a
|Dooition TO be greedy was mani
11<1ng itself upon the part OF many
4 the AUDITING property owners, and
Decame necessary TO get from the
1ff an interpretation OF the mean
% the law. so that the extent or
liability which Detroit had as
Nd In its contract, might for all
Il required six different trips to
8upreme Court OF the State OF
1hIgnn. These appeals to the SUI
one Court were taken by Corpora
Council Hally on behalf OF the
~ Of Detroit. And II was only after
Mt being ordered by the Supreme
&frt itrelf--and after celebrating
y period OF over n year upon the
40 that were presented. that the
fome Court handed down It's de-
~ defining the extent OF DAMAGES
could be recovered under this
<ufe the decision being of such n
rncter thst. compared with the In
r>fafiop that had been given To II
8 locally. it resulted I'm the saving
nny hundreds OF thousands Of dol
~ the taxpayers OF this commun-
n defined and fixed tho liability
reaoonslhtlity ~ Detroit In It's
and a. have all the work and all
labor that has been given 20 this
&cf 90 for naught IN order that
who claim TO suffer DAMAGES.
w1c. In many Instances. are really
He'd may 90 AZ FAR as their own
~ Wills Will permit them 70 go I'm
II upon the CITY treasury 20 re-
~ them. would be pubiic ca
Ard an outrage on decencv.
&nfof0re ask your Honorable podv
- fhe recommending resolution.
ne similar resolution. and Puthor-
1uf Committee fr Grade Senara-
~ ~ ureeent ~ the hubble hear
Tnnrirr on Nsrch sth. 70 lend
&1ce and ~ influence I'm protest
n <hle vicious measure
Ef><necffuliv
WA H. THOMPSON
~ ~ Mayor
>nn "A mn WINS irtrciured nv
1fIDler NIB sen. 1911. dessenated
<1o nm no. 1ke. entitled. "A piii
n>rfions IN ami ts ~ Act M.
1 Public Acts OF 1893. entitled
- u<ovi6r separate grades Tor
onG roblIr hirhwevs ard
.&rr> rnilroads fntersect snch
mm| Hlxhwavf - ofoendef Nv
ia a. the Public Arts ~ 1895
n1lnr sections <,eo and fstf
NM TAwr ~ 1877. ~ rmend-
VI. res % fre ppb,ic Acts ~
or1 Iun~ 2 1909" which ssid
nnx proo<~fv which NAV