The Detroit times., 1912-10-03
Ho Chance to Succeed in View
Of Court Ruling in Rem
sissY. tai Suit
MUNICIPALITY CAN'T
FIX ARBITRARY TERMS
This Decision Knocks Stuiling
Out of Our Case" Says
- Lawson

||| III NuC bhlNCu Glatco
curt can see no reason for It's
tontinuance."
This statement was made by Cor
oofation Counsel Lawson TO The
IIInes, Wednesday. when asked what
4|[tct the courts decision that the
(itg cannot fix an arbitrary rental
|ot fhe streets where franchises have
@<UIred would have on the Hally
The underlying principle is the
same in both cases." continued Mr..
I Lawson. 'The city attempts 10 i'm
\ posela condition on the ID. u. r. for
It's y'continued occupation of the
streets IL makes no difference
a whether the city insists on rental
or q lower fate OF fare. The opinion
~ q smashing blow for the Hally or
dinance.
''PersonaIly. / know OF no reason
why, the city should proceed with
the, HalIy ordinance case in The
Omitted States district court. pre-
sumo that the Fort-st. rental case
VIII be appealed TO the United
States supreme court. If II Is ap-
pealed we may reasonably expect a
decision from the court in two years.
& If we proceed with the Hally ordi-
nance case we will not get decision
from the supreme court short Of four
years. The principle would be pass
i "a on In the FOREST case long before
+ we got a decision in the Hally case,
and In the meantime there would be
the expense OF the latter.
.'If the decision of the state su-
- 20 thnan
lines affected by the Hally ordinance
we could oust the company from the
streets but We couldn't say, as we
Undertake TO say in the Hally ordi-
+ nance, that they must carry passen-
gers for three cents II they run their
cars"
Are you considering the adyisa-
biiity OF dropping the Hally case?"
\ ne was asked. r- 49,
"As i said, can see no reason for
.itssacontipnance, but before ! drop
.it would want to consult with Mr..
Haily rLucking and the mayor
and get-their ideas"
n.rzgs-M2.-Lawson says. the deci-
sion 4 of the state supreme court In
the Fort-st. case applies with equal
force TO the Hally ordinance, one of
. thes most carefully prepared measures
. Tor the solution of Detroit's street
car Ills, prepared by Mayor Thomp-
son and p. ]. NJ, Hally, then -corpor- |
alton counsel, becomes absolutely |
void and useless.
The plan was originally suggested |
hy William III. Maybury, former COM
missioner OF public works, who at that |
time was one or Thompson's political
advisers. Franchises were expiring /
but the company continued TO charge
the regular rate OF fare when the
city was ciamcring for a three-cent
rate. Quoth Mr.. Maybury:
I've own the streets, the company I
n our tenant, why not say TO the
d. II. r.: IL you operate cars over
those portions of the lines where |
franchise rights have expired You |
must carry passengers for three cents [
on those portions and the remainder |
OF the Inca"
The plan looked so feasible and |
Mr. Hally was so impressed with its |
lerality that Thompson Immediately |
6eixed on IL for battle cry in his
ca1npaigna Long and loudly did he
hespeak the merits OF the Hally or
1Inahce, so called because Mr.. Hally
utf ..it In form and put the seal OF
1I1 legal Judgment on IL.
IEe ordinance was frequently Illus
<r1Isd by the mayor and Hally by a
<r/rbarison TO a house owned by
n&1 who raised the rent and said TO
his ienant: PAY or get out" II
/1|Ed simple as rolling OF log, bur
.<-ording to the decision OF tho
.|&<e supreme court the same princi-
1|& does not apply in the case OF
Operation OF a street railway line.
N holds that such a demand takes
on The nature OF a contract and can
~1I be enforced against an unwilling
Ihe Hally ordinance was passed by
ne council. March 5, 1908. and Its
nrkiication, TO give II legal effect, was
1tjoined that night by the Guarantee
~ Trust Co, Of New York, acting in
I<hhif OF Stockholders. Judge Swan
~ llre United States district court re-
fused 10 dissolve the injunction and
On appeal was taken by the city to
fIn limited States court of appeals.
The court reversed the circuit court
and sent the case back on the ground
that the ID. u. r. was not made
marty to the action. The ID. U. X,
then HE'D crOss-olli anu al speClaI
master. Leland b. Case was appointed
to take testimony.
The ID. u. n. has contended that
fhree-cent rate would be confiscatory
Also that the city has no authority
10 az an arbitrary rate. The city has
been principally concerned In meet
inr| fhe frst allegation and volumes
81 testimony have been adduced by
holN sides on that point
EXPLORATION Counsel Lawson recent
~ 1kked for and was granted per
M ion by the council 20 hire as,
sls.k1ts TO appraise the property. no
one has thus far been employed, a..
though Mr.. Lawson was negotiating
Uifh Frederick T. Bancroft and A. b.
1npont. Alfred Ikicking. special conn
81 for the city, was paid a retainer
nf Al 900 An the Hally case, was to
receive $4,000 for his services in the
United states district court, $4,000 for
Ne services In the court Of appeals
and - .eeA for his services IN tha- 81.
Ir1M< court His services TO date in
|1r Fort-et. case have been rendered
|||.t1f any guarantee OF payment on
"a |1fI OF the city.
|1 Hally ordinance would affect
...||.. ~ Iho lines OF the city