The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1912-07-10
CITY TO DEMAND ONE-fARE
RATE UNDER THE DECISION
OF JUDGE HOSMtR AT ONCE
Pending Appeal BY Company,
Corporation Counsel Thinks
Car Patrons Should Benefit
VICTORY is COMPLETE
Unless the Company Consents,
Mandamus Proceedings Will
Be Resorted To

Corporation Counsel Lawson will
ask the officials OF the ID. L. X. 10 put
/ in effect at once the decision OF Cir
lcuit Judge Hosmer that the company
has no right 10 charge two fares for
a ride TO the city limits on Jefferson
ave, or Grand River.ave. The COM
pany accepted working mems tickets
for ride 10 the city limits after the
state supreme courts decision that
lon'y one ticket was necessary for the
| ride. The decision was put in effect
ipending an appeal TO the United
] States court.
The company will undoubtedly ap.
peal the last case 10 the state supreme
court and may carry IL TO the United
States court. Mr. Lawson believes
tht the people should obtain the ad.
vantage OF Judge Hosmers decision
al once, rather then waiting months
I or years before the litigation is final
/ ly disposed Of He considers the vic.
/ tory In the second case SO completely
/ justifies the attitude OF the city that
he will take up with the company the
question OF giving the public the
benefit OF II at once.
The next step In the case Is for Mr.
Lawson TO make out a writ OF man,
damus, have the court sign IL and pre-
sent IL TO the ID. u. r. when the COM
pany may seek an appeal TO the state
supreme court
Judge Hosmer did not hand down
his decision until Tuesday morning, al
/ though his decision in the case was
known last Saturday The court sets
forth It's reasons for the decision clear
| ly and forcefully In the following:
BY the ordinance OF 1862. by which
the Detroit City railroad was granted
Its franchise the city was divided into
various routes Detroit was grow
ing city. Between the years Of 1S5o
and 1850 Il had nearly doubled. The
common council OF that date must have
anticipated the extension Of the "ity
and the need OF a corresponding eN-
| tension OF the street car lines The
language used with reference to the
rate OF fare Is significant: The rate or
fare for any distance shall not exceed
i've cents in any one case or In any
one route named in this ordinance SO
as the city grew the several additional
grants necessary to extend the tracks
along the various routes were gwen
but In each case. In accordance with
the spirit OF the original plan without
increasing the fare BY the ordinance
OF July 3, 1889. the company was given
power to extend the double TRACKS on
Jefferson ave, to the easterly cay I'm
its, but no mention OF the fare Is made
except as 70 the new Forrest line
which was permitted to use Jefferson
ave. from Mt. Flliott-st,, In which
case II was required to carry for fve-
cent fare. This left the one car one
route. one fare provision OF the ordi-
nance In force as 10 Jefferson
In the discussion OF the working
mentioned ordinance the supreme
court. speaking by Mr.. Justice Mont
gomery. said constituting the words
over any OF its lines In said city FOR
OF extending street railways. one Is
by constr dcting and the other may be
by purchase under Section GAS, Com
piled Laws The purchased railway be-
comes as much part OF the system as
does the railroad as constructed. SO
we think Il, after all. gets back TO the
question OF whether the real Intent OF
this ordinance was TO provide for sim
limits should from time to time be
fixed
There Is the same reason for holding
that the provisions OF Section or the
frst ordinance was not intended to APP
ply TO the then existing city limits.
but was given a broad meaning to COW
er future extensions as additional ter
ritory might be brought into the city
and additional grants given az for con-
strung the words city TO refer 10 De
trolt." as II might be thereafter. rather
than as IL existed on Jan. 3. 1889. This
construction Imposed no hardship on
the company. having taken the fran
chise OF the Detroit City Railway II
took over It's obligation. II was not
compelled 10 extend It's track either by
purchase or by ordinance; the acquist-
tIon OF the Crosse Pointe franchise was
a purely voluntary act II tile original
had specially promised that on the
enlargement OF Detroit, the company
should waive It's rights in any fran
chise granted In surrounding townships
and villages so far as the city limits
there could have been no question but
that the acceptance OF the ordinance
would have constituted waiver and
abrogated the franchise In city terri
tory. unless necessary for security OF
licnors
The obligation to carry on Grand
River-ave., without an extra fare IL
equally clear There the language Of
the original ordinance vs. for i've cents
for any one car or for any one route
II II contendsd on behalf OF the conf
pany that a fair construction OF Prcsi-
dent Hutchins' letter authorizes the
collection OF a double fare, but We
think this a forced construction and
that IL refers only TO the right given
under ordinances