The Detroit times., 1912-01-13

Attorneys Hinton f. Spalding and
Henry r. Bodman, representing Fred
r.. Moran and others, have filed brief
in the supreme court In connection
with the mandamus proceedings
brought by Aid. Vernon TO compel the
city election commission TO place the
Vernon civil service amendment on the
ballot, along with the Thompson
Hutchins franchise and the Gilman
municipal ownership amendment, at
the special election called for Jan. %.
These are the same interests that
succe sfully opposed the submission OF
the Moore municipal ownership bill to
the people, In 1910, and secured from
the supreme court an opinion that the
charter could not be amended by the
piecemeal method as the home rule
bill was then on the books.
p. j. NJ. Hally, then corporation
counsel, who was the author OF the
rome rule bill, went before the last
legislature and secured the passage
OF an amendment to that bill, permit
ting piecemeal amendments without
general charter revision. Under the
authority of this amendment, the COM
mon council has ordered the Gilman
amendment submitted to the people,
along with the proposed franchise, but
refused to submit the Vernon civil SER
vice bill at the same time, principally
because the ID. u. RS friends In the
common council didn't want 1t sub
mitted. The council, however, had
previously ordered the civil service
!, bill, which has been approved by the
yovcrnor. submitted At the hrst spe-
cial or renerufmyiUuttDn
Thereupon Aid. Vernon applied to
the supreme court for writ or man
damus to compel the city election
commission TO obey the law, as he
construed It. which raised the ques-
tion as 10 whether the amendment TO
the home rule bill, providing for
piecemeal revision OF the charter, Is
constitutional.
In arguing the matter before the
supreme court, Friday, Corporation
Counsel Richard |. Lawson took
position directly opposite TO that oil
his PREDECESSOR, Mr.. Hally, arguing
that the Hally amendment to the
home rule bill Is unconstitutional ana
that the charter cannot be amended
without revision or until II is first
re-adopted under the home rule act.
The other side of the case was pre-
sented by Attorneys Graves, Hatch a.
,Wasey, representing Mr.. Vernon.
After the arguments had been sub
mitted and the case closed, as every
one supposed, Attorney Spalding APP
peared with a brief which he asked
leave TO file. Permission was granted
and the court will consider this brief
in connection with the others present
ed In arriving at conclusion. Messrs.
Spalding and Bodman's contentious are
right in line with those of Mr.. Law
son, and they cite additional reasons
why, In their opinion, the amendment
TO the home rule bill is unconstitu-
tional.
II the supreme court should agree
with Messrs. Lawson, Spalding and
Bodman, the submission of municipal
ownership will again be delayed until
the charter can be revised, or at
least re-adopted, which would mean
the election of charter commission
ers first of all.
Whether the Thompson-Hutchins
franchise would be submitted alone,
under those circumstances, is
question. II II is, its defeat is a fore
gone conclusion. for, until the people
amend their charter TO provide for
municipal ownership, the option
clause in the Thompson-Hutchins
franchise is absolutely imperative
and worthless. There is a possibility
il is said, that Mr.. Lawson will ask
the council to postpone the election II
the supreme court has handed down
no decision by Tuesday morning.
Counsel for Aid. Vernon has prepar-
ed an answer to the brief OF Mr.
Spalding and Mr.. Bodman, which has
been forwarded to Lansing. II is ex-
pected that the supreme court VIII
hand down It's decision Monday.