The Detroit times., 1912-11-14
SAYS CITY CAN'T
REVISE CHARTER
PIECEMEAL YET
Legislature Must First Provide
Machinery. Declares JUS
tice Jeffries
WOULD SAFEGUARD
CITY OWNERSHIP PLAN
Proposes Submission in Two
Ways, as Part of New Char
/ ter, and as Amendments

4
The city cannot revise it's charter
piecemeal until the legislature pro
yides the power.
Municipal ownership should be
submitted In two ways at the same
tinle-once In the revised charter.
and once as separate amendment "
1.-THE charter. SO that H. the charter
should be defeated, municipal owner,
chip would still have chance to sur
! "A time limit should be placed on
the deliberations OF the charter re,
vision commission"
These are the opinions OF Justice
I've. j. Jeffries. who has been looking
up the law which provides for charter
revision
Justice Jeffries holds that before
\ the charter revision commission can
begin its work OF piecemeal revision
the legislature must pass an act SINH
lar to Section Is OF No. 203 OF the
public acts OF 1911, which was de-
clared unconstitutional by the SUI
lpreme court. this action being the
direct cause OF the passage OF the
constitutional amendment by which
Ipiecemeal revision Is made const1tu-
tional
This is his reasoning:
The new constitution provided
that cities, villages and townships
should have the right of home rule as
provided by law. and also prohibited
the legislature from passing any local
enactments. In pursuance Of this
provision, the legislature adopted tho
so-called Hally home rule bill. in 1909
Under that provision, Detroit
sought to amend its charter piece
meal The city was enjoined, and the
supreme court held that the pro-
visions OF the home rule bill were
mot broad enough 10 allow piecemeal
amendment OF the charter.
Mr.. Hally and his friends went
hack to the legislature in 1911, full
OF faith, and secured an amendment
to the home rule act providing for
lpiecemeal legislation for amending
city charters.
"The city OF Detroit proceeded un-
der this act and was enjoined again.
The supreme court held this time that
the constitution itself prohibited
piecemeal legislation, and declared
the law OF 1911 unconstitutional.
The recent amendment 10 the con
stitution, allowing piecemeal legisla-
ltion as provided by law, merely grants
general power TO cities and villages
to amend their charters piecemeai.
| (The words of the amendment are:
UNDER SUCH GENERAL LAWS,
the electors of each city and village
shall have power and authority, etc.
The law OF 1911 having been de-
clared unconstitutional, and the SUI
Ipreme court having declared that the
original home rule act was not broad
enough to allow piecemeal amend
ments to the charter, 1t follows that
the provisions of the recent constitu-
tional amendment can be only avail
able after the. legislature has enacted
such legislation as will carry out the
provisions of the constitution.
Therefore, the city as yet, cannot
amend or alter the charter by piece
meal legislation. The legislature must
act first"
Justice Jeffries says further:
AS the law OF 1911, providing for
the election OF a charter commission
/. within 60 days from the vote for re-
vision, Is dead, we must have recourse
to the act OF 1909. This law does not
, provide the time within which the
commission shall be elected. How
ever. 1t would seem clear that the peo-
, pie having demanded that the charter
be revised, 1t Is the duty OF the copS-
mon council to Immediately proceed
TO a general revision Of the charter
according to the mandates OF the peo-
pie.
1T would be setting a very bad
precedent II the common council or
any other legislative body were TO
ignore the plain mandate OF the peo-
pie.
Public ownership advocates would
like the opportunity TO have an ex-
preston on the public ownership
amendment free from any other pro-
position However, this amendment
under the existing law cannot be
separated from the general revision.
II the legislature acts In time, we
can submit an Independent amend
ment TO the charter. providing for
public ownership, In the spring cleo
tion.
IF the commission should be ready
TO report at that time, IL may report
also a similar provision In the new
charter, and the people may have an
opportunity 10 vote for the provision
In the new charter or an independent
amendment to the old charter. II
, the new charter is defeated, because
OF matters in II other than municipal
Ownership, which prove Objectionable.
the public ownership amendment can
be saved by having been voted on In
dependently.
eff the commission Is not ready TO
report, the people can adopt a mum
cipal ownership amendment In the
spring election anyway, and the new
charter, voted on later, may re-enact
the amendment; or II the new charter
lis defeated. It's defeat will have e
Influence on the municipal ownership
section, which will be already in eff
feet.
"If the legislature does not provide