The Detroit times., 1912-01-13
UNDER NEW FRANCHISE
D. U. R. COULD CHARGE
FULL FARE FOR cHILD'
Has Provision For Free Passage
in Pingree Franchise Been
Erased in New Measure?
CHANCE FOR LAWSUIT.
Time Is Recalled When Thomp.
son Was Fighter Against
Concessions.
CHANCE FOR LAWSUIT.
All children under six years OF
age, accompanied by parent or
guardian, shall ride free.

The foregoing Is found in Section II
OF the Detroit Railway ordinances OF
1894, to which the proposed Thomp
son-Hutchins ordinance Is suplenaen-
tai, and TO every provision of which
the Thompson-Hutchins ordinances n
subject except as herein modifed.'t
The provision cited does not ap-
pear In the Thompson-H Hutchins fran.
chise, yet, in every other particular,
Section 10 OF the Detroit Railway OF.
dinance, which relates to fares, has
been modified by the new grant, Sec
tions 4, and taking the place OF
the old Section 10.
Thus it becomes a legal question
whether Section 10 has been nullified
In its entirety or whether the provi-
sion relative to carrying children re-
mains in full force and effect
The Detroit United Railways pro-
pensity for taking advantage OF legal
objections Is well known, and what
assurance has the public that IL xi1I
not take advantage of this one? What
is to prevent the company from as
serting the right to collect fares
from babes in arms?
or course, the city would contest
that right, which would mean another
law suit-the favorite refuge OF the
ID. u. R.-but In the meantime the
company, II so disposed, could 60
on collecting fares from infants and
making itself generally obnoxious.
And who can say what the courts
would do?
This is just another OF the many
lmperfections that have come to light
since the proposed franchise was CIV
en- to the public for analysis. Evi-'
IDENTIFY the point had been overlooked
by all Of those interested in the franz
ing OF the document.
The Times, in it's quest for infor-
nation on the subject, went right n
the fountain head. Mayor fhunIpsun.
| whose name the franchise bears. His
honor's attention was called to the
fact that the provision relative to
children did not appear In the new
ordinance and he was asked whether
there was such provision In the old
one. The mayor was not sure, but
promised to look it up. Just then.
however, a party OF visitors arrived
and the mayor excused himself. The
Times then proceeded TO look the
result already stated.
When the franchise was before the
council committees on franchises and
public utilities, many amendments
were proposed to correct the imper-
| fections that had been unearthed, but
the mayor had said that the ID. u. r..
would not stand for any amendments
and there was nothing for the council
L. A..N
stood, with all It's faults.
AS a member of the common coun-
Gil back in 1894 and as one OF the al
| dermen who voted for the Detroit
Railway ordinance William b. Thomp-
son took prominent part in framing
amendments TO the measure. His
name appears frequently in the coun-
! Gil proceedings of that time as Wig
orous fighter on the side of the peo-
| Pile AS against a private corporation.
| from which the following extracts are
| quoted:
Aid. Thompson moved to
amend Section IL (giving the
council the right to regulate the
service) by striking out the word
of in the seventh line, and to
insert in lieu thereof the word
for. which motion prevailed.
Aid Thompson moved To
amend Section II by inserting
after the word accommodation"
in the seventh line, the words,
and running OF cars" which mo-
ton prevailed.
AID. Thompson moved to amend
Section "a, by striking out the
words. "an approved bond In the
sum of 100000" and to insert In
lieu thereof the words, "a certi-
ncate OF deposit in favor of the
city for the sum Of $4,000 which
motion prevailed
Aid. Thompson moved to
amend Section 10, by adding after
the second paragraph thereof,
the following:
I