The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1912-06-08

Corporation Counsel Lawson re-
ceived the second brief submitted by
the ID. U. r.. in the Fort-st. rental
case In the supreme court, Thursday.
According to this brief, the city not
having at present the power OF
municipal ownership. and street car
lines having been established can
not Gust the company frori the
streets, whether or not franchises
have expired. II contends that the
only point for the courts TO determine
in the Fort-st rental case relates to
the justice of the terms exacted by
the city for the company's occupancy
aof Forrest
This brief was fled by Attorneys
John c. Donnelly and Fred A. Baker.
and it's principal difference in interest
10 the public from the brief filed re-
Gently by the Arm of Brennan. Don
nelly a. Van DeMark Is that the d.
u. RS claims to rights in the streets
are more sweeping than have hereto
fore been made. The company goes
so far as TO say that It's right TO do
business. having come from the state.
the state legislature and state rail-
road commission have the power TO
modify any franchise granted - the
company by municipality. provided
that IL could be proven that such a
franchise was unjust in any OF its
terms.
The brief is printed in a 53-page
pamphlet and is an elaborate argu-
ment intended to show that the city
has very little authority over the ID.
u. r., Notwithstanding franchise
terms, and that the state legislature
and railroad commission possess a
great deal more than is commonly
supposed
The brief states: The opinion OF
i. the circuit court proceeds upon the
hypothesis that all there is involved
Is the question of whether the date
fixed by the city grant had lapsed,
and that thereupon. regardless of all
other rights and considerations, the
municipality could require the rail-
road company to vacate the street,
unless IL submits TO confiscatory and
, unlawful terms as a condition for the
continued use of the highway. The
decision OF the learned court over
looked the fact that these railways
constitute great public highways. in
che continued maintenance and opera
tioL of which the public at large has
a paramount interest, and that so far
as the state at large Is concerned. II
has consented by the granting OF the
franchise TO the company tits incor-
poration) to the uninterrupted opera
ton of the lines II is a mistake to
assume that this Is a contest which
involves solely the rights OF localities
aud private interests. Something OF
greater Importance and of more far
reaching consequences than the mere
local controversy is involved"
In another portion of It's brief, the
company states:
THE company insists and has
shown that the condition requiring the
payment of $500 per day attached to
the city's consent to continue in oper-
alton on Fort.st.. is conflscatory and
unrea sonable, and II this be so. then
, either one or the other OF two recults
necessarily follows-either the con
sent will stand with the unreasonable
condition eliminated or the consent
and the resolution being based on an
unreasonable condition which the
company declines TO comply with, rem.
ders the whole resolution void Eth.
er result destroys the effect OF the
resolution as an unconditional notice
of the desire or determination Of the
city that the street railway should be
discontinued and removed from the
street
Independent of the action OF the
eouncil and Notwithstanding the same,
ne submit that the action Of the rail-
way company in maintaining anc
operating it's line Of railway does not