The Detroit times., 1913-07-02

OF WATER BOARD
FIGHT FOR JOBS
Application for Mandamus TO
Compel Reinstatement Argued
Before Three Judges
PIN THEIR FAITH TO
CIVIL SERVICE LAW
Board Claims Measure Not in Eff
feet, and Denies Being Subject
to Charter Rules

The case OF the -t3 discharged EN-
ployes OF the water board who made
application for a writ OF mandamus
10 compel the board to reinstate them
was argued In the circuit court, Tues
day morning, before Judges Murphy.
Van Zile and Hally. who are expect
ed 10 hand down decision In the
next day or two. In compliance with
the courts former order for the
board TO appear and show cause why
the mandanus should not be grant
ed its side of the contention was pre-
sented by Allan II. Frazer and his
law partner. RI. 3. Styled.
The chief claims of the defense
were that the civil service charter
amendment was not operative at the
time OF the discharge OF the men con
cerned. and, more especially. that II
did not apply TO them because they
were In the employ OF a separate cor
poration created by different act
from that incorporating the city
In answer TO this, Percy w. Grose
representing the petitioners, argued
that the amendment went into effect
when the certificate OF election was
filed with the secretary of state In
accordance with the Verdier law
which must be within 80 days after
the election.
AS 10 the contention that the wa
ter board is a separate corporation
he cited "Dillon on Civil Service,
and a case in the Louisiana courts In
volving almost exactly parable
situation. in which the supreme court
of the state decided that the sewerage
and water board OF New Orleans was
a part OF the municipality and not a
state agency on the grounds THAI It's
powers and duties were essentially
municipal. He also cited severa
Michigan cases involving similar
points, emphasizing a suit for dam
ages against the board of fire com
smissioners of Marquette. In the de
cisiop on which the Michigan court
laid down a principle resembling thai
OF the Louisiana court.
The water board" he argued, SIS
in reality an agency OF the city and
moi separate organization. II Is
not allowed 70 sell water for gain
but must confine its operations to sup
plying the needs OF the citizens fol
the city. II must make reports to the
common council and obey its orders
as to fire mains and other matters.
Therefore, If the water board is a
part Of the municipality. any provision
for civil service TO apply TO the EN-
ployes of the city must apply to its
employees
While Attorney Frazer was making
mis- argument, Judge Hall raised the
question whether the Verdier act did
not give the city power TO amend by
piecemeal the articles OF incorporation
of any OF Its departments.
Mr.. Frazer admitted this, but an
swered that In order TO carry out that
power II would be necessary TO make
specific provision for the change. that
IL could not be done by general
10 the city charter.
But rejoined the Judge, suppose
a general provision should be adopt
ed whereby the city should refund all
bonds issued by it or by any OF it's
which were backed by
the credit OF the city. would that ap-
ply 10 water board bonds? If you are
going TO deny the validity OF the prin-
ciple of amendment by implication
there wouldn't be many sound laws
left In for the state.
81 see no reason for going off into
such hypothetical discussion" was
tao evasive answer OF the attorney.