The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1914-08-12
MARX TRYING
f0DEFEAF M. g.,
M'VICAR SAYS
Declares Object of, New Apprais-
al Is to Fix Price That People
Will Not Pay
"HUTCHINS, NOT PUBLIC.
COMPLIANT OF MAYOR
Valuation is being Made Prac,
tically by ID. u. R., Candi-
date Insists

vigorously condemning Mayor
Marks handling OF the street railway
situation In Detroit. and especially
his failure to act more aggressively
after the supreme court decision in
the Fort-st. case, John McVicar, can
didate for the Republican nomination
for mayor, fred the first gun OF his
campaign, Tuesday, In an interview
given out from his headquarters. In
room No. 307 Hodges building. In
the course OF his discussion, Mr.. Nc
Vicar defended the Bancroft appraisal
and took the mayor to task for not
forcing the d. u. r. to accept some
such reasonable figures as payment
for their property by the city.
This, he says, could easily have
been done by ordering the company
on the streets on which It's fran
chises had expired.
Mr.. McVicar expects to be In his
headquarters from 10 to IL o'clock
each morning. There he meets and
confers with friends and supporters
who present themselves. When the
subject OF conversation turns to the
ID. u. r., which II usually does In q
very short time, the candidate
clenches his fist and speaks with all
the earnestness, and vigor OF which
he Is capable. Mr.. McVicar's state
ment, Tuesday, follows.
The supreme court had already
In the last election on his solemn
promise made In writing that he would
do everything In his power to secure
municipal ownership of our street car
system, and would oppose the grant
Ing OF any more franchises on any
terms. But the mayor has not kept
faith with the people. On the con-
trary, he has betrayed them In that
he has done nothing to further the
cause of municipal OWNERSHIP, but has
bent all his energies to securing new
franchises for the ID. u. r.
What should the mayor have done?
In April, 1913, the people by an over.
whelming vote declared themselves
for municipal ownership and provided
bond issues ample In amount to pay
the fair price OF the present street car
system or the cost Of constructing new
lines.
"In the act the street railway com
missioners were to hold office during
the pleasure OF the mayor The pur-
pose was to give the mayor the power
to determine the policy and be held
responsible to the people for the pol
Icy pursued.
His duty was to have the bonds is
sued and sold and the money placed
in the city treasury. Then he would
be ready to proceed against the ID.
U. r.
THE supreme court had already held
in the Fortst. case that the founda-
ton for the street car lines belonged
to the city; that the city had the right
to compel the ID. u. r. to remove its
tracks and ties from the street. Then
with the money on hand the city
could, as the ID. u. r. removed Its
tracks, put down city tracks. In that
way the street car lines could be. cas-
lily acquired. The Edison company
would furnish the city power az II does
now the ID. u. R., or II would not take
long for the city to build the neces-
sary power plants.
"The d. u. r. would never take up
its tracks, ties and overhead equip
ment, because when taken >up they
would be junk not worth enough to
pay for removing. On the contrary,
the d. U. r. would then sell to the city
at fair price.
THE Bancroft inventory and ap-
praisal OF the ID. u. r. property was
made for the city, at the request Of
the Breitmeyer Committee OF Fifty and
at q moderate cost. This inventory
itemized the physical property and
stated the value OF each piece, the
total value being $11,121.724.S6. But
the committee In charge. consisting Of
such well-known capable men as
Joseph Boyer. Edwin A. Burch, Fred
c. Hees, David w. Simons, VIM. w.
Mcmahon, Louis r. Geist and w. w.
Hannah, while willing to pay that
sum to effect settlement, stated that
the real value of all the physical prop.
erty was only $8,278.364.
THE d. II. r. at that time an.
|nounced that its property was worth
over $4,000, 900. according to an in
ventory and appraisal claimed to have
been made by its representatives. This
appraisal, however, was shown I'm the
Fort-st. litigation TO be ridiculous, and
much more than double the actua
valne
During the last year the ID. u. r
claimed to have made an inventory
and appraisal, and now announces
that its property "a worth over S31.
900 ,000--$5, 100000 more than a few
years ago. while II Is also claims IS,
000,o more as remaining franchise
values.
GAS the Bancroft and ID. U. r. inven-
tories are intended to describe the
same physical property. II Is only
necessary to have them compared, and
where they differ have the facts de-
termined by inspection and the nee
eszary corrections made.
"True, the Bancroft inventory was
made a few years ago, but In all es-
sentiai particulars the property Is the
same. There are q few additions and
some worn out parts, but any con1pe.
tent engineer could easily insert the
additions and cut out the junk.
I'VE would then have two inven.
tories, both OF which would accurately
describe the physical property and
from which competent engineers could
determine the actual value.
But the mayor Is making a new In
ventory, by which II Is manifest that
ne intends TO get an extravagan,
amount for the ID. u. r., or. wha,
would possibly suit him better. defeat
municipal ownership.
TN making this new inventory IN,
mayor takes Mr.. Hutchins instead O
the people into his confidence.
ct notice that the first meeting be