The Detroit times., 1914-05-06

himself that / have raised. But what
else can ne do. and make a record OF
efficiency? Can he PUT slot machines
out or business by process OF law
He will find il a very inefficient
method. lie can arrest an occasional
slot machine proprietor and have him
fined $l0-but will that stop the traf
hc2 You bet IL won't. VIII he dare
10 raid loan Offices. with my example
before him? VIII he dare raise a
hand against the Eddie Barnetts and
the Oppenheims? IL he does. he can
expect TO be driven from Office as
have been driven. No, sir The man
who follows me will have his hands
tied by the fear OF getting into
trouble The great lesson OF my
downfall is that man who does his
duty has mighty little chance.
Mr.. Shepherd was asked II failure
20 appoint Mr. Jasnowski prosecutor
or his dismissal, will jeopardiZe the
aldermanic cases.
MIR. Jasnowski knows mighty little
about them. he replied. Il am the
only one who has all the facts, and II
would take a new man three months
OF hard study TO acquaint himself
with all the angles of the case. Mr.
Jasnowski was assigned TO the task
of getting a jury; Mr.. Toms. 10 prove
that Gilman was an alderman; | had
all the rest OF the case"
Mr.. Shepherd suggested that IL may
become necessary 10 ask the supreme
court for an extension or time for the
preparation VI arguments and briefs
IN the mandamus proceedings 10 com
pei Judge Phelan TO show cause fol
his order for change OF venue e
Monroe.
But I'm private citizen now, os
tensibly, and I've got nothing to say
about this Office he concluded
The full text OF Judge Murphy's de
cision follows
The REALTORS. johnson and krein
bring. are stenographers, and relatol
GrOSt is the chief clerk I'm the ofhc,
OF the prosecuting attorney for Wayne
county The respondent board has re-
FUSED by appropriate action 10 recoB
niZe the validity OF Act No, l0l OF th'
Public Acts OF 1913, by which the sal
aries or REALTORS are raised Mandamd,
~ asked 10 compel such recognition by
hiking the salaries OF the REALTORS II
conformity with the Act Upon th'
the naked question OF the constltu
tionality OF the Act cited is the con
trolling question presented for decision
The act In question. both by It's titl'
the number OF assistant prosecutor
and other assistants. their term OF OF
gee their salaries, and to-asfne& bei4
fpoNeyF,s1ds dutistee, = -.
- ,~ANd rhha ants
II rs. coDtended BY the responder
that the act Is local in character, ant
IS. therefore. void because II violates
tfon. which reads as follows:
NO local or special act shall taxi
enect until approved By = majority o
the electors voting thereon In the dis
The position OF the REALTORS is tina
the act Is general and not a loCa
one They take this attitude upon tn
theory that il CLASHES the counties o
the state by its provision that II IL e
apply only To those count ties having
population in excess 6f $4,000 Sucl
classincatton, IL Is urged. removes m
enactment fron the category OF loca
acts
These contentious, in my view. ar
DISPOSED OF by the conclusinn-nece
sarlly 10 be derived from the decision
in re Attorney General eX rel Dinge
man Us. Lacy. p Detroit Legal News
p. 249. decided April l.. 1914. Tn
decision I'm that case dealt with tn
ConsptutlOnalltN or an act whicl
sought 10 create a court or domesti
relations lin each county OF this stat
which has population OF upwards U
two hundred and nifty thousand
That decision determines that tn
act challenged was not a genera
law, as any act establishing such
court is reqtired 10 be by section on
of article OF the constitution. II no
general" act IL must obviously be
local" one
The classification attempted is tina
set by restricting it's application t
counties OF greater population thar
200, 600 was held TO be void because /
was said the act might witt
equal pr0priety have been limited i'm IL
operation by its title to the county o
Wayne II this reasoning Is correct
u can be said with even greater fore,
that an act, such as the one under con
sideratton applicable only to counties
OF "A greater population than $50. 0O0 q
also local measure Being a loca
act. IL violates section 80 OF article
OF the constitution above quoted ant
must be held void In it's entirety
The writ will be denied This beint
4 proceeding brought in good faith {,
determine a question OF public concern
no costs VIII be allowed