The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1914-02-07
CHARTER BOARD LEADERS
FLAY LAWSON FOR
ATTACK ON MEASURE
Continued from Page ous,.


II he had SO many radical objections,
would it not have been better 20 have
made them at that time. and not wait.
ed until a few days before the cleo
ton?
OF course. Z recognize that lawyers
do not guarantee their opinions. but
Mr.. lawson ought 10 state that he
guided the commission, as was his
duty as corporation counsel, aud
should now share the responsibility
for what he terms mistakes.
~ urge all 20 vote for the charter.
| believe It VIII be sustained by the
courts.
The worst result possible under
MIR. Lawsons pessimistic opinion Is,
either that the entire charter, II adopt
ed VIII be illegal. which would simply
mean that the Old charter stands. or
that certain provisions OF the revised
charter will have 10 be amended
Commissioner Clarence VI. Burton
gaye out q statement, saturday de-
claring that Mr.. Lawson had always
given the commission advice.
so far as know, his advice was
always followed and always sought"
said Mr. Burton.
Justice Jeffries attacked MI Law
son with some heat.
1T is very clear that opponents OF
the charter have gone out of their
wav TO give official coloring 70 their
opposition 10 the charter he said.
1t is Notorious fact that Corpora
ton Counsel lawson Is and has been
a reactiOnary He has been most
bitter opponent OF municipal 0wner-
ship, the initiative. referendum and
recall, and all features OF reform
which look 10 the rule OF the people,
rather than that OF the few He has
always been part OF Judge Connol-
ly's machine In other words, his
opinion IS but the expression OF Con
molly, who is opposed and always has
been opposed 10 municipal ownership
and all other progressive measures
which sought TO wrench HIS grasp
from the political machinery OF the
city county and state.
Never was a bill introduced in the
legislature, but some eminent lawyer
did not arise and declare that certain
features OF IL were unconstitutional.
That is the last ditch that opponents
OF a measure find when they have
been beaten ON the merits Of the bill.
MIR. Lawson cannot tell, nor can any
other man, what the supreme court
may do on these legal propositions.
Justice Jeffries points out that so
far as the oath required OF candidates
is concerned, IL Is of little importance,
since no mans name can he kept on
the ballot If he refuses 10 take the
oath
He points out that even IL the APP
pointive supervisors are cast from the
board the city will still have repre-
OF II aldermen, the mayor.
city clerk, city treasurer and chair
man OF the board OF assessors. or %.
while the country districts will have
but "a. Thus the city has a majority,
and will be able TO control the budget.
But he insists that under the home
rule act the people have the right 20
say how their supervisors shall be
chosen.
Regarding Chapter Is OF the char
ter, which, according TO Mr.. Lawson,
me kes the charter mere series OF
and not revision,
Ralph Hall Ferris said:
II myself put this section before
Assistant Corporation Tarsney and
asked him for an opinion. After con-
sidering Il for several days. he told
me that It VAS all right. Inasmuch
as did not ask in writing for an
opinion, Mr. Tarsney's opinion was
oral, not written.
Mr.. Lawson. / believe, has over
looked two or three very definite pro
.st. 80 v,t1a af In Pr ~.
ing hs opinion. | am perfectly sure
that the supreme court would re-
verse him. He may be correct as
to the supervisors, though as far as
| know, there Is nothing In the con-
stitution or the statutes that defines
The supervisors as q legislative body.
Father 1t is an administrative body.
The state law provides that city
may select its own manner OF choos-
ing its supervisors. Even were the
10 appointive removed, the city would
still have enough votes on tho board
TO protect it's interests
Mr.. Lawson Is wrong in at least
two very important particulars. He
las miscOnstrued Chapter 10; and he
has misunderstood what is conferred
on the city and what Is withheld from
the city by the home rule act"
George William Moore. whose
knowledge OF municipal law IS al
lease equal 10 Mr.. l.awsons. II not
superior, said. Saturday:
Mr. Lawson in his opinion says
that the city's representatives on the
board OF supervisors cannot ~ APP
pointed Our supreme court has held
exactly the reverse, not only once,
but four times Attorney general Va.
Preston, 50 Mich. III: Holden vs..
Supervisors, a Mich, 202; Bolt VS..
Riordan. 70 Mich. sos; White VS..
Manistee 100 Mich. COG.
"He says that the nominee must
make an affidavit that he is not the
nominee OF political party. do no.
80 read the affidavit. The candidate
may he the nominee OF dozen politi-
cal parties and vet truthfully make
the affidavit,
He further says the candidates
oath Is at variance with the oath re-
uuired OF an officer and, therefore.
void When an electors vote is chal-
lenRed Ne takes an oath very different
from the oath OF Office. There are a
dozen oaths required by the statute
different from the oath OF
Office. The oath OF office has nothing
70 do with the oath required OF a can
didate
1T might be inferred from his Ian
euage that a city charter must be
complete In itself into every city
charter must be- read the constitution
and laEs OF the state and that, in my,
Judgment rs the intent and meaning
OF Chanter l6."
Mr.. Moore also answered Jasper c..
Catoef ot.iartfoue "a Tho charter