The Detroit times., 1915-10-11
BUT YOU SHOULD USE THIS FIRST

Ing Jhe citizens who had petitioned
Tor the Injunction, Were former
Judge J. O Muffin. with Campbell.
Bulkley & Ledyard OF counsel. Mr.
f.edyard assisting in the argument
and MIR Campbell sitting by TO make
suggest ions. Scattered among the.
spectators We're Guy A. Miller.
Frank d. Andrus. James A. Robi-
son, Thomas T. I.eete and several
other attorneys while Controller
Eneel represented the city admins
tration. Secretary Hayden the stree.
car commission and City Clerk
/ Lindsey himself as one OF the de-
| PENDANTS.
To open the party Mr. Ledyard
outlined the contents OF the petition
and Mr. Lucking produced an an
swer which be described as sworn
reply
1T hasn't been served on us yet"
clipped In Murfn. We have never
/ seen tt
Wen as matter ~ fact. the
! cath IL not attached - yet--said'
| Mr.. I-uckius Mr.. Couzens will be-
I down soon 10 attend 20 that" Al
the noon recess Mr.. Couzens had
7 nor yer appeared
The answer. taking cognizance OF
the argument q the petition that the
Indebtedness proposed would exceed
\ the legal limit. produced figures
sworn TO hy Controller EngeI set
ting forth that when the amount OF
money IN he sinking fund Is de-
Quoted from the total bonded debt
IL stood al sfs,967 .0s370. and that
with the further deduction OF school
and library bonds. not included in
tine four per cent limit and the wa
] ter bonds prior TO April 7. 1913. the
debt Is $500 OSLO
This leaves. according TO the an
swer. margin of S15.627 .235. for
which public utility bonds may be is-
! sued and tho city still stay within
the per cent limit
The answer argued that under the
home rule act the city b. a three
fifths vote may acquire public utili-
ties and go outside the bonding lin
Il, denied that existing lighting or
water bonds were public utility
bonjs under the meaning of the act,
den cd that the bondhoidcrs of the
To. Z. r. tad iuteTfgred End finally
denied that IL was any of the par
ticular. business OF the men who seek
The injunction whether the election
be held or not, inasmucE az spe.
cial- election m an annexation CUES
ton had already been fixed for Nov.
2, before the street car vote was set
for that day. the only special expense
for the street car vote being the
printing OF ballots. which expense
has already been incurred.
The answer also set up that the
entire history Of the street railway
argument has been one Of wrangles,
suits, and near riots, that settle
ment Ia much 10 be desired: that the
street railway board did not deem
IL wise 10 condemn the street railway
property and so reached an agree
7 rf,fft for the purchase, being unable
to agree as 10 price.
In his argument Mr. Ledyard cited
/ authorities to show the right OF any
taxpayer TO appeal 20 the courts on
a matter affecting taxation He ar
: gusd that in the assumption Of the
proposed original amount OF Sill 900.
900 bonded indebtedness the city was
merely buying an equity in redemp.
ton. RE also called attention to the
constitutional provision that bonds
for a publicly owned utility beyond
the two per cent provided. must
BE- upon the property and secured by
a franchise Tie security franchise
he declared an absolute necessity for
the continuance OF service
Mr. Ledyard declared that the pro
posed suit for specific performance,
J b. which il rs hoped 20 get the court
4 10 set the price could not be brought
because suit would lie only I'm case
of complet contract and that no CON
tract is complete without the pur.
chase price. lie also advanced the
argument that no relief could be had
In equity when there was an ade.
quate relief In Law, and declared that
the street railway commission has
specific relief in the condemnation
section OF the home rule act.
Former Judge ,luran devoted the
greater share OF his argument TO the
I citation OF authorities 10 show that
even though private citizen may
purchase mortgaeed property with
out incurring Indebtedness further
tkan that specifically assumed. a mu-
/ nicipality Is not so fortunate. bit
must assume all the Indebtedness on
such bonus. In some Of the decisions
he quoted IL was specifically provId-
CT tt.ri eTen though municipality
specifically provide that II shall not
be liable on mortgage indebtedness.
IL becomes liable nevertheless.