Omaha daily bee., 1881-09-01
Jim. Wilson's logic.


hihOiht ~ bNo AaCAiA'e1 bSADhS ~ ACEho
lative committees on railroads, Mr..
j. f. Wilson propounded this ques-
ton: CTS the building, owning and
| operating Of railways private bust.
ness2" He answered: Certainly it
is. within my definition of the term.
But, by some strange process of rea.
%soning, many persons have arrived at
a different conclusion; have come to
regard it as a public business pub.
lie employment. This idea seems to
spring from the Tact that the power
of eminent domain is the right of way
for the construction of railways over
the lands of such owners as refuse to
give OF sell such right"
MIR. Wilson then entered upon O
process of reasoning to show the error
of any "strange process of reasoning
which, from an exertion of the gov
eminent power to take private prop
erty for public use, reaches the conclu.
sion that the use to which the proper.
ty so take1 is devoted, must be a
public use, and not, as Mr.. Wilson
thinks, a ''private business" He
agreed with Mr.. Stanford(president OF
the Central Pacific railway that
"This right of eminent domain is
exercised for the benefit of the state
to promote political intercommunica.
ton between her citizens to cheaper
transportation and travelling expenses
that her resources may be developed
that her manufacturing and agricul.
tural interests may be fostered that
inducements may be held out to the
people of other states to come and
cast their lot with us and that there
may be broad facilities for the rapid
interchange of the luxuries and neces-
saries of life. For the accomplish
ment of these objects. and in her own
interest, the state exercises the right
of eminent domain, but around such
exercise has most carefully drawn the
shield OF the law for the protection OF
the citizen. The state exacts hat
full compensation should be made to
the citizen by the railroad company at
whose instance he is compelled to sur
render the use of his property. The
citizen whose property is thus taken
from him by legal force makes no con-
tribution to railroad .,onstruction-he
is paid by the corporation the full
equivalent for the use of his property. y
This is the true view of the ques-
%tion," said Nh. Wilson.
1t is notable that this "true view
of the question" puts out of view alto.
gether the idea that the private prop
erty taken by a public power for pub
lie use must be devoted to public use,
not to the exclusive use of private per-
sons, firms, OF companies in carry
ing on their own particular business.
This idea is the very essence of the
principle which has been expressly
embodied in her own political law. 1t
contemplates a private property which
the public agency takes for a public
use not for a different. private use
from which the public may expect to
derive an incidental benefit. Thus,
private property IN land taken for a
public highway is property taken for
public use. 1t is taken not for an in
cidental benefit which the public may
derive from its use by a private stage
company running it's coaches on the
public highway, but for the direct ben
eft which the, entire public will real
ize in an actual public use of the land
taken.
The evidence hal private property
has been taken for public use is the
fact that the property taken has been
devoted to that public use by the
public agency. If it has been devoted
to public use, of course no particular
person, or company of persons, can
set up any claim to it's exclusive use
in carrying III a private business. MOI
can the public agency furnish to pr.
vate parties any foundation for such a
claim by requiring them, instead OF
the public for whose use it was taken,
to pay the compensation to the owner
for the property taken. A thing is
devoted or applied to public use only
when all private use of it is excluded,
of in the case of a public courthouse,
OF when all members of the public are
equally free to use it for private con.
venience, as in the case of public
highway. Moreover, it seems suf.
ticiently plain that a property taken
for and devoted to public use is no
longer taxable as a private property.
In the Ease of private property
taken by a public power for the use OF
n railway company, the proof that the
property is not taken for public use is
the fact that the public agency does
not devote it to the use of the public,
but to the exclusive use of some men
who, Mr.. Wilson says, are carrying on
a private business. The property
taken neither passes into public use
nor even into public possession. 1t is
transferred by the public agency from
N private owner directly to another
private owner, who has paid his own
money for it, takes exclusive posses.
sion of it, and holds and uses it for
the purposes of his own private bust
ness enterprise. Tho public agency
recognizes and asserts this fact
by taxing the property in the
possession of the new owner as it did
in the possession of the previous
owner.
That the public realizes a benefit
from the private use of the property
by the railway company is a circum-
stance which in no way gives differ
ents aspect to the fact that the use is
not public, but private. Public bene-
fit is IN incident of all legitimate pri-
vate employm.ents of private property,
or capital. Every man who embarks
his private capital in any business,
not positively injurious to the public,
confers a benefit upon the public,
The establishment of a manufacturing
enterprise, the opening of a mercan-
tile house, the erection of a music
hall, art gallery, theatre, hotel or
private dwelling-house, is o private