Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-06-30

ne represents large and conscien- n UJ
element which four years ago sup n
Blaine, but viii this year vote ior street
and.
element Is We very Us s'I con1try and in
! - nnIy ennloyers. bat all grades Rive
ployes. In the gubernatorial contest zee.
2 it threw its strength for Cieveiano' ia the
,sde itself decisively felt IN brooklyro been
M residential districts like the =,
Eleventh and TWenty.61e next tning LII
{ New York. At .tb5 Hon. d. B. Lucas,
on of 1884 the ha5n the topic, ''Ths origin
can e,,SSrate Property" he originated
- Lost interesting discussion, which can
here be outlined only in the briefest
manner. Mr.. Lucas prefseed his paper
with the statement that the effort was not
prepared for reading before the body ne
addressed, but was written some years ago,
for the purpose of crystalizing his opinions
on the subject. Proceeding, he said the
origin of private property was presumption.
One of the most singular and instructive
illustrations of primitive society was at
forded in the Andersonville prison, within
the stockade of which were 80, 900 people,
and he quoted from the proceedings of the
trial of Capt. wirz to show how the pro-
cess of capitalization into social compact
went on-how the prisoners policed the
grounds, carried on trade over the stock
ade, and with each other. They had about
half million dollars in money, partly in
greenbacks and partly in Confederate
money, "very unsvenly distributed, just
as in New York, /" and they bad their fuana
cial troubles, as had the world ou/
side. The prisoners bought any
sold real estate, in the little 6xtI
foot lots of ground they occupied, and
carried on trade in quite number OF
lines. The speaker described the circum-
stances obtaining in the prison, and ap-
Piled them to the outside and ordinary
affairs of life in very interesting way.
He then proceeded to outline the origin OF
franchises, exclusive rights, and other
grants from the people or sovereign to an
individual or association Of individuals,
illustrating his points from the actual
occurrences among the Federal prisoners AT
Andersonville, and this done, he said ex-
elusive rights or monopolies, could not be
regulated by the same laws applying to
private individual carrying on bis trade or
business. A franchise was always in some
way trust for the community, and as
such was subject to peculiar regulation,
and must necessarily be conducted IN a
manner different from the private affairs OF
an individual The struggle of the people
of England against the East India Com
pany was instanced as case where the
community had protested against the
abuse of privilege conferred, and he drew
a parallel between that company and that
protest, and certain corporations here i'll
America to-day, and the manifestations OF
public opinion toward them. He quoted
literally from Macauley in illustrating
this portion of his subject, applying his
references from history and various legal
authorities in most interesting way. On
concluding Mr.. Lucas was loudly ap-
plauded.
The discussion upon Mr.. Lucas paper
was opened by Hon. James Morrow, Of
Marion, who said he was surprised at the
somewhat extended scope of the pc
per, bat he did not say this by way of
criticism He only meant to say that his
view of the subj act vas bounded by mar
rover limits. he denied that there was
any scientific basis for the classification OF
property. He did not see how there could
be any distinction between corporate prop
erty, having references to its origin, and
property got corporate. Ii was Certainly
true thst many incidents attach to corpor-
ate property that do not attach to the prop.
erty of natural persons, but so far as the
origin Of that property WAS concerned,
he saw no distinction. Some Of the
incidents attaching to the property OF cor
porstons were very different from those at
tsching to individual property, instancing
this ia several ways. He thought MIR.
Lucas definition Of corporate property was
a very liberal one. III every right held by
a corporation is at the absolute disposal
of the sovereign. then it may be said of cor
porations that they possess no absolute,
protected rights. In Eoglsnd no existing
power, not even the sovereign or Parlis-
ment, had power to taks from the city OF
London its corporate powers. lie held
there was manifest distinction between
corporations comforting public benefit
and thoes organized for mere pefs0Hal
gains. 1t was difficult to draw the line,
but there was a difference nevertheless.
Corporations now were formed for the SIM
plest business purposes, and he wanted to
know how there could justly be any dis
tinction between the rights Of q corpora
ton of that kind and the rights Of patur-
al citizen engaged in the same occupation.
The rights of such corporation ought not
to he less sacred than those OF individuals,
and he elaborated upon this thought st
some length.
Mr.. B. NJ. Amber, of Parkersburg,
thought there ought to be clear distinc-
ton drawn between the two classes of cor
poratiOns. He made very interesting
argument, drawing clear contrast between
public corporations and those not essen
TALLY public in their capacities. When A
owned SO out of 100 shares of stock, and
B, @, d and Z had a nominal interest, it
was nobOdy's business how the affairs of
the company were conducted, and there
could be no regulation of the price of the
corn or calico sold by sach company; but
the case of a corpS.Sti9n formed for
transportation, or other kindred purposes,
was upon an entirely different footing.
Mr.. II. III. Russell thought the gentle
men who were called upon to read papers
before the Association were very much in
the position of those prisoners, in the hands
of Iodians, who had been sentenced to run
the gauntlet. He had little doubt but In
the present instance Mr., Lucas would
come cot from between the lines practically
unscsthed, but al the same the speaker
proposed to thror his tomshswk at him as
he went along gs thought Mr.. Lucas
had not discus :, corporate property 50
much as he hah, nature Of franchises.
He did not see b, = he nature of fran
chise could be diiferynt, when in the hands
of a corporation, from what ii wss in the
hands Of an individual. There seemed to
the speaker to be very strong tRcture OF
Communism in the paper. Carried to It's
legitimate and ultimate conclusion, it was
Anarchy. He did not hope to succeed in
making Mr.. Lucas perceive his error; but
he was satisfied he was mistaken, and
would ultimsteIy see it. He thought Mr..
Lucas claim that the Ststs conld not alb
dictate the power to revoke franehis e was
III