The morning call., 1891-10-26
\ RIGHT TO HIS OWN.

A weekly contemporary makes q labored
argument in support of the proposition that
every man has a right to his own" The
argun ent is based upon an address Of JUS
tfce Brewer of the United States Supreme
Court in which the Justice approves Of a
recent Supreme Court decision, that " it is
rot POSSIBLE for State or nation under the
guise Of legislative control or tariff to de-
s,roy the investments of private capital;
that the individual has rights as we'll As the
many. aad rights which the public cannot
tane.away from him." The principle that
the individual has rights as well as the many
is recognized in the Constitution and does
not need any new enunciation. It has never
been lost sight of even for an hour. At
tempts have been made to limit the rapacity
of corporations in their dealings with the
public. but in no case has legislation pro-
posed the confscaton of private property.
Corporations that have received much from
the people, to which they have added lit
tie Of their own, have been restrained from
conducting business on the assumption that
they had 4 right to use the property given
them without consideration of the purpose
Tor which it was given. Our weekly con-
temporary takes the ground that to impair
NllE Gdl lLLlk Edpdt4LJ VI piuPCAAJ ID ohbotoH-
italy TO cOnfiscate it. This proposition may
perhaps be best illustrated by an example:
a number of men form a corporation for
laudable purpose. The public in one way OF
another furnish two-thirds Of the means re-
quired to carry the project into execution.
The projectors who have put in a little
money naturally claim the right to control
the whole. They proceed to establish tolls
ot, ~, ha Drhiia Of fbn prdnarfrr
they have acquired by public generosity,
which deprives it OF all value TO the pub
lie. According TO our weekly cOntempO-
rary any legislation intended to impair
tie earning capacity of that property is to
substantially cOnfiscate it. Or we may SUD
pose that number of men obtain valuable
exclusive privileges by legislation, and in
vest their own money to carry their project
into execution. Having these exclusive
privileges, which relieves them from cOmpe-
titiOn. they proceed to make all they posi-
bly, can ont of their property. The rates
they establish are 50 high that the public is
deprived OF the consideration for which ex-
elusive privileges were granted. In this
case also it would be held that any legisla-
ton intended to impair the earning capacity
of their property would be substantial con-
fscation. 1t is no new thing for men who
are making exorbitant profits out Of exelu-
siVe privileges to plant themselves on the
impregDable ground that man has a right
to his own. A man has a right to his own
until his use Of it becomes an injury to his
neighbor But when. a man uses his own
to the manifest injury Of the public, that he
may thereby increase its earning capacity.
the public do not confscate the property by
restraining its earning capacity to conditions
consistent with the public good. The equi-
ties of the property question where indi-
viduaIs have acquired exclusive privileges
from the public may not be readily defued
on general principles. Each case requires
especial consideration. 1t may be safely
said, however. that if the individual has
rights" which the many may not take
from him, the many have rights which the
individual may not appropriate 1t may be
safely asserted also that If the individual
disregards the rights of the many, measures
to femind him that others have rights as
we'll as himself will hold good in morals
and in politics and law.