The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-10-08

In To-Day S PiOneer Press, OCC. D, In an
editorial on the coal strike, the Demo-
task for the following declaration:
1--WE advocate the national ownership
and operation of the anthracite coal
mines by the exercise of the right of emf
nent domain with just compensation to
owners"
Upon this the editor remarks:
'"The authors of this plank of the Dem
ocratic party of New York know very
We'll that no power exists in the govern
ment of the United States to acquire the
ownership of the anthracite mines by the
exercise of the right of eminent domain,
any more than to acquire the ownership
of the private farms of the people in the
same way, and that it is as foreign to
the power and functions of the federal
government to own and operate mines in
order to supply the demand for coal as
to operate the farms of the land in order
to supply the demand for food.
The answer is ingenious; but is it
logical? Are the two cases, as thus
presented, parallel? I think they are
not. To make them parallel let us put
the case as follows:
Suppose all the farmers in the Unit
ed States should form trust, binding
themselveS-in order to lower wages
or raise prices-not to raise one par
ticle of food beyond what the necessi-
ties of their families required. 1t is
uOt dill luCOaCG1NdDlG case, SCtIiiS WIletI
gigantic schemes have been success
fully accomplished by every imagin-
able sort of trust. 1t has been said
and it is almost literally true-that
the trusts have absorbed almost ev-
erything in the country except the air
and water. But even if such a scheme
among the farmers were impracticable,
it is nevertheless admissible as an il
lustration. Would it not, then, under
such circumstances, be the absolute
duty of the government to intervene,
under the law of eminent domain, take
possession of the property of the farm
ing population and make such use of it
as would prevent the mass of the peo-
pie from starving to death? Are not
these two cases strictly parallel?
Farming products are necessary to the
life of the people and, in our climate,
coal is not much behind them as a
necessity. What, in principle, is the
difference between the two cases? The
right of eminent domain, if it would
apply to the case supposed, why will
it not apply in the case of the coal
strike? But, further, the right of emf
nent domain is often exercised, not
merely in cases of necessity, but in
those of mere convenience; in the
opening or the widening or otherwise
improving the streets of a city. 1t is
exercised in establishing parks and in
a variety of ways, not involving alb
solute necessity, but simply a degree
of convenience which custom has au-
thorized as sufficiellt. Why, then,
should not this horrible calamity,
which is already at the very doors of
millions of our poorer classes, be am
pie justification for the intervention
of the same principle now?
But, further, there seems to be an
- H.
authorities as to deviating in the least
degree from the letter of the law. This
is healthful state of mind in normal
times; but there are abnormal con-
ditions of life to which we may be ex-
posed at any time; periods of great
disaster, present or threatened, which
demand immediate action and the eX-
ercise of the higher order of genius and
courage to meet the emergency; these
are times when "the letter killeth, but
the spirit giveth life" The man who,
being in authority, stands prating
about the letter of the law in such
emergencies, instead of being up and
doing and saving life by any means in
his power, is unfit for the high posi-
ton in which Providence has placed
him. Is it not a maxim lying back and
above all law, yet recognized by the
law, that "necessitas non habet le-
that in cases of necessity we must re-
vert from any human law that stands
in the way, TO that natural law of our
being, which in the natural order,
places the preservation of life as or
dinarily among the highest of our du-
ties. One thing seems certain, and
that is that if those in authority do
not now promptly exercise those pow
ers, within the law or without the law.
which Almighty God has entrusted
them with for the safety of the people
in extraordinary as well as in ordinary
cases, the vengeance of heaven will be
almost sure to fall upon them, and
that most probably through those very
people who, with their wives and little
ones, shall have been driven to fury
and madness by the haunting insolence
of their bloated oppressors and the
pusillanimity of those whose duty it
was to protect and uplift them in
their misery