The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-09
THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

I'll RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN.
1t will be surprising IL an attempt is
not made to make a political issue out OF
the coal strike. Indeed. the attempt is al
ready foreshadowed by the declaration OF
the New York Democratic convention In
favor OF "the national ownership and OPP
Grafton Of the anthracite coal mines by
the exercise of the right Of eminent do
MAN." with just compensation to owners.
This course, Ii is declared. will insure
peace in the mining regions and remove
the cause for differences leading not only
to suffering, but ofttimes TO bloodshed
and insurrection." The local Democratic
organ indorses the suggestion and says:
1T will be remembered that the same prin-
ciple which the New York convention pro-
poses for the anthracite mines was adopted
a few years ago in regard to the hot
springs of Arkansas. and a large amount
of property which had passed into private
hands was reacquired by the government"
This is a mistake. The right of eminent
domain is a process of of
private property for public purposes by due
process Of law with just compensation TO
the owners, but it was not exercised in
the case of the hot springs of Arkansas.
That case furnishes no parallel for the
present one, because the government
never parted with the title to the Hot
Springs property. The hot springs and four
adjacent sections of land were reserved
from sale by act of Congress April 20. 1882.
At that time the surveys were not COM
| plete, nor for several years thereafter, and
In the meantime settlers tempt to enter
the lands by presumption prior 20 their
survey. 1t was this attempt by settlers to
pre-empt lands which were not open to
entry that gave rise to litigation among
the claimants for thirty years. In 1870
Congress authorized the claimants to in
stitute suits In the Court of Claims to set
tie the titles. This court decided against
them. They then, in 1877, appealed to the
Supreme Court. which also decided against
them and held that the title to the prop
erty was In the United States. This de-
cision dispossessed and ousted nearly 5000
persons of homes which they had paid for
and improved, but to which they had no
title. Then Congress passed a law pro-
viding for the appointment of three COM
missioners to survey and lay off all the
land embraced in the four sections and to
set aside as a special reservation the lands
covering the hot springs. AS a result of
this action the lands were allotted tc the
claimants who had improved them, or to
Il fhafr heirs ,1nnn tho novpnant nf Al NOR
cent. of the assessed value of the land.
In this way they got a title from the
United States, which had never parted
with the title before. The springs were
reserved and are stRl owned and leased
by the government. In all this there was
no exercise of the right of eminent do
main by the government to acquire prop
erty. 1t simply asserted a title which 1t
had never parted with,
Those who suggest that the government
acquire coal mines by virtue of the right
Of eminent domain for the purpose of OPP
Grating them are using a phrase which
they do not understand. The right of emf
nent domain, by which is meant the right
Of a government to condemn and seize pri.
vate property for public purposes by due
process of law and with just compensation
is one OF the highest attributes of SOW
ereignty. and is only to be exercised for
strict government purposes. Government
may in this way acquire property needed
for government purposes, but not other
wise. The right Of eminent domain has
been defined by the Supreme Court of the
United States as "a right belonging to q
sovereignty to take private property fol-
Its W public uses and not for those Of
another" The mining and marketing OF
coal or the leasing Of coal lands is in M
sense a public use or a function of gov
eminent. There is a right Of eminent do
main in the state as well as in the nationa
government, but neither of them can con
denim private property for any but public
uses. The fourteenth amendment to thu
Constitution Of the United States says
that no State shall deprive any person o
life, liberty or property without due process
of law, and the Supreme Court of tn
United States has said:
The citizen is deprived of his propert,
by or under State authority for any othe
than a public use, either under the guis
of taxation or by the assumption of tn
right of eminent domain. In that way tn
question whether private property ha
been taken for any other than a publ
2 use becomes material in this court. evel
where the taking is under the authorit,
Of the state instead Of the federal gov
4 eminent.
This argument applies to the national a
well as to a state government. The con
clusion of the whole matter is that tn
e right OF eminent domain confers no powe
on the national government to acquire Goa
mines for the purpose of operating them
The suggestion is altogether chimericaI
and 1t argues either ignorance or a desir
to play politics.
IN FRANCE, TOO.