The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-09-29
A FUTILE MOVEMENT.

A dispatch from Boston says that, acting
on the advice of lawyer. a number OF res
idents of that city have joined in an appli-
cation to the Supreme Court asking for the
appointment of a receiver for the anthra-
cite coal companies and coal-carrying rail-
roads. The petitioners ask that receiver
be appointed for the benefit Of all con-
cerned on such terms and in such manner
and with such agents and servants and
with such rates OF wages and other condi-
tons of employment and at such prices for
from time to time adjudge proper. The
lawyer on whose advice the proceeding Is
begun-and who, by the way, gets free
advertisement by the mention of his name
I'm the dispatch-is quoted as saying:
Since the public has right in the mines,
a right to have coal forthwith mined for
immediate consumption, and has right
TO have that coal Immediately transported
out Of the mine regions by the coaf-carry-
ing roads, court of equity, IL no other
solution of the difficulty is open, has au-
thority to. and upon the application of a
responsible proportion of the people, UNI
doubleday would appoint receiver or re-
ceivers to take into his or their hands the
whole business now in the hands OF the
anthracite coal combine and TO run 1t In
their place..
The citizens of Boston who have brought
this suit will probably find that they have
been badly advised. AS the various coal
companies against which the movement is
directed have agencies and Offices in Bos-
ton, the court may take jurisdiction OF the
suit, but II so 1t will doubtless decide that
the petitioners have no such property in
terest in the anthracite coal mines to en-
receiver and the operating of the mines
under orders Of the court. The appoint
ment OF a receiver for a corporation can
only take place pending litigation involving
title to the property or to share in its
proceeds. and such litigation can only be
have a prima facie interest in the prop
erty. The Boston people who are bring
ing this suit have no such interest. The
interest of a purchaser or consumer OF
coal which Is mined by a corporation is
not that Of a stakeholder in the corpora
ton. The consumers of anthracite coal
In Boston, or any other city, may be put
to great inconvenience and loss by tho fail
ure OF the supply of coal, but that does
not constitute such an interest In the prop
erty as to entitle them to ask for the ap-
pointment of a receiver to operate the
mines. The owners and operators of the
anthracite mines might, If they saw fit,
withdraw from the Boston market alto
gether. and no court could prevent them
from doing so. There is no such contract or
relation between the coal operators and the
people Of Boston as requires the former to
supply the latter with coal. 1t is not true,
as the Boston lawyer is quoted as saying,
that the public has a right in the mines.
Perhaps IL Is unfortunate that the State or
the people ever parted with their right in
the mines. but they did long ago. The
question Of ownership is closed. and as far
as that question is concerned the situation
can only be changed by the acquisition of
the mines by the government. either by
confiscation or purchase. AS long as the
mines are owned by private individuals or
by corporations they cannot be compelled
to operate them, nor will the courts. on the
application Of persons who have no proprie-
tary interest In the mines nor any stock In
the corporations, appoint a receiver to
operate them.
The Boston suit will not have any re-
suits. The place to have attacked the coal
roads. and IL should have been done long
ago, is in Pennsylvania, under the laws of
that State, which there is reason to believe
their charters would not end the strike nor
open the mines. The only persons who can
end the controversy are the parties to it.