The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-09-27

and assurance that the bill is not com
 munistic and has no such tendencies as
 those articles declare it to have.
 The bill does regulate the business, | industry or employment of mining,
 marketing, dealing in, and transporta-
 tion of coal; but it does not authorize
 the commission to take over or to op-
 crate any of the coal mines in this
 state. It does not purport to confiscate ! the property of the operators of coal
 mines, or to destroy the business of
 any one engaged in the industry. On
 the other hand it's declared purpose is 1 to protect that business and it's prop , erty, to secure continuity and efficiency i in the operation of the business. and 1 insofar as it can, it pledges the state ! to see that the owners or operators of the mines shall receive a fair and reasonable return as for their invest
 ment and that the miners or workers shall receive fair and reasonable wages, as well be provided with | proper and comfortable living condi- tions. There is not a provision nor | line in the bill which provides for or attempts to provide for the commission
 created by the bill, for the governor. the state, or any agency of the state, to acquire the ownership of the prop erty owned by the operators or miners or any other person engaged in the businesses which are regulated by the bill.
 DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM Socialism, according to all the defini- tions of Photographers, students, and writers on government which I have examined, means state of society based on public or collective ownership of the main instruments of wealth, pro ducton, etc. I challenge anyone to point to single provision in the pro- posed bill which attempts to provide for public or collective ownership of any property, or even of the business or industry to which any prop srty is devoted. The bill does provide for the regulation of the business, industry. or nployment of mining, marketing and
 distribution of coal in the state but there is not a single provision IT, the bill, t5at attempts to authorize the com
 mission the governor, the state, or any agency of the state to take the property, or to take over the business of the operators or miners. It merely authorizes the commission to apply to courts of this state to enforce the laws of this state and the law of the land as to the public business of mining and marketing coal.
 Are all bills, statutes, or laws which provide for the government, whether state, federal or municipal, to regulate a public business, one in which the pub lie has an interest, or that is affected with public trust, socialistic in their tendencies? Is it not part of the hls- tory of this state, and of all other states in the union that many of the public
 businesses are now and have always
 been regulated by statutes vnIy similar to the one now proposed? Is it not part of the history of this state and in the common knowledge of all, that statutes often appoint commissions, boards, courts, or other administrative bodies, or agencies, for the purpose or prescribing reasonable rules and regu- lations for the conduct and carrying on of public businesses, such as that Of railroads common carriers, hotels. inns, waterworks companies. electric light companies, markets, butcher shops, etc.? Has this state not for thirty years, by various statutes, regulated the business of mining or operating coal mines III this state? Are not the acts or the legislatures and codes of this state full of statutes regulating the business or mining coal? Has it ever been sug- gested before that any Of these stat utes were socialistic?
 It is true. these statutes and regula- tions, in the main, were intended to protect the health, general welfare ana security of the miners and operators. If it is not socialistic to regulate the business in order to protect those who are engaged in it, how does It become socialistic to regulate it so as to protect the interest and general welfare or the miners operators, and the public? Is It socialistic to regulate public business s., as to protect the public interest! 1T so, then all of the state government Tn the United States have forever been socialistic. The critics complain that the bill proposes to assume control ana management of private businesses m dustries and employments. l challenge any re-son to point to single provl- sion in the bill which attempts to reg ulate, much less control, private business. The bill declares the busl- ness, industry or employment which It regulates to be public, and affected with a public interest, and therefore subject to public regulation. In this respect however it is merely declara- tory of existing law, and does not in the least change the law. It is purely declaratory. The business, industry or employement regulated in this Dill mas | been repeatedly declared by state ana l federal courts to be so affected with public interest, as to be subject 10 l statutory regulations similar to those provided in this bill; and, as before stated the business has been regulated | in this state by statute for quarter of | A century Can it be socialistic un- American, or unconstitutional for the | legislature to regulate a business on