New-York tribune., 1922-08-29

=
Individual action. The state must
intervene in an emergency or con-
fess that, except under normal con-
ditions, it hes not the power, tha
capacity or the energy to serve the
high purpose of It's creation. i.e.,
the promotion of the general vel
fare
The foregoing suggestions relate
only to palliatives to measures for
relief, not cure, but the State of New
York has no coal to mine. 1t can
neither start production now nor take
measures to prevent general sus-
pension of production In the future.
We cannot even insure the receipt OF
our fair share Of coal when mining
il resumed, though we must be pre-
pared to do our best to get our
share. 4 trust that when mining is
resumed the states will not have to
compete for their fair share Of coal,
with the inevitable imitation Of prices
and arrangement of distribution con-
sequent upon such competition at
time of an acute shortage, but it is
beyond the power Of this state to
! prevent that, IT we do all we can
{ we shall have the satisfaction at
least Of doing our best, whatever
happens, and we can do much to pre-
vent hardship and relieve distress
even If the worst should happen.
Recommends Creation of
Single-Headed Fuel Agency
Briefly, recommend the creation
Of single-headed fuel administra-
tion with adequate power to super
wise, regulate and control the dis
tribution, use, sale and price of all
fuel, and the creation of revolving
fund of at least s10,oo0,000 for the
use of the administrator to finance
any operations that may be required
and to buy and sell fuel if necessary.
Such operations should be conducted
without loss to the treasury, which
is fortunately in condition to ad-
vance that amount or any additional
sum that may be required. That sum
should be ample, however, to provide
all the financing required at a given
time.
I think it would be grave mis-
take to substitute new for existing
agencies of distribution, and j trust
that supervision only will be re-
quired. But it is better not to inter
fere at all than to attempt interfer-
ence without adequate power and
energy, the possession of which may,
in fact, make it possible to exercise
minimum Of unusual powers.
Perhaps the most doubtful powers
suggested are those to buy and sell
fuel and to fix prices or margins of
profit. Such powers are not suited to
normal times and conditions, but we
are dealing with an emergency. ! do
producers or distributors, but the
public cannot be left to the mercy Of
any class, group, or individual, how
ever good their motives. Price fixing
is contrary to all economic laws, but
economic laws do not operate in an
emergency such as we are dealing
with ] am not unmindful OF the
objections to grants of extraordinary
power by the Legislature. The exer-
else of such powers begets the habit
and accustoms the people to danger
Gus innovations. Such powers will
rarely in the first instance be
granted except for a good purpose,
but once exercised in time of eimer-
gency they set the example and fur
nish the excuse for the demagogue
to incite popular clamor for their
continued exercise when there is no
emergency and no occasion for them.
It is often better to suffer temporary
ills than to employ remedies which
may do permanent harm.
Government Should Not
Be lmpotent in Emergency
However, the government should
not in an emergency be left impotent
to protect the very lives of the
people for fear Of setting precedent
which may be abused Our reluc-
tance to grant extraordinary powers
should yield. precisely as constitu-
tional limitations upon the exercise
OF such power yield, to compelling
public necessity. do not contsm-
plate putting the state in the coal
business. What propose is that
the agency created by us shall have
| power enough to make it unneces-
sary for the state to go into the coal
business.
The decisions of the Court Of An
peals and of the United States su
preme Court in the so-called rent or
housing cases appear to remove anv
doubt OF the constitutional validity
OF the legislation proposed; fPeople
vs.. La Fetra, 23o N. Y. 42s; Levy w
Siegel, $50 N. Y. 63f; Block vs.. Hirsb
25s Y s 1875; Brown Co. VS.. Field
man, 25s U. S. 1902
These cases involved both the {; fth
and the fourteenth amendments Of
the Federal Constitution and similar
provisions Of the State Constitution
to which the exercise Of the police
power to protect the public health