All Ownership Limited By The Public Welfare

ALL OWNERSHIP LIMITED BY THE PUBLIC WELFARE

A lesson which should be taught the anthracite coal trust at this time is that all private ownership of property is limited by the public welfare. Especially is this true of all public Utilities. None of these in the very nature of the case can belong absolutely to their stockholders. The people always have the paramount interest. Stockholders have a very large interest in these and that interest should be and always will be recognized by the sovereign people so long as these utilities are managed in the interest of the public welfare. The only reason that franchises are required of these public utilities is that the interests of the public shall be served by them. They are permitted to charge a certain sum for these services to the public and they are entitled to nothing more. All talk of absolute ownership shows an entire lack of understanding of the nature of such property or a disposition to ignore the rights of the public.

But this spirit of claimed absolute ownership is everywhere manifested by the so-called captains of industry in the great monopolistic concerns of the country. It was finely illustrated in a quotation from Vanderbilt used by Wm. E. Curtis in a recent letter to the Record-Herald, as follows:

"This strike is to decide whether Mr. Mitchell and a lot of other labor agitators shall run our business," said Mr. Vanderbilt, "and that is a question I cannot submit to arbitration. If they were partners, or stockholders, or even if they were employees, we might discuss matters with them and submit our differences to arbitration, but no sane man can ask me to go into an arbitration to decide whether a stranger from Indiana or Illinois shall manage my business or whether I shall manage it myself. When I sell out my coal interests to Mr. Mitchell he can run them to suit himself, but as long as I own them I shall not permit him to do so."

Why have not the miners as much right to be represented by counsel as has Mr. Vanderbilt? Mr. Mitchell is simply the agent of the organized miners, their attorney if you please, and has the right to represent them. Of course the miners make serious mistakes at times in the conduct of their unions, but this in no way excuses the operators from their duty to their men and to the public. To these more is given and more is required. Many of the men are poor, ignorant and helpless, but their conduct in the great strike now on has been in striking contrast to that of the operators whose duty as good citizens is to help these helpless men and their helpless families. And it is the duty of the state to help them and the public generally when assailed by such arrogant and lawbreaking concerns. And in their efforts to better their condition, the miners and all other laborers have the same right to organize that capital has. But from the beginning of the present strike the miners have been wiling and eager to arbitrate their differences. On the other hand the operators have absolutely refused all concessions and have assumed, as in the above quotation, that the men cannot be permitted to have any say in the matter of their own vital welfare, nor the public either.

The Adrian Times booms Henry C. Smith for United States senator and declares that he would be a man in all ways fitted to hold that high office and would use its opportunities in the interest of the people of the entire state. All this may be truth but it by no means fits him to be the successor of James McMillan. Henry C. Smith is neither a millionaire nor a man who would be owned and voted by a millionaire and consequently would have no more show of gaining the senator-ship than a democrat. Senators who will use the opportunities of the office in the interest of the people have little place in that body and less influence. Henry C. Smith is no trust magnate, nor is he owned by any of the trusts, and he has already experienced what it means not to be thus connected. As a member of congress he had the hardihood to show some little independence in his votes and he has received the command to go 'way back to private life and sit down, after the fourth of next March. If the Times cannot make a more feasible recommendation on the question of the senator-ship, it would far better hold its peace.

There seems to be much sentiment throughout the state against the claim of McMillan II. to succeed to the senator-ship held by McMillan I. simply because he happened to be born the son of his father. The people shy at hereditary idea. Our people seem to prefer to wait at least until Pennsylvania has developed the principle a little farther.