| Show PROPERTY OWNERS i AND THEIR RIGHTS RIGHT S president hadley of yale on oil constitutional position of property in america in the independent of april ag 16 a weekly magazine published in new york is an especially valuable article of of president hadley of yale on the constitutional position of property in america the editor a as s of it a state of affens which plain men hive hine felt the increasing pressure of without being beine able to under tand i by in a republic the task of contending it should turn out to boil hopeless ho prisident hadley his explained so simply and so clearly that no citizen cit ieli with iny intelligence can fall fail to see ee I 1 ly what it is th it democracy in acci ic i Is i oil ig ain t the il comment clos clo s thus the business busine is of tile the voli ra is ib to see eee to it tint as as po sible the supreme court ddll be constituted of men capable of grasping the idi id i that property wa was made for man and not min for property we give extracts the gist of the article and asic all of our readers not to skip it the fact is that private property in the united states is constitutionally in a stronger position as against the goern government ment and the go eminent authority than is the cafe cae in any countr of europe this is pa partly rt cause the governmental means provided for the control or limitation of property are weaker in america than but chiefly because the rights of private property tire are acne forn formally fornwall jall established in the constitution itself this may seem a startling proposition but I 1 think a very brieF brief glance at the known facts of history will mill be sufficient to anil and sustain it fur property oro perty in the modern sene sence was a comparatively recent development in the public nubile low of european ei ELro communities coan unities in the united states on the contrad contrary ar property in the modern sene the basis on which the whole soc il 11 order was established and built up down to about the thirteenth century the system of land tenure in every country of europe was a feudal one it was bared on military service the majority of those who ho wanted to cultivate the soil were vere unable to protect themselves against the dangers of war ahe services of the military chief were indispensable as a basis for the toll toil of the laborer or the forethought of the capitalist it was the military ceif therefore who mho enjoyed not only the largest measure of respect but the strongest position under the law As conditions of public security grew better these things changed from the fourteenth century europe has witnessed the gradual substitution ution of industrial tenures for military tenures the gradual development of a system of property law intended to encourage the activities of the laborers and the capitalists rather thin the reward the services er vices of the su ee ce s ul military chieftain in the american colonie coloni eq where abere the public law of the united states first took its rise conditions were here wholly different people wanted no military chieftain to piolet them no oer overlord lord to rule them there was nas plenty of land for all plenty of op for the exorcise ei reise of lamorand lab labor orand and the ue of capital under such cir cum stances the laws lanns were so framed and interpreted as to give gie the maximum stimulus to labor and the mii num rights to capital at the time therefore when the united states s larabel from englard Eng lurd for indu industrial trial property was mas a fundamental principle lit in the liw and public opinion of the land the delegates to the con convention of were concerned with questions of constitutional I liw aw in ill the narrower e ene eire n but it so 0 happened that in milling cutuil limitations upon the powers of the and th the state go government they unwittingly incorporated into the constitution ution itself certain very ery etra ordin ary immunities to the property holders as a i body ahe constitution of 1783 1788 wis the result of a set of contracts agreement agre emente and compromises between two pretty evenly balanced parties a states right part and a national nit ional party it was nas in the first place provided that there should hit ha no taking of private property without due process of law this provision preen prevented ted tile the legislature or executive cither of the nation or of the individual st etues ates from taking property without judicial inquiry as to its necessity no man fore s siw aw the subsequent e effect 1 0 of I 1 this provision in presenting a majority J r i t 3 of voters acting in the legislature or through I 1 the executive from disturb disturbing ing existing arrangements with regard to railroad building or fact ry iry oper opert t tion there was another equally important clause in the constitution providing that no state should pass a law im the obligation of contracts in this cise case also a provision winch which was at frit first intended to the people of nf one locality against arbitrary ary legislation in another beesie a means of strengthening vested rights right is a whole against th possibility t if f logi legislative Iati e or exe executive execute cuti e interference the rights of indi owners were uius thus most fully but vas it when pio was in the hands bands of corporations 7 here al alo aio o the r of control by the government mas as meak eiluned weakened eiL ened fay by two to one of these vis nis the the t ed dartmouth Da ramouth college case in 1819 the other was the gc of the fourteenth irnen dment to the constitution in 1868 the fhe Diri mouth college cise do lit with an educational institution not with an industrial enterprise in 1816 the new legislature Legis liture attempted to take away anay the ch rights of Da ramouth ra ca nel lie webster was employed by the college in its defense and hi bi i i rea reasoning aning so impressed the court that tha t thy they committed themselves to position that a charter was mas a contract that i i state baa having ing induced people to invest money by certain privileges and immunities could not at will modify these privileges and immunities imn unities thus granted again bv the amendment to the constitution every state was nas for bidden to interfere v ith the civil rights of any person or to treat different persons in an unequal kiy v ay iy this amendment pissed just after the close of the civil war was mas intended to prevent the southern states from abridging the rights of the neg negro citizens but in 1882 1832 the pacific railroad co having been js as it conet conceived ived taxed by the assessors of if a counts in california took the position thit i law of the state oi 01 ceil cal taxing the property of a cor potation at a rite from that under which similar property prop eity city of an in divi duil bould be taxed was nas in effect a violation of the amendment because a corporation wai a a person and therefore entitled to equal treatment this view after careful con was mas upheld by the feder courts it is ib commonly said that the division of the powers in the modern state is into executive and judicial but tie funds funda division of powers in the constitution ution of the united states is between voters on the one hand and property owners on oil the other the forces of democracy on one side divided between the executive and tile the legislative are set over against the fore a of property on the other other side with ith the judici judic nry alry as arbiter between them the constitution ilsc not only forbidding the legislature and executive to trench upon the rights of prop I 1 city but compiling comp the judiciary to define and uphold those rights in a manner provided by the constitution itself it is evident that large powers and pilvi leges have haie been constitutionally delegated to nate aate property in general and to corporate corpo ute in particular the general status statu of the property owners under the law a c conot be changed by the i tion of cf the legislature or the executive oi 01 tile the people of a state voting at the polls ol 01 all three put together it cannot be changed without either a consensus of opinion amon the judges which should lead them to retrace their old news or in ill amendment to tho the constitution slit ution of the flie united st stilts itts by the slow and LUmber cumbersome bome machinery provided for that purpose our Dur pose or list last and I 1 hope most improbable ible a rev aution |
