Page:EB1911 - Volume 09.djvu/362

 after the extinction of the family in 1731, under a secondary branch of the Bourbons of Spain. In 1796–1814, Emilia was first incorporated in the Italian republic and then in the Napoleonic Italian kingdom; after 1815 there was a return to the status quo ante, Romagna returning to the papacy and its ecclesiastical government, the duchy of Parma being given to Marie Louise, wife of the deposed Napoleon, and Modena to the archduke Francis of Austria, the heir of the last Este. In Romagna and Modena the government was oppressive, arbitrary, corrupt and unprogressive, while in Parma things were better. In 1821 and 1831 there were unsuccessful attempts at revolt in Emilia, which were sternly and cruelly repressed; chronic discontent continued and the people joined again in the movement of 1848–1849, which was crushed by Austrian troops. In 1859 the struggle for independence was finally successful, Emilia passing to the Italian kingdom almost without resistance.  EMINENCE (Lat. eminentia), a title of honour now confined to the cardinals of the Church of Rome. It was originally given as a complimentary title to emperors, kings, and then to less conspicuous persons. The Roman empire of the 4th century adopted from the “vanity of the East the forms and ceremonies of ostentatious greatness.” Gibbon includes in the “profusion of epithets” by which “the purity of the Latin language was debased,” and which were lavished on “the principal officers of the empire,” “your Sincerity, your Gravity, your Excellency, your Eminence, your sublime and wonderful Magnitude, your illustrious and magnificent Highness.” From the notitia dignitatum it passed into the Latin of the middle ages as a flattering epithet, and was applied in the church and by the popes to the dignified clergy at large, and sometimes as a pure form of civility to churchmen of modest rank. On the 10th of June 1630, Urban VIII. confined the use of the titles Eminentiae and Eminentissimi to the cardinals, to imperial electors, and to the master of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem (order of the Knights of Malta). Since the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, and the entire change, if not actual destruction, of the order of St John, the title “eminence” has become strictly confined to the cardinals. Before 1630 the members of the Sacred College were “Illustrissimi” and “Reverendissimi.” It is, therefore, not correct to speak of a cardinal who lived before that time as “his Eminence.”

See du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis (Niort and London, 1884), s.v. “Eminentia.”

 EMINENT DOMAIN (Lat. eminens, rising high above surrounding objects: and dominium, domain), a term applied in law to the sovereign right of a state to appropriate private property to public uses, whether the owner consents or not. It is repeatedly employed by Grotius (e.g. De jure belli, bk. iii. c. 20, s. 7), Bynkershoek (Quaest. jur. pub. bk. 2, c. 15), and Puffendorf (De jure naturae et gentium, bk. i. c. 1, s. 19),—the two latter, however, preferring the word imperium to dominium; and by other Dutch jurists. But in modern times it is chiefly in the United States of America that the doctrine of eminent domain has received its application, and it is chiefly to American law that the following remarks refer (see also the article ). Eminent domain is distinguishable alike from the police power, by which restrictions are imposed on private property in the public interest, e.g. in connexion with the liquor traffic or public health (see re Haff (1904), 197 U.S. 488); from the power of taxation, by which the owner of private property is compelled to contribute a portion of it for public purposes; and from the war-power, involving the destruction of private property in the course of military operations. The police power fetters rights of property; eminent domain takes them away. The power of taxation is analogous to eminent domain as regards the purposes to which the contribution of the tax-payer is to be applied. But, unlike eminent domain, it does not necessarily involve a taking of specific property for those purposes. The destruction of property in military operations—or in the discharge by Government of other duties in cases of necessity, e.g. in order to check the progress of a fire in a city—clearly cannot be said to be an exercise of the power of eminent domain. The question whether the element of compensation is necessarily involved in the idea of eminent domain has in modern times aroused much controversy. According to one school of thought (see Lewis, Eminent Domain, s. 10), this question must be answered in the negative. According to a second, whose view has the support of the civilians (see Randolph, Eminent Domain, s. 227; Mills, Eminent Domain, s. 1) compensation is an inherent attribute of the power. An intermediate view is advocated by Professor Thayer (Cases on Constitutional Law, vol. 1, 953), according to which eminent domain springs from the necessities of government, while the obligation to reimburse rests upon the natural right of individuals. The right to compensation is thus not a component part of the power to take, but arises at the same time and the latter cannot exist without it. The relation between the two is that of substance and shadow. The matter is not, however, of great practical importance, for the Federal Constitution prohibits the exercise of the power “without just compensation” (5th Amendment), while in most of the states the State constitution or other legislation has imposed upon it a similar limitation: and the tendency of modern judicial decisions is in favour of the view that the absence of such a limitation will make an enactment so far unconstitutional and invalid.

In order to justify the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the purposes to which the property taken is to be applied must be “public,” i.e. primarily public, and not primarily of private interest and merely incidentally beneficial to the public (Madisonville Traction Co. v. Mining Co., 1904, 196 U.S. 239). Subject to this definition, the term “public” receives a wide interpretation. All kinds of property may be taken; and the procedure indicated by the different legislatures must be followed. Any contravention of this rule would involve a breach of the 5th Amendment of the Federal Constitution, which provides that “no person shall be  deprived of  property, without due process of law.” It may be added that if the performance of a covenant is rendered impossible by an act of eminent domain the covenantor is excused.

In English law, the only exact analogue to the doctrine of eminent domain is to be found in the prerogative right of the crown to enter upon the lands of subjects or to interfere with their enjoyment for the defence of the realm (see A.G. v. Tomline; 1879; 12 Ch. D. 214). No attempt is made to exercise this prerogative, and lands are acquired for state purposes by statute usually framed on or incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts (see ). The French Code Civil secures compensation to the owner of property in cases of expropriation pour cause d’utilité publique (art. 545), and there is similar provision in Belgium (Const. Law, art. II.), Holland (Fundamental Law, art. 147), Spain (Civil Code, art. 349, and Law of 3rd May, 1841), and most other European states. It has been held in France that the right to compensation does not arise under art. 545 of the Code Civil where only a servitude d’utilité publique is created on a private individual’s land.

In addition to the authorities cited in the text, see Lewis, Eminent Domain (2nd ed., Chicago, 1900); Mills, Eminent Domain (2nd ed., St Louis, 1888); Randolph, Eminent Domain in the United States (Boston, 1894).

 EMINESCU, MICHAIL (1849–1889), the greatest Rumanian poet of the 19th century, was born on the 20th of December in Ipateshti near Botoshani, in the north of Moldavia. He was of Turco-Tatar origin, and his surname was originally Emin; this was changed to Eminovich and finally to the Rumanian form Eminescu. He was educated for a time in Czernowitz, and then entered the civil service. In 1864 he resumed his studies in Transylvania, but soon joined a roving theatrical company where he played in turn the rôles of actor, prompter and stage-manager. After a few years he went to Vienna, Jena and Berlin, where he attended lectures, especially on philosophy. In 1874 he was appointed school inspector and librarian at the university of Jassy, but was soon turned out through the change of government, and took charge, as editor in chief, of the Conservative paper Timpul (Times). In 1883