S o c i a l o r CoK ( l^hCltwS l/v| _ S o c i ' a J aiA-fi " -Adk 60M3 Trl-btib' A n t i - S o c i a l W a g e s ? By I . W . C O X , S . J . Professor of Ethics Fordham University f f r • ,'Tv First Printing Fifth Thousand T H E A M E R I C A P R E S S N E W Y O R K REFERENCES A . B O O K S AND P A M P H L E T S Nell-Breuning: Reorganization of Social Economy. T r . b y Dempsey, S . J . (Bruce.) This book is considered one of t h e best on the Encyclical "Quadragesimo Anno." J . A. Ryan, D.D.: Distributive Justice. (Macmillan.) J . A. R y a n , D D . : A Living Wage. (Macmillan.) J . A. R y a n , D . D . : Social Reconstruction. (Macmillan.) J . Husslein, S.J.: Work, Wealth and Wages. ( M a t r e . ) J . Husslein, S.J.: Democratic Industry. (Kenedy.) J . Husslein, S.J.: The World Problem. (Kenedy.) J . Husslein, S.J.: The Bible and Labor.. (Macmillan.) Ryan-Husslein: The Church and Labor. (Macmillan.) it W. Cox, S.J.: Liberty—Its Use and Abuse, Vol. I I . ( F o r d h a m . ) H . Parkinson, D.D.: Primer of Social Science. (Devin-Adair.) L . McKenna, S . J . : The Church and Labor. (Kenedy.) Joseph Och: Primer of Political Economy. (Columbus, Josephinum College.) Lorenzo, D a r d a n o : Elements of Social and Political Economy. ( D u b - lin, Gill.) Joseph Clayton: Economics for Christians. (Herder.) L. W a t t , S.J.: Capitalism and Morality. (London, Cassell.) L. W a t t , S.J.: Catholic Social Principles. (London, Burns, Oates & Washbourne.) J . C. H a r r i n g t o n : Catholicism, Capitalism or Communism. (St. Paul, Lohman.) Father Cuthbert, O.S.F.: Catholic Ideals in Social Life. (London, Art and Book.) L. Garriguet: Social Value of the Gospel. (Wagner.) J . E . Ross: Consumers and Wage Earners. (Devin-Adair.) C. S. Devas: Key to the World's Progress. (Longmans.) F . J . H a a s : Man and Society. (Century.) J . Bampton, S.J.: Christianity and Reconstruction. (Herder.) B. Elder: A Study in Socialism. (Herder.) J . C. Kelleher: Private Ownership. (Dublin, Gill.) D . A. McLean: Morality of the Strike. (Kenedy.) E . Schmiedeler, O.S.B.: Introducing Study of the Family. (Century.) Muntsch, S.J., and Spalding, S.J.: Introductory Sociology. (Heath.) E . J . Burke, S.J.: Political Economy. (American Book Co.) M . Cronin: Primer of the Principles of Social Science. (Benziger.) G. Metlake: Christian Social Reform. (Dolphin Press.) A. J . Hogan, S.J.: Economic Recovery. Sc. (America Press.) J . A. Smith: Social Reconstruction. Sc. (America Press.) J . F. MacDonneli, S.J.: An Approach to Social Justice; a n d Religion and the Social Revolution. Sc each. (America Press.) (Continued on page 24) Infimi Potest, Nihil Obstat: Imprimatur: July 24, 1937. JOSEPH A. MUKPHY, S.J., Provincial Maryland-New York. ARTHDR J . SCANIAN. S . T . D . , Censor Librorum. + PATRICK CARDINAL HAYES, Archbishop of New York. C o p y r i g h t , 1 9 3 7 , b y T H E AMERICA P R E S S . W a g e s a n d O u r I m m o r a l /# E c o n o m i c O r d e r EVERY individual man has the absolute right from nature and nature's God, to a use in suffici°ncv of the material goods of this world.* This truth is undeniable in the light of the nature of man and the nature of material goods. God puts every individual into this glorious universe with a solemn obligation to develop himself physically, in- tellectually, above all, morally. Virtuous living is the su- preme end of man in this world, in order that by virtuous living man may win everlasting happiness in the world to come. Now for the fulfilment of each man's duty on earth, a sufficiency of material goods is a normal necessity for man. No less an authority than the standard bearer of Catholic theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas, points out the close con- nection between material goods in sufficiency and the life of virtue demanded by the natural and moral law. Here are the very words of St. Thomas: 1 "For the good life of man two things are required, of which the principal one is to act in accordance with virtue. Virtue is that by which a life is well led. The other thing is secondary and as it were instrumental, namely, a sufficiency of material goods, which is necessary for virtuous living." Again the great theologian declares:2 "A superabundance of riches and beggarly poverty must be avoided by those who wish to lead a virtuous life, in so far as both are occasions of sin. Abun- dance of riches furnishes occasion for pride: and poverty is the occasion for thieving, lying or even perjury." These were the sins occasioned by poverty in the mind of the great Doctor of the Church. I wonder what St. Thomas would say today, if he were to behold the spectacle, occasioned by poverty, of the widespread and wholesale frustration of one of man's noblest and most powerful in- stincts, the family instinct. I wonder what he would say at the spectacle of so many Christians, even Catholics, either unable to understand, or indifferent to the close connection * These articles were first given as broadcasts over the Paulist radio station WLWL. 1 De Regimine Principum, L. I, C. XV, about the middle. 2 Summa Theologica, HI, q. 40, a. 3. 1 OUR SUNDAY VISITOR LIBRARY HUNTINGTON, INDIANA 2 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? between a sufficiency of material goods and virtuous living for the masses. I can well imagine the amazement of this brilliant intellect, at the smug, smooth satisfied way in which so many followers of Christ accept our immoral economic order, nursing but one fear—a craven fear of Socialism, a fear that makes them spit out that word, Socialism, to blast with it every attempt at reform. I know that the great Doctor, in his simple, powerful and telling words, would point out in a way beyond my ability, how wrong it is, how immoral, how utterly indefensible, that so many millions should be denied the minimum sufficiency of those material goods which are necessary for virtue, and that in an era when human ingenuity can produce a sufficiency for all. When, oh when, will intelligent men, God-fearing men, above all, Catholic men, see that our present economic order is a mechanism of anti-Christ for the destruction of human souls? When will the scales of blindness fall off the eyes of all, especially leaders, so they can appreciate and remedy the situation so graphically described by Pius X I : 3 "Never- theless, it may be said with all truth, that nowadays the con- ditions of social and economic life are such, that vast multi- tudes of men can only with great difficulty pay attention to that one thing necessary; namely, their eternal salvation. . . . For this pitiable ruin of souls, . . . there can be no remedy other than a frank and sincere return to the teach- ing of the gospel. . . . All those versed in social matters de- mand a rationalization of economic life which will introduce sound and true order. . . . This is the perfect order which the Church preaches with intense earnestness, and which right reason demands; which places God as the first and supreme end of all created activity, and regards all created goods as mere instruments under God, to be used only in so far as they help towards the attainment of our supreme end." Could any philosophy be simpler, plainer, or truer? Do you know that private property is only an instru- ment, a mechanism, ordained by God, in order that material goods may truly serve their purpose of being useful for all men? ^ Do you know that by the intention of nature and nature's God, it is through the instrumentality of private property that all men are to have the use of material goods in that sufficiency required for virtuous living? The use of 3 Quadragesimo Anno, pp. 297-300, America Press edition. 3 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? material things by all, individually and collectively, is the very end and purpose and reason of private property. I t is on this basis that rational ethics and the Catholic Church defend private property. Listen to Pius X I in a passage I have often quoted to you before and will quote until I get it ringing in your ears, until you repeat it again and again, and hand it on and transmit it to others. I t is the answer to that un-Christian, that pagan idea of private property, which is held by so many unknowing Christians and Cath- olics. The Holy Father declares that private property has a twofold aspect, one individual, for the good of the indi- vidal who possesses it, and one social, for the common good of all. He further declares:4 "The right to own private prop- erty has been given to man by nature, or rather by the Creator Himself, not only in order that individuals may be able to provide for their own needs and those of their fami- lies, but also that by means of it, the goods which the Creator has destined for the human race may truly serve this purpose." So the possessors of large fortunes, the fortunate prop- erty owners in this country, possess their riches not only for themselves but for others. They are not the irrespon- sible owners; they are the responsible stewards of God's wealth. How can the property of individuals be for the good of others? I answer with Pius X I ; the right to own property is one thing; the proper use of property is another. The rich have most grave obligations of charity, beneficence, and liberality, with regard to their superfluous income. Moreover, the State itself by legitimate laws can see to it that superfluous income is properly distributed. As Pius X I says:5 " I t follows from the twofold character of owner- ship which we have called individual and social, that men must take into account in this matter, not only their own advantage, but also the common good. To define in detail these duties, when the need occurs and when the natural law does not do so, is the function of government; provided that the natural and divine law be observed, the public authority, in view of the common good, may specify more accurately what is licit and what is illicit for property owners in the use of their possessions." iQuadr. Anno, p. 271. 5 Quadr. Anno, p. 272. 4 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? Now all this may seem strange and revolutionary even to many Catholic ears. As a matter of fact the difference between ownership and the proper use of ownership is a logical deduction from the very nature of the institution of private property. Private property is an instrument of nature whereby not only the individual owner, but all men may have a use of material things in that sufficiency re- quired for virtuous living. Private property is a logical deduction from the right of all free human beings to use material goods. The limitation in the use of private prop- erty, so that it may not only serve the advantage of the owner but also the common good is equally a logical deduc- tion fromi the right of all men to use material goods in sufficiency. The very argument which establishes the right of private ownership also limits its extent and use. Make no mistake about this. What I am saying is fun- damental, rational, and likewise Catholic doctrine with re- gard to private property. This teaching comes down from the days af Aristotle, hundreds of years before the Christian era. Aristotle said: " I t is evident that it is better to have property private, but make the use of it common." St. Thomas, centuries after, taught the same truth and improved it, for he tells us quite plainly that as regards the power of acquiring and dispensing material goods, man may lawfully possess them as his own: as regards their use, a man ought not to look upon them as his own but as common."6 Now this does not mean in the mind, either of St. Thomas or of Catholic moralists and teachers of ethics, that anyone can simply walk in and use the material goods of those who have become private owners of them. What it does mean and means most emphatically is that property owners have a most sacred and solemn obligation under God and the natural law to use their rights of property in such a way that non-owners may have access to their goods on reasonable terms. If one man or a small group of men, by what is an impossible conjecture, got legitimate control of all the land in the United States, their right of ownership, would not and could not, exclude the right of the people of this country to get access to the land or the fruits of the land, on fair and reasonable terms and by just contracts. Today, as is evident, the only way that multitudes of 8 CJ. S. T., II, II, q. 66, a. 2. 7 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? men can get access to the material goods they need for sup- port of life and for virtuous living is by letting out their labor by a wage contract to property owners, that is, those who control at least ultimately, a certain amount of mate- rial goods. Remember this and keep it well in mind! All men have a right to the use of material goods in the suffi- ciency necessary for virtuous living. Ownership of property cannot and does not mean the right to deny men thè legiti- mate use of these material goods. Ownership by a few to the exclusion of use by the many is indefensible. The only way that the vast majority of mfcn can get access to these goods for use is by working for a wage. A wage in money is nothing else under this aspect than a demand on material goods. Since all men have a right to a wage this will in reality constitute a demand on material goods in the sufficiency required for healthy and virtuous living. If employers of labor, who can do so, do not pay a wage sufficient to constitute a demand on material goods, in a sufficiency for right human and humane living, then in the light of all rational ethics, in the light of all authoritative Christian social teaching, they are depriving the wage earner of what is his absolute right. The right to use material goods in a sufficiency is an absolute right of every man; it is a right prior and antecedent to any acquired right of property. The very right of private property is founded On and established by the antecedent right of man to use mate- rial things in sufficiency. Listen to the words of the brilliant Pontiff, Leo X I I I : 7 "The labor of the workingmàn is not only his personal attribute, it is necessary; and that makes all the difference. The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to fail therein is a crime. I t follows that each one has a right to procure what is required to live; and the poor can acquire it no other way than by work and wages. Let it be granted that as a rule workman and employer should freely'aèree as to wage, nevertheless, there is a dictate of nature mote imperious and more ancient than any bargain betwéèn man and man, that the remuneration must be enough to support the wage earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If through necessity or fear of worse evil, the Workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or 7 Rerum Novarum. pp. 25, 26, America Press editicfci. 6 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? contractor will give him no better, he is the victim of force and injustice." When we turn the pitiless searchlight of these true and undeniable principles of rational ethics and Christian social doctrine on the wage situation in our immoral economic order, what do we find? A condition which would make devils rock with laughter and bring multitudinous tears to the eyes of the guardian angels of men. For some time past, I have been studying wages by personal inquiry. What I have learned makes me suspect that there is in many quar- ters simply a wholesale violation of essential justice. In this whole matter, I am only speaking of those em- ployers who can pay a living wage but refuse to do so. The condition of those who through no fault of their own can- not in all honesty pay more is determined by other prin- ciples. We read about a Protestant Minister with his wife and three children who is testing out the $8.55, that is allowed for food for families on relief. The papers say that this family is going hungry with meat once a week on that amount for diet. Well, how about the families of the men who only have a total income for all purposes of $70 a month or $17.50 a week? And this in the midst of a coun- try called Christian and civilized, where the privileged are uniting to defend their American rights to conduct their businesses as they please, which may well mean in the per- verted mentality of some the paying of starvation wages. What must amaze and disgust right thinking men and women in this whole wage question throughout the country is the blindness and stupidity of employers who can pay a living and generous wage, and deny it at a moment when the red serpent of Communism is stalking through the land, making trouble and seeking trouble, and waxing fat and bold on economic distress. Such employers are harvesting Communistic fodder, by a denial of a living wage. As Pius X I says:8 "Even more severely must we condemn the fool- hardiness of those who neglect to remove or modify such conditions as exasperate the minds of the people and prepare the way for the ruin and overthrow of the social order." The New York Times (March 7) quoted an industrial- ist leader as saying in connection with the service strike that there was need of legislation to protect the public from • 8 Quadr. Anno, p. 291. 7 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? irresponsible labor leaders. And I submit, that there is the same need of legislation to protect the public and the work- ers from irresponsible leaders of capital and industry. For in the same issue of the New York Times, we read of a police investigation of some characters used for strike break- ing. A professional strike breaker, giving his services at an enormous daily wage, to break a justifiable strike is one of the most tragic phenomenons of our immoral economic order. He is a Benedict Arnold to the cause of humanity; a vulture that fixes his talons in the prostrate body of the impov- erished workers, to fatten himself on the victims of injustice. What should be said of the agencies which employ profes- sional strike breakers for such purposes? In the meantime; it is heartening to notice that the cause of a living wage gains sympathy from the consumers and the public at large. That is a mentality that will do more than anything else to rectify our immoral economic order. The public and the consumers have in their hands the power of bringing about a true regime of Social Justice and our great task as Catholics is to propagate the correct principles of social justice of Leo X I I I and Pius X I . May I ask my hearers to get and study a work called the "Social Manifesto," by Joseph Husslein, S.J., and published by the Bruce Publishing Company. In it are the texts and explana- tion of Catholic social doctrine. Know this book from cover to cover and inside out; talk, write and preach the principles therein contained. Let us change the mentality of the masses and the war is won. Neither perverted capi- talism nor perverted Communism can resist for long a cor- rect mentality of the masses. Ballots not bullets supporting this correct mentality on social justice will win the day. Legislators will not dare to resist the will of an aroused right thinking electorate. And there is need of quick action. Speaking of the need of an ample sufficiency for the work- ingman and his economic security, Pius X I says:9 "We em- phasize them with renewed insistence; for unless serious attempts be made, with all energy and without delay to put themi in practice, let no one persuade himself that the peace and tranquillity of human society can be effectively defended against the forces of revolution." After the former King of England, Edward VIII, had paid 8 Quadr. Anno, p. 278. 8 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? a visit to the slums of Glasgow and then the new gigantic and luxurious liner, the Queen Mary, he turned to one near him and asked: "How do you reconcile a world that has pro- duced this mighty ship with the slums we have just visited?" The luxury of the Queen Mary and the dark desolation of Glasgow slums can only be reconciled in the mentality of those who prefer matter to mind, magnitude to men. The modern mind has made a god of bigness in business, in pro- duction, in profits. To these the modern mind has sacrificed man himself as the ancient Pharoahs sacrificed an army of slaves to the bigness of the pyramids. The problem we have today is to teach the modern mind to prefer men to money and the perfection of man to a pyramid of profits. That is our task to work for man and humanity, to make man better and by better men to make a better universe. I t is of this that Leo X I I I spoke in his encyclical on "Christian Democracy":10 "To make the condition of those who toil more tolerable; to enable them to obtain, little by little, those means by which they may provide for the future, to help them to practice in public and private the duties which morality and religion inculcate; to aid them to feel that they are not animals but men, not heathens but Chris- tians, and so to enable them to strive more zealously and more eagerly for the one thing necessary; that ultimate good for which we are all born into the world." A L i v i n g W a g e a n d O u r I m m o r a l E c o n o m i c O r d e r IN the preceding broadcast I said that I have been making, whenever the opportunity offered, little personal investi- gations as to wagesi paid in various industries. A week ago, I was alone in the elevator of a midtown building with the man operator. "How much do you earn, boy?" I inquired. The answer was $22 a week. "Are you married?" I con- tinued. "Yes," was the reply. "Have you any children?" I persisted. " N o ! " was the curt answer. "We can't live on $22 a week. My wife has to go to work." 10 The Great Encyclicals oj Leo XIII (Benziger), p. 48S. 9 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? For the last two broadcasts, I have been insisting on the idea that every individual has an absolute right to use of the material goods of this world, in a sufficiency for human, humane and virtuous living. I have tried to bring home to you the idea that virtuous living is the end of man s earthly existence, and that sufficiency of material goods is an in- strument designed by nature and nature's God to assist man in virtuous living. I have called attention repeatedly to the fact that our present economic order is immoral because it puts so many in the condition wherein, according to Pius X I - 1 1 "Vast multitudes can only with great difficulty pay attention to that one thing necessary, namely, their eternal salvation." Of course, an immoral economic order can never justify one sin by a single individual. I In these broadcasts I have repeated and will repeat in season and out of season that the human right to use mate- rial goods in sufficiency, as a help and an instrumentality to virtuous living is a right antecedent to and. prevalent over any acquired right of property. I have likewise em- phasized in the words of St. Thomas that man has a right to private property but that its use should be common in the sense that others through just contracts and especially the wage contract, should have access to the material goods rep- resented by property. . Now, who would say that the elevator operator, working for $22 'a week, was working under an equitable contract, if the wages paid for his work do not represent that demand on goods for use in sufficiency to which he has a right from nature and nature's God? Who can maintain the thesis that provided the business for which he works is a sound and'profit-making business, the elevator operator is not a victim of an immoral economic order in being forced to accept a wage insufficient to demand goods necessary for the support of a wife and family in decent and frugal comfort? Listen to the words of Pius X I in his encyclical on "Chaste Marriage." Speaking of the occasions of sin to mar- ried couples, arising from straitened economic circumstances, the Holy Father says:12 "So in the first place an effort must be made to obtain that which Our Predecessor, Leo X I I I , of happy memory, has already required, namely, that in the 11 Quadr. Anno, p. 297. 12 P. 38, America Press edition. 10 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? State such economic and social methods should be set up as will enable every head of a family to earn as much as according to his station in life, is necessary for himself, his wife and for the rearing of his children, for 'the laborer is worthy of his hire.' To deny this or to make light of what is equitable is a grave injustice and is placed among the greatest sins by Holy Writ. Nor is it lawful to fix such a scanty wage as will be insufficient for the upkeep of the family in the circumstances in which it is placed " All this ought to be as clear as the noonday sun to the Christian and Catholic mind. All this follows from the right of all men, based on the clear intent of nature and n a t u r e s God, to a use in sufficiency of the material goods necessary and appropriate for human and humane, decent and virtuous living. On what principle are the higher-ups W a given sound and profit-making industry entitled to enormous salaries, as long as the lower-downs are deprived of a hving. wage? There is nothing in rational ethics or Christianity that can defend this practice. And yet we find Catholics so unconsciously the victims of the perverted Capitalistic ideas in which all of us have been brought up that they defend or smooth over or do not vividly realize the utter iniquity and wrongfulness of the situation. When a strike for a living wage was at its neignt, a Catholic professional man, educated and intelli- gent, who would never refuse any appeal I made to him in the name of charity, sat in my room and expressed the opinion, when I was condemning the wages paid to the workers that they did not deserve any more. "Deserve any 5 E - I e X f C l f ' m e C k " C a n t h i s large industry run its bus£ ness without the aid of the workers?" This is one of the essential points of this whole matter of a living wage. In nnr t T ° S K f e " C a p i t a l C a n n 0 t d o whhout labor, nor labor without capital." 13 The product of so insignificant a thing as a household pin is the output of a thousand hands all engaged in a social a cooperative work, to produce goods for the use of all Capital cannot do without labor and labor cannot do withou capital. And in this social and cooperative work in which labor is engaged, the normal able-bodied laborer is entitled as a result of his labor to a demand on goods for 13 Rerum Nov arum, p. 11. 11 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? use in the sufficiency necessary for human and humane liv- ing. Call that demand on goods, wages, or money, or what you will, but if the laborer does not get as a result of his labor, use of goods in a sufficiency, he is being deprived of what is his human right for the part he plays in what is a cooperative and social work. A sufficiency of goods for use in human, humane, frugal and decent living is the due of every laborer working for a going concern. In the words of Leo X I I I : 1 4 "To defraud anyone of wages that are his due is a crime which cries to the avenging anger of heaven." Let us look into this matter a little deeper. _ Why is every able-bodied worker for a going concern entitled to a wage which in reality constitutes a demand on goods suffi- cient for human and humane, decent and frugal living? And here we must examine a difficulty raised by the school of economic liberalism of laissez faire on which our modern perverted capitalistic system is founded. Liberalism and laissez faire stand for freedom. If the laborer freely agrees to work for a given wage, even though that wage is not a living wage, has not the employer satisfied all the demands of justice by paying him the wage agreed upon? This age- old and hoary objection isi being raised today. In answer, I say there is a twofold aspect to labor. One is a personal aspect. If you look at labor as a merely per- sonal thing, the laborer is free to work for any wage, or no wage, or not to work at all. But labor, besides being per- sonal is a necessary thing. I t is necessary for man to labor in order to preserve and develop his life to that perfection demanded by a strict command of the natural law. Without labor man cannot preserve and develop his life physically, intellectually, and morally, and thus glorify God by virtu- ous living. Hence labor is necessary for man and the re- ward of this necessary labor is by natural right the necessary material goods without which human development and per- fection, especially moral, is normally very difficult. All this is contained in the words of Leo X I I I , answering the principles of economic liberalism or laissez faire:15 To labor is t o exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is neces- sary for the purposes of life, and most of all, for self-preservation. " I n the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat thy bread." i Therefore, a 14 Rerum Novarum, p. 12. 15 Rerum Novarum, pp. 25, 26. 12 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? man's labor has two notes or characters. First of all, it is personal. Secondly, a man's labor is necessary; for without the results of labor a man cannot live; and self-conservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey. Now if we were to consider labor merely so fait as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages. But, the labor of the workingman is not only personal, but it is necessary and that makes all the dif- ference. The preservation of life is the bounden duty of each and all, and t o fail therein is a crime. I t follows that each one has a right to procure what is required to live; and the poor can acquire it in no other way than by work and wages. There is a dictate of nature more imperious and more ancient than any bargain between man and man, that the remuneration must be enough to support the wage earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions, he is the victim of force and injustice." Could anything be more clear cut and convincing than this rebuke by Leo X I I I to the perverted capitalism of his day in its denial of a living wage? Liberty of contract in the wage engagement is the cry of the advocate of laissez faire and economic liberalism. Liberty of contract in the wage engagement is the very basis and foundation upon which the wrong-thinking capitalist finds it possible to deny a living wage. A denial of a living wage based on liberty of contract is both immoral in such a denial and immoral in the basis and foundation assigned for it. The acceptance by the worker of a non-living wage in the so-called liberty of wage contract is neither based on the free contract of the workingman nor the free contract of the employer. I t is not based on the free contract of the work- ingman; for the workingman is no more free in the accept- ance of a non-living wage than the innocent wayfarer who hands over his purse to a bandit at the point of a pistol The workingman at the point of the gun of economic neces- sity hands over the true price and value of his work to the unscrupulous employer, not by a free contract, but because he is forced to do so for fear of a greater evil. Nor does a denial of a living wage by a so-called free contract represent liberty of contract on the part of the employer. No man is morally free to make an immoral contract. Such a contract is not liberty but license. Liberty unrestrained by moral law and justice is the license of a bandit, not the liberty of a free and moral man. The em- ployer in the wage contract who denies a living wage, when 13 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? he is capable of paying one, is engaged in the same kind of license displayed by the footpad in holding up an innocent wayfarer. If the individualist hopes to satisfy his own con- science or to defend himself before the bar of righteous pub- lic opinion in the persistent denial of a living wage, he will have to think up some better defense than the hoary and exploded myth of liberty of contract. Pius X I , forty years after Leo X I I I , gives us principle after principle by which to demonstrate that the working- mlan has a right to wages, constituting in fact a demand on material goods in a sufficiency necessary for human and humane and decent living. He shows how States grow rich not only by the toil of employer and employed but also by the beneficence of the Creator in His liberal grant of natural resources. Then he shows how through private property these natural resources are to be for the benefit of all * Now, the natural law, or rather, God's will manifested by it, demands that right order be observed in the application of natural resources to human needs; and this order con- sists in every thing having its proper owner." Then the Holy Father shows how private property should work to the bene- fit of all:18 Hence it follows that unless a man apply his labor to his own property, an alliance must be formed between his toil and his neigh- bor s property; for each is helpless without the other I t is there- fore false to ascribe the results of their combined efforts to either party alone; and it is flagrantly unjust that either should deny the efficacy of the other and seize! all the profits. After this Pius X I is led to a discussion of the just dis- tribution of the wealth socially created by the cooperation of capital and labor. Listen to the vigorous words of the fearless Pontiff:17 Each class must receive its due share, and the distribution of created goods must be brought into conformity with the demands of the commion good and social justice. For every sincere observer is conscious that the vast differences between the few who hold excessive wealth and the many who live in destitution constitute a grave evil in modern society. . . . The immense number of propertyless wage earners on the one hand, and the superabundant riches of fhe fortu- nate few on the other is an unanswerable argument that the earthly 16 Quadr. Anno, p. 274. 17 Quadr. Anno, p. 276. 14 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? goods, so abundantly produced in this age of industrialism are far from rightly distributed and equitably shared among the various classes of men. Then Pius X I , from the vantage point of the Vatican, solemnly declares, that unless these reforms are attempted "with all energy and without delay, let nobody persuade himself that the peace and tranquillity of human society can be effectively defended against the forces of revolution. There is the answer to those Catholics who are so ardently tilting against Communism and not at all interested in the reform of our immoral economic order. In what shall the reform consist? Listen to Pius X I : 1 9 "Every effort must be mjade that at least in the future a just share only of the fruits of production be permitted to accumulate in the hands of the wealthy, and that an ample sufficiency be supplied to the workingmen." . And how is this distribution to take place? In the mind of Pius X I by a rightful and living wage. Listen to his words:20 This program cannot, however, be realized unless the wage earner without property be placed in such circumstances that by skill and thrift, he can acquire a certain moderate ownership. . . . But how can he save money except from his wages and by living sparingly, who has nothing but his labor by which to obtain food and the necessaries of life. Let us turn, therefore, to the question of wages which Leo X I I I held to be "of great importance," stating and ex- plaining where necessary principles and precepts. And the principles of Pius X I of course are the same as those of Leo X I I I : 2 1 Every effort must be made that fathers of families receive a wage sufficient to meet adequately ordinary domestic needs. If in the present state of society this is not always feasible, social justice demands that reforms be introduced without delay which will guarantee to every adult workingman just such a wage. That it has, been feasible in the past and is feasible to- day for many American industries to pay just such a living wage, I think is self-evident from the high salaries and high profits in many American businesses. That such a wage has not been paid is because our economic and financial order 18 Quadr. Anno, p. 278. 19 Quadr. Anno, p. 277. 20 Quadr. Anno, p. 278. 21 Quadr. Anno, pp. 279, 280. 15 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? is immoral, is organized not for human need but for human greed. If our American economic and financial order was organized for human need, it would fulfil the ideal laid down by Pius X I : 2 2 For then only will the economic and, social organism be soundly established and attain its end when it secures for all and each those goods which the wealth and resources of nature, technical achievement, and the social organization of economic affairs can give. These goods should be sufficient to supply all needs and arf honest livelihood and to uplift to that higher level of prosperity and culture, which provided it be used with prudence, is not only not a hindrance, but is of singular help to virtue. I think all will agree with me that here in America we have the wealth and the resources and the technical achieve- ment to develop the better economic order proposed by Pius X I . Instead of that we have developed an immoral eco- nomic order which is not only not a help but a hindrance to virtuous living. If we look for the reason, we find selfish- ness, unbridled and sordid greed, an almost universal de- parture from sound rational and Christian ideas on the end and purpose of property and economic production. We are not organized economically for production but for profit, not organized primarily for man and morality but for the madness of mere money making. And this false and pagan organization of our economic life, this immoral economic order is the occasion of the pitiable ruin of human bodies and souls alike. In the words of Pius X I : 2 3 How universally has the true Christian spirit become impaired, which formerly produced such lofty sentiments even in uncultured and illiterate men. In its stead, man's one solicitude is to obtain his daily bread in any way he can. And so bodily labor, which was decreed by Providence for the good of man's body and soul, has everywhere changed into an instrument of man's perveision; for dead matter leaves the factory ennobled and transformed, where men are corrupted and degraded. If we are to save men's bodies and souls, we must change our immoral economic order by changing the pagan men- tality of men with regard to the end and purpose of property and production. I am bold enough to say we must change 22 Quadr. Anno, p. 281. 23 Quadr. Anno, p. 299. 16 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? most radically the mentality of many Catholics and Catholic leaders, and make the mentality of Catholics a Catholic mentality with regard to the purposes of property and pro- duction. I , j.^ In the Commonweal I read: "Every Catholic editor is painfully aware of the strong and unfortunately, sometimes bitter divisions among American Catholics on the subject of Social Justice and the papal teaching on that supremely important of all temporal problems." The apostolate of clergy and laity in our present pagan society is an economic apostolate. Therein lies the salvation of souls purchased by the life blood of the heart of Christ. Pius X I urges the clergy to seek diligently and to select prudently and to tram fittingly lay apostles for the principles of social reconstruc- tion among workingmen and employers. And he says: No easy task is here imposed upon the clergy wherefore all candidates for the sacred priesthood must be adequately prepared to meet it by intense study of social matters The end and object of these broadcasts has been to arouse interest in the social teaching of Catholicism. I have received words of encouragement and approya fromL prel- ates, priests, the laity and even from non-Catholics. Words of approval have corrte from Prince Edward Island in Canada in the extreme east and from California in the far west. For this interest I am grateful and by it I am immeasurably encouraged. Let us form a great brotherhood of prayer tor Social Justice. No human power can change our immoral economic order. Only God can send us the fearless and wise leadership we need. In the meantime, each of us, you and I, will carry on for God and country. We cannot fail, if we rely on God and true Christian principles. A n t i - S o c i a l W a g e s a n d O u r I m m o r a l E c o n o m i c O r d e r I HAVE advanced over and over again the principle that every human being has an absolute right to a use of mate- rial goods necessary and appropriate for right human liv- ing. Such right human living is virtuous living, or living the 24 Quadr. Anno, p. 304. 17 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? good life, which is the happy life, by which man prepares himself for eternal happiness in the life beyond the grave. Use of material goods in sufficiency is an instrumentality for the good, happy and virtuous life. Private property is a mechanism of nature, designed by nature and nature's God that all men, and every man, may have an ordered sufficiency of material goods. Private ownership, therefore, has a twofold aspect; it is designed for the good of the individual, who possesses it, and also for the common good of all. The greatest of Catholic theologians, St. Thomas says that as regards the power of acquiring and dispensing material goods, man may lawfully possess them as his own; as regards their use man ought to look on them, hot as his own, but as common.25 The use of privately owned goods becomes common in one way when the property owner permits others to have access to them by just contracts, especially in our day, by the wage con- tract. Since every able-bodied worker has an absolute right to a use of material goods in sufficiency for human and humane living, for the good, happy and virtuous life, his wage contract should represent s demand in reality on mate- rial goods sufficient for such a life. Now what is an equitable wage calculated in terms of a bare sufficiency of material goods necessary for human, humane, happy and virtuous living? According to Prof. Broadus Mitchell, of Johns Hopkins University, in his book, A Preface to Economics:26 - In August, 1919, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics made a study of the cost of maintaining the family of a govern- ment employee (husband, wife and three children below fourteen) in Washington at a health and decency level. This involved the mak- ing up of a "quantity budget" of the actual items the family would need, and ascertainment; of the prices which would have t o be paid for these items at the time. The government agents, in composing the budget, meant to have it provide: enough food to maintain health, particularly the children's health; housing in low rent neigh- borhoods and in the smallest number of rooms consistent with de- cency; the upkeep of household equipment, but with no provision for purchase of furniture; warm clothing of lasting quality, with good enough appearance to preserve self-respect; street-car fares for work and shopping; a modest amount of insurance; medical and dental care; contributions to churches, unions, lodges; simple amusements, such as moving pictures once in a while, occasional street-car rides 25 a. S. T., I I , II, q. 66, a. 2. 26 Published by Henry Holt & Co., 1932, p. 299. 18 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? for pleasure, some Christmas gifts for the children and so on. This budget does not include many comforts which should be included in a proper American standard of living. Thus no provision is directly made for savings other than insurance, nor for vacations, nor for books and other educational purposes. This budget it was found, would cost at market prices $2,262.47. This minimum use of goods in sufficiency expressed in terms of money at its current value, for happy and holy liv- ing, would seem to fit in with the minds of the two great social Popes, Leo X I I I and Pius X I , except that they also demand the possibility of savings so that the worker may become a property owner. A denial of this minimum suffi- ciency in material goods to a family would seem to be the denial of a social wage. As Pius X I says in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage-.2'' So in the first place an effort must be made to obtain that which Our predecessor, Leo X I I I , of happy memory, has already required, namely, that in the State such economic and social methods should be set up as will enable every headi of a family to earn as much, as, according to his station in life, is necessary for himself, his wife, and for the rearing of his children, for "the laborer is worthy of his hire." To deny this or to make light of what is equitable is a grave in- justice and is placed among the greatest sins by Holy W r i t ; nor is it lawful to fix such a scanty wage as will be insufficient for the upkeep of the family in the circumstances in which it is placed. Pius X I in The Reconstruction of the Social Order says:28 Every effort must be made, therefore, that at least in the future a just share only of the fruits of production be permitted to accu- mulate in the hands of the wealthy and that an ample sufficiency be supplied to the workingman. The purpose is not that these become slack at their work, for man is born to labor as the bird to fly, but that by thrift they may increase their possessions and by the prudent management of the same may be enabled to bear the family burden with greater ease and security, being freed f r o m that hand-to-mouth uncertainty, which is the lot of the proletarian. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1918- 19 investigated the cost of living in ninety-two industrial centers, ranging from New York City to small towns in forty-two States. The average number of persons in the families investigated was 4.9. The total average earnings per family were $1,513.29 per year. As Professor Mitchell says in this connection: 27 P . 38. 28 P. 277. 19 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? This study, when compared with others made at the same time, showed that the vast majority of these families were not receiving enough to live at a health and decency level. More than three- fourths of them did not receive, from all sources, enough income to equal the $1,760 found necessary by Professor Ogburn, and ninety-one per cent were under the $2,262 set u p for the budget for a minor gov- ernment employee in Washington. Now let us turn to the year 1929, ten years later. I have before me a book entitled America's Capacity to Con- sume, prepared by the Brookings Institution, of Washington, D. C., and published in 1934. In this book we read: "A family income of $2,500 was in 1929, and despite the decline of prices, still is, a very moderate one. I t permits few of the luxuries of life, even for families of only two or three persons" (p. 119). The Bureau of Home Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture has estimated the costs of three types of diet, to supply the physiological needs of an average family, the adequate diet at minimum cost, $500 a year, the adequate diet at moderate cost providing more balance and variety, $800, and the liberal diet, provid- ing still greater variety and better quality, $900 per year. On the basis of the 1930 census there were 27,474,000 fami- lies in the United States consisting of more than one person. Of these families nearly 6,000,000, or more than twenty-one per cent, had incomes less than $1,000. If they spent $500 for the minimum adequate diet, they would have $500 left to meet all other expenses. Twelve million of these families, or forty per cent of families in the United States, received less than a yearly income of $1,500. If they spent $500 a year for diet, they would have $1,000 a year for all expenses. Twenty million of the total 27,000,000 families, namely, sev- enty-one per cent had less than $2,500 a year, which would only demand a supply in goods for moderate sufficiency, whilst forty-two per cent fell below that money income capable of buying goods in that moderate sufficiency required by a social wage. And notice this, one-tenth of one per cent of the families in the higher brackets of income received as much as the forty-two per cent in the lower brackets. To make it more concrete, 11,653,000 families received in an- nual income $10,000,000,000, whilst 36,000 families re- ceived approximately the same income of $10,000,000,000. Is not this a fairly good illustration of the words of Pius X I : "For every sincere observer is conscious that the vast differ- 20 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? ences between those who hold excessive wealth and the many who are in destitution constitute a grave evil in modern society." I have been making for some time newspaper clippings of wages paid in various industries and services. Let me cite a few of these. From the World-Telegram, July 2, 1935: "Minimum wages ranging from $8.64 to $14.40 a week for women employees of hotels and restaurants were recom- mended in a report submitted today to State Industrial Commissioner Elmer F. Andrews, by the Hotel and Restau- rant Wage Board." I t is to be noted that the minimum wage recommended represents 449.28 a year; the maximum, $748.80 a year. This was before the declaration of the un- constitutionality of the National Recovery Act. Comment- ing on this report to Commissioner Andrews, the New York Times said editorially on May 10, 1935: It contends that the hotel and restaurant NRA codes are being so extensively ignored that they give little protection while employers are still able.under those codes to make heavy deductions for uniforms, laundry, meals, lodging, and fines. In a New York City hotel for example, "a chambermaid listed as receiving $12.51 a week may actually receive $4.76 for a forty-five hour work week, or about 10.2 cents an hour, including wages and tips, subject to deductions for uniforms or supplies." In one restaurant a waitress stated that she was charged two dollars fòr breaking a plain glass water pitcher. The Commis- sioner cóncludès that unless the State exercises its authority to estab- lish minimum rates t o safeguard the health and well-being of the workers, as well as to protect the reputable employer, it is likely that conditions will deteriorate, rather than improve. And in connection with the wages of women here is a clipping from the New York Times for March 8, 1936: Comparison of the records showed that 6,674 gainfully employed women in New York State were receiving home relief because their earnings were inadequate for the support of themselves and their families. In thè manufacturing division, of 212 women with six de- pendents each, hinety-thrèe per cent earned Under $15.00 weekly. Of 116 women with eight dependents each, thirteen per cent earned under $5.00 weekly. In the clerical section of sixty-nine women with six de- pendents each, sixty-two per cent earned under $15.00. Thus the majority of the employed women on relief received wages so low that they would riot cover the barest nècessìtiès of life, even if the women had no dependents and were supporting only themselves. I received the following figures of wages accbrding to the Retail Trade Code from one of the administers of the National Recovery Act. Stores open fifty-two hours a Week but less than fifty-six hours, employees ori it basis vb? forty 21 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? hours a week, minimum wage $14.00, or thirty-five cents an hour. Stores open for fifty-six hours a week but less than sixty-three hours, employees on a basis of a forty-four hour week, minimum wage $14.50. Stores open sixty-three hours a week or more, employees on a basis of a forty-eight hour week, minimum wage $15.00 or 31.2 cents per hour. And notice this, junior employees, under eighteen years, $1.00 per week rates less than the above. Here are some statistics: Girls and women, employed in a certain chain of stores, received about $11.45 a week for a certain type of work, for a six-day week, with the work- ing day lasting from 9 A. M. until 6:30 P. M. Another senior had worked for a corporation controlling a series of service stations. The work was considered skilled labor. The hours were eleven hours a day for a day man and thirteen hours for night men. This was for six days a week. The men could be told to' work on their day off, which was never a Saturday or Sunday. For this they received $18.00 a week, besides, they paid for their overalls and cleaning. The uniforms change in winter and summer, and ever so often the color or style is changed completely. The men must buy these uniforms, two of each type from the company. And so I could go on and on. And the thought occurs to me that the public and the consumers are cooperating with these 'companies and businesses by accepting their service. In other words, the public is the patron of busi- nesses that are making economic slaves of their brothers and sisters and neighbors and friends. And where is the government and the courts! The New York Supreme Court declared unconstitutional1 the State Minimum Wage Law under which the wages of 22,000 minor employees were raised from an average of $10.41 to $13.42 per week. And the declaration of the Supreme Court with regard to the NRA is well known. Now remember this, I am not com- plaining against these decisions according to law. We must be governed by law, not by arbitrary dictatorship. But I do submit that our fundamental laws seemed to be based upon laissé faire, the defense of property rights, in preference to human rights. Let me insist again in all this that I am not trying to stir u p the poor against the rich: let m'ê "state again that I rêèognize the fact that some businesses tdSay are not able 22 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? to pay more in wages. Nor am I putting the case for bet- ter wages here on the ground of justice.' What I maintain is that the wages today in many branches of trade are anti- social and for this reason that they work against the com- mon good in destroying the purchasing power of the masses which alone can keep the wheels of industry turning and which alone can do away with that unemployment which is destroying the morale of the American people, especially our youth. And back of all these anti-social wages is the tremendous truth that we can produce enough for all with our present equipment, and to produce enough for all seems to be a duty in the light that all men have a right to a sufficiency of material goods appropriate for happy and holy living. If we have not produced and distributed through social wages enough for all, it is because our economic life is organized primarily not for production but for profits, not for men but for the madness of money making. Proof of this seems to be at hand in the fact that many businesses are declaring profits equal to the other years, yet the em- ployment situation and the necessities for public relief re- main in the same condition. The economic condition of the masses today, which can fairly be characterized by the name of economic slavery, is due to the anti-social attitude of employers. This attitude of employers, big and little, shows itself in two ways, both causes of unemployment: first, in extending the hours of labor and, second, in decreasing to a minimum the compen- sation. Increase the hours of employment for individuals and you exclude others from their right to work. Decrease compensation and you lower mass purchasing power and fac- tories are closed, industries are curtailed, services are re- duced to a minimum and unemployment extends to the millions. I do not have to prove that man has an absolute right to a use of the material goods necessary for his connatural development, physically, intellectually, and morally, and that this right is antecendent and superior to any acquired right of property. Hence the first charge on all industrial and business operations ought to be to supply the worker with the wages which are equivalent to the goods necessary for his threefold perfection. To say that a social wage for American workingmen and 23 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? women in whatever way they work is an impossibility is to close one's eye to elemental facts. Wages are only goods in another form and God has so blessed America that we can produce enough goods that all may live in frugal com- fort and security. Production in America has not broken down; it is distribution which has broken down and broken down precisely because of a denial of a living wage. Dis- tribution has failed because of the anti-social attitude of employers who will not share the wealth by proper wages. If this is done with shortened hours of work, then the mass buying power of the people is increased, the products of farms and factories will be consumed, peace and security will again reign in the economic order. Let the employers, great and small, refuse this living wage with the cut it im- plies in their profits and there will be no economic peace. The anti-social attitude of employers have brought about those conditions in which attacks on the freedom and sanc- tity of the individual are made. I t is in these conditions that doctrines of Communism and Fascism flourish, the doc- trine of the absolute State, of the State as God, of the State as auti-Christ of which Moscow is the sign and the symbol. Anti-Christ is in our midst in America primarily and funda- mentally in the denial of a social wage. Instead of this very simple remedy, a social wage for our economic ills, we see the advocacy, in this so-called age of science, of contraception of nature, of destruction of goods that men are in need of, on the false principle that pros- perity will arise from destruction; we see the advocacy of contraception of human beings on the false principle that a lowered population will give increased mass buying power, we see the advocacy of. high income taxes to provide a dole, when the tax should have been paid immediately to the worker as a reward for his labor in a living wage. Nor will an increase in the volume of money alleviate the situa- tion unless that money goes where it belongs in adequate wages to the worker. The denial of an adequate wage to the worker, the economic enslavery of the worker, is at the root of all our woes, economic and moral. This is only to say, in other words, that it is by lawless unrestrained greed that "workingmen have been given over, isolated and defense- less, to the callousness of employers."—-Leo XIII. 2 9 29 Rerum Novarum, p. 2. 24 SOCIAL OR ANTI-SOCIAL WAGES? REFERENCES (Continud from inside front cover) B . AMERICA 1 . SOCIAL JUSTICE AND CATHOLIC SOCIAL PRINCIPLES The Bishops and a n Economic Philosophy—R. Swing—March 29, P o p ^ T n d B i s h o p s ' L a b o r P r o g r a m — J . Husslein, S . J . — J u n e 14, 1919 The"^Marriage Encyclical a n d Wages—P. L. Blakely, S . J . — J a n . 24, T h e 9 R o 7 d Ä c o v e r y - P . L . Blakely, S . J . - J u l y 2 9 , 1 9 3 3 - ( 4 9 / 3 9 7 ) . . Recovery and a H u m a n Week—I. A. J . Lawres—Aug. 19, 1933— A CatechUm of Collective Bargaining—G. B. Donnelly, S.J .—Sept. 2, 1933— (49/S12). . . A Minimum Wage Scale—G. S. de Lonmier—Sept. 30, 1933— Are^Alf Wage Earners H u m a n ? - J . W i l t b y e - D e c . 9, W 3 3 - ( 5 0 / 2 3 0 ) . Social Justice: Is I t Good B u s i n e s s ? - B . C. W a l k e r - F e b . 17, 24; M a r . 3, 1934—(SO/468, 490, 517). _ S M B I 1 Q , , Looking Ahead in L a b o r Relations—E. B. Lyman—April 28, 1934— Philosophy of a N e w Deal—W. Parsons, S.J .—May 19, 26; J u n e 2, 1934—(Sl/126, ISO, 174). 2 . WAGES Wage System in the Gospel—J. Husslein, S.J.—Aug. 10, 1912— (7/414) Wages a n d P r o f i t s - J . H . - S e p t . 12, 1 9 1 4 - ( 1 1 / S 3 8 ) . L a b o r and the Equitable Wage—P. L . Blakely, S.J.—Oct. 9, 1915— Is the^Law of the Jungle t o P r e v a i l ? — P . L . Blakely, S.J.—Oct. 14, P r i c e ^ k i ^ t h ^ Middle Ages—J. Husslein, S.J .—March 17, 1917— Jult1 Ethics of P r i c e s - J . Husslein, S . J . - M a r c h 31, M f M f f l Morality of Monopolistic Prices—J. Husslein, S.J.—April 7, 1917— The Syslem of C a p i t a l i s m - J . Husslein, S . J . - O c t 13, 1917—(18/9) The Basis of Durable Industrial Peace—E. V. O'Hara—Dec. 29, 1917 T h 7 ( S t e t f and P r o p e r t y — J . Husslein, S.J.—March 16, 1 9 1 8 - T h e S t e t ^ and L a b o r - J . Husslein, S.J . - M a r c h 23, " 1 8 — 0 8 / 5 9 5 ) . The State and W a g e s - J . Husslein, S.J.—March 3 0 , 1 9 1 8 - ( 18/621 ) The Church a n d Economics—J. A. R y a n , D.D.—April 17, 1 9 2 0 - (22/592) Economics ' W i t h o u t Ethics—T. J . F l a h e r t y — J a n . 14, 1922— ( 2 6 / 3 0 0 ) . 3 . LABOR T h e Content of t h e Bishops' L a b o r P r o g r a m — W . J . M . A. Mahoney —March 22, 1919—(20/601). T h e Appeal of t h e Bishops' L a b o r P r o g r a m — J . Fitzpatrick—March 22, 1919—(20/604). L a b o r Democracy—J. Husslein, S J . — S e p t . 13, 1919— ( 2 1 / 5 6 4 ) . L a b o r ' s Grievance Against Capital—T. J . Duffy—Sept. 20, 1919— ( 2 1 / 5 8 5 ) . International L a b o r Legislation—A. J . Muench—Aug. 28, 1920— ( 2 3 / 4 4 2 ) . Catholic T h o u g h t a n d L a b o r — H . Hall—Oct. 2, 1920—(23/560). An I t e m f r o m t h e Bishops' P r o g r a m — T . J . Flaherty—March 26, 1921 ( 2 4 / 5 4 1 ) . T h e Menace of t h e L a b o r Spy—J. Husslein, S.J.—April 23, 1921— ( 2 5 / 9 ) . T h e F u t u r e of Organized L a b o r — J . B. Culemans—July 18, 1921— ( 2 5 / 1 9 9 ) . L a b o r Unions a n d the L a w — J . A. R y a n , D J > — J u l y 8, 1922— ( 2 7 / 2 8 5 ) . T h e Lawless L a b o r U n i o n — J . Wiltbye—May 27, 1922—(27/125). L a b o r Needs E d u c a t i o n — J . B. Culemans—Nov. 4, 1922—(28/53). A Wage Scale f o r Unskilled L a b o r — M . J . Smith, S.J.—Oct. 6, 1923 — ( 2 9 / 5 9 8 ) . Changes in the L a b o r Movement—R. A. M c G o w a n — J u l y 12, 1924— ( 3 1 / 2 9 8 ) . A Conversation—R. A. McGowan—Oct. 4, 1924—(31/603). The Right to W o r k — J . E. Donnelly—Sept. 10, 1932—(47/545). C . CATHOLIC M I N D Compulsory Collectivism; Restrictive Capitalism; Distributive Owner- ship—J. Husslein, S.J.—June 22, 1927. T r a d e Unions and Employers' Associations—S. C. Council—Jan. 8, 1930. Industrial Relations—Hierarchy of U . S. A.—Apr. 8, 1931. Present Economic Distress—Hierarchy of N e w Zealand—Sept. 8, 1931. Justice and t h e Present Crisis—M. Rev. J . T . McNicholas, O P . — O c t . 22 1931. Our Social Disorder a n d I t s Cure—M. R e v . T . Corbett—Dec. 8, 1931. Right of P r i v a t e Ownership—M. DeMunnynck, O.P.—Jan. 22, 1932. Economic Principles a n d Social Practice—L. Watts, S.J.—March 22, 1932. T h e Negro's Right t o W o r k — K . F . Phillips—March 22, 1933. Solving the Unemployment Problem—F. F . M u r p h y , S.J.—Oct. 8. 1934. T h e M i n d of the Church and Social Legislation—B. J . Mahoney— N o v . 22, 1934. T h e Laborer a n d His Hire—E. J . Coyne, S.J .—Aug. 22, 1935. Spiritual C o m f o r t f o r the Unemployed—J. H a n n a n , S.J.—Dec. 22, 1935. M o r a l a n d Economic Problems of T o d a y — R . A. Sauer—Jan. 22, 1936. Our I m m o r a l Economic Order—I. W . Cox, S . J f e - M a r c h 8, 1936. The Economy of High Wages—J. Clayton—June 22, 1936. T h e Church's Efforts t o I m p r o v e Conditions of Workingmen—Mexi- can Hierarchy—Aug. 22, 1936. A M E R I C A NATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY Since it began, "America" has been the fearless champion of human rights. Since it began, "America" has defended the rights of labor. Since it began, "America" has fought for a living wage. Since it began, "America" has championed unionism. Sample copy sent upon request THE AMERICA PRESS 53 Pork Ploce New York, N . Y.