ocialist Bubbles

Punctured

By .
- .cAd of the CENTRAL VEREfft

,

201 TEMPLE BLOe..

ST, LGiilS, - m
David Goldstein

stry Exposed

An Attempt to Evade the Issue

“Bebel declared that out of all the turmoil of events the future society would

establish a sort of free relation between the sexes without restriction so far as

society or other institutions were concerned. It was his.personal opinion. I dis-
agree with him • . • and I say it, as I have ^aid it before, and said it in the highest
councils of the party, that that declaration of BebePs is not only not Socialistic

but anti-Socialistic.*’—James F. Carey, Faneuil Hall, Feb. 27, 1911, in reply to a
newspaper report of an address by Rev. Thomas I. Gasson, S. J.

Thus Hon. James F. Carey asserts that he disagrees in toto with

a foremost writer of Socialist classics. For August Bebel is acknowl-

edged to be one of the most prominent leaders in the Socialist

movement of the world and its greatest living authority on the sex

question. To tell us he disagrees with Bebel’s advocacy “of free



relation among the sexes” is all well and good* But that does not
change the opinion of the Socialist parties. They approve of it.

We are informed that Bebel’s free love declaration “is not only
not Socialistic but anti-Socialistic.” That is a very easy way to
dismiss an objectionable doctrine when one is trying to pull Catholics
from their religious moorings that they may drht down the red
river into the whirlpool of the Revolution. But thank God a ihere
say-so of a Socialist propagandist does not make a thing so. Bebel’s
pronouncement is in accordance with the teachings of all the au-

thorities of international standing in the Socialist movement.

Van de Velde says “complete freedom” is the objective aim of

Socialism—“Freedom in the spiritual as well as the material sphere.”

By this he means freedom from the authority of God, from the
authority of the state, from economic dependence upon employers,

as well as from the restrictions now placed upon men and women
in marital association by the moral code.

Advocacy of Free Love.

Socialism declares its purpose is to establish “an administration of

things” and to do away ^ith “a government of persons.” Socialism

declares that the only governing power shall be “a central directing

authority” to administer the industries and that the authority of

Church and State in governing the actions of persons “will die out.”

Among other things this means “free ^relation among the sexes
without restriction.” What possible warrant can be brought forth
to maintain in the face of this weU accepted Socialist doctrine that

Bebel’s declaration is anti-Socialistic? None whatever. And

yet Mr. Carey makes the assertion stoutly.

Bebel Not Alone.

Bebel is not alone in the advocacy of free love, nor is he the first

Socialist to hold it as one of the aims of Socialism. His position

is the same as Marx,,Engels, Bax, Jaures, Wells, Carpenter, Herron

and all the other leading Socialists who have written on the subject.

Is this whole galaxy of Socialist leaders advocating anti-Socialist

doctrine? Oh, no! for the say-so of these men is the law of the
Socialist movement. They write what are termed the Socialist

Classics. What more, their conclusions logically follow from the

Socialist premise.

But I— disagree with Bebel. All well and good, Mr. Carey.
But it is well to kindly remember that at the time the Rev. Father

Gasson addressed the Ford Hall audience he spoke on the dangers



of Socialism, on the teachings of the Socialist movement as ex-

pressed by its leaders of authority. There is no reason to assume

that Fr. Gasson had in mind what Mr. Carey did or did not think

of tile anti-religious teachings of Socialism. It is fair to assume

that the President of Boston College never even dreamed that an

ex-Catholic, one who is reported not to have been inside the Church

for twenty years, one who has so little regard for the Sacrament of

Matrimony as to be married to a non-Catholic by “a Socialist

minister,” would arise in the Cradle of Liberty to lay down the

law that should guide Catholics in their attitude toward Socialism

and its teachings.

Bebel’s Socialist Text Book.

Bebel’s “Woman” is a Socialist text book. More than fifty edi-
tions of it have so far been printed. It is listed in nearly every

catalogue of books on Socialism circulated by the Socialist party

and its various sub-divisions. Bebel’s book has caused its author

to be hailed by Socialist women as the great emancipator of the
female sex from “family bondage.”

The National Woman’s Committee of the Socialist party acclaimed

him on his seventieth birthday (Feb. 22, 1911) with the following

words: ,

too, feel privileged to say our August Bebel although the ocean rolls

between his country and ours, although we belong to another nation and speak
a different language, he still is ours in heart and spirit. For August Bebel

and his immortal book that he has given to women are as international as Social-
ism itself. BebePs ‘Woman* has become the foundation of the proletarian

woman’s movement of all lands. Coming generations will recognize it as

a historical document recording the enslavement and the emancipation of woman.”
I

BebePs work has an international standing. ‘‘Vorwerts,” the

leading Socialist daily paper of Germany says:

“This book, next to the works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, is one of
the most important literary productions contributed by German Socialism.
He who desires to gain a knowledge of Socialism and its aims will find it neces-
sary to study this volume.”

Personal and Party Opinions.

Could anyone acquainted with these facts believe that BebePs

teachings are anti-Socialistic?

But Mr. Carey insists that Bebel only expresses his own personal
opinions. This is true in one sense, but it is of secondary import.

It must be borne in mind that BebePs personal opinions are also

the Socialist party opinions, for like the written opinions of other

3



international Socialists on “sex freedom,” this great leader’s per-

sonal opinions are officially circulated by the Socialist organiza-

tions the world over. If the book, “Woman,” contains anti-
Socialistic matter, as is asserted, the question naturally arises,

why does the Socialist party recommend it ? Ah, but Hon. James F.
Carey has forestalled our question in his “Reply to Father Gasson.”

Thus he puts the question to himself: “But your party distributes

literature which defends anti-religion?” With a slickness second to

none in the Socialist movement Of Massachusetts Mr. Carey offers

this sophistical answer:

“We have no power or authority or desire to restrict people writing, or to
restrict people reading anything tiiey please. The Socialist movement can-

not put any book on the index expurgatoris. If people want to read it, they

read it, so far as we are concerned.”

Evading the Issue.

Turning the table seems to be a favorite mental process with our

Massachusetts statesmen. Come, come, Mr. Man, that’s not meet-

ing the issue. It is but puerile evasion. The question is not

whether the Socialist movement has the power or the authority

to restrict people reading or writing an3rtl^g they please. That

it has no desire to do it is very evident from the disreputable stuff
'

it circulates. It was but yesterday that “What Every Girl Should

Know” was ordered oiit of the leading Socialist daily publication
before the New York Post Office authorities would permit “The
Call” to pass through the mails.

The gratuitous information is given that the Socialist movement

has no index expurgatoris. If it had one there is no doubt, judging

from the Socialist catalogues, that books favorable to the Church

and the Sacrament of Matrimony would be listed in it. No, the

Socialist movement has no index expurgatoris. On the other hand
it has strict pronouncements officially listing books necessary to those

who would become versed in Socialism. Any candid minded man
must conclude, upon examination, that books containing anti-

Socialistic doctrines are not to be found in the lists.

Socialism is Anti-Religious.

Shall we ask the self-set-up instructor of Catholics to drop sophis-

try for a moment and answer fairly the question thus put to himself,

“Why does your party distribute literature which' defends anti-
religion?” Just why? exactly the point to be met. The “nigger

in the woodpile” is discovered. It is because Socialism in all

its essential elements is anti-religious. If the Socialist movement

4



were not diametrically opposed to religion and to the Christian

family it would not circulate, as its authoritative pronouncements,

'so vast a literature advocating atheism and free love.

It is inevitable that the Socialist movement shall be held re-

sponsible for the free love doctrines contained in its standard

books. To twist and to turn, to pretend to meet an issue while

evading it is the Carey method of addressing Catholics. But the

Socialist tactician shall be brought to book. The entire Socialist

movement shall be held responsible for Bebel’s work. It is a

vicious anti-religious Socialist classic. It is false historically and

disruptive morally. It is devilish in its attacks upon thousands of

religious who have given their life’s blood that human-kind might

be happier here on earth and blessed in heaven. It is an insult to

Our Lord, His Blessed Mother and, His Church. No wonder it
haunts men of Catholic parentage who spread abroad the evils of
Socialism.

Socialist Tactics.

The say-so of a professional Socialist agitator, that he is opposed

to Bebel’s teachings, must be taken with a grain of salt by those

acquainted with Socialist tactics. Especially when it is known that

the Socialist standard of right and wrong is anything that will ad-

vance or retard the Revolution.

And in this particular case there is testimony to the contrary of

the gentleman’s assertion. Where “in the highest councils of his

party” has Mr. fcarey declared the free love teachings in Bebel’s

book to be anti-Socialistic? Nowhere ih the printed proceedings

of the Socialist party or in any of the articles that have appeared

from his pen is there one word to substantiate the assertion. But

there is evidence on the other hand that what power and influence

Mr. Carey has exercised in the Socialist movement has been used

to advance the sale of Bebel’s book.

There is documentary evidence to show that two years before the

reply of Mr. Carey to Fr. Gasson was printed, the National Executive

Committee of the Socialist party recommended that the local organi-

zations procure Bebel’s book “to be used in connection with the study

courses on Socialism.”

Carey’s Official Acts.

At that time, the National Committee, of which Mr. Carey was

one, endorsed the action. It was but one year before Mr. Carey

took up the task to instruct Catholics as to what they ought to think

that the Assistant Secretary of the Boston School of PoUtical Econ-



omy purchased a copy of the book in the Socialist State head-
quarters of Massachusetts in which Hon. Janies F. Carey was offi-

cially employed as Secretary.

Besides, to come right down to date, Mr. Carey is one of the

sixty speakers now on the road for the Socialist party lecture bureau.

His services, as well as that of the fifty-nine others, is paid for by

the sale of Socialist books and papers. In the officii catalogue

is Usted “Women” and also the other Socialist books which ad-
vocate “a sort of free relation between the sexes without restriction,

so far as society or other institutions are concerned.”

Was Hon. James F. Carey, as National Committeman,'as State
Secretary, and is he now as Lyceum lecturer of the Socialist party

advancing the sale of books containing anti-Socialist teachings?

Certainly not.

Three Wisconsin Bubbles Pricked

A Socialist-Made **Priest*’ Dangling in the Air

Boston, Mass., April 8, 1913.

Editor Eagle-Star, Marinette, Wis.

Dear Sir:

—

Through the courtesy of some kind friend I this day received a

copy of your paper (Monday, March 17) containing what purports to

be “a reply to David Goldstein.” In it the Social Democratic Party,

through its secretary, Mr. Olget Leaf, makes three points, viz:

Socialism is not opposed to religion; that “Rev. Father Bowden,”

a Catholic clergyman, “investigated a bit and gained new light on
Socialism;” and that “Mr. Goldsteinwas boosted out of the Socialist

party.”

“Reverend Father.”

The “Reverend Father” is said to have once “raved and swore

and preached and wrote against that dreaded revolutionary and

agitating party, the Socialist.” He used to declare that Socialism
is opposed to religion and to the home. “Finally, in order to more

clearlyand thoroughly show up the weakness of Socialism he started

to read Socialist literature.” It was then, after he studied, that

he fotmd out his “miserable mistake.” “The Reverend Father”

6

I



wrote and preached against Socialism before he studied the sub-

ject? .So it was after he read Socialist literature that he found he

was writing and speaking about something of which he knew noth-
ing? The thought occurs that if the Marinette Socialists, who are
speaking and writing in favor of Socialism, would stop just long

enough to read and study what is known as the classical literature of

their party they might possibly get a different view of Socialism

than &ey have at present. They might learn enough to stop swear-
ing and raving and writing and speaking and maldng false charges

against those who know what’s what and what’s not what in the
philosophy of Karl Marx. For no man, with common sense, can
honestly read the foremost Socialist books without concluding that

Socialism is, in its very nature, opposed to the veiy foundation prin-

ciples of Christianity.

“Priest” A Socialist.

So the reading of Socialist literature made a Socialist of a Catholic

priest, did it? I wonder if this man ever opened up a copy of Bebel’s
book? If so, he must have skipped many pages and chapters if he

failed to find that it sustains the charge that Socialist philospohy is

atheistic. In the chapter on “The Future of Religion” (page 437)

it is very clearly asserted that under Socialism “ . .,. the religious

organizations will gradually disappear and the churches with them.”

It would be interesting to know if the “reverend” defender of

Social Democracy ever read “Philosophical Essays”? If so, he

must have missed page 122, where the “greatest of Socialist phil-

osophers,” Joseph Dietzgen, says “Socialism and Christianity

differ from each other as the day does from the night. Indeed, aU

religion is servile, but Christiatiity is the most servile of the servile.”

Did the new foxmd Socialist father ever read “God and My
Neighbor?” If so, what did he find within its pages that is favor-

able to Christianity? On page seven its author says: “I oppose
Christianity because it is not true.”

Red-Rag Battalion.

Did the reverend leader of the red-rag battalion ever read the

“Origin of The Family”? If so, how could he miss seeing that the
founder of modem Socialism tells us therein that, in the Socialist so-
ciety to come, as soon as sex passion ceases men and women will

separate without even going to a divorce court? Pray, Socialists

of Marinette, what are the names of the standard Socialist books

on religion and the family that so affected “Father Bowden” as to



cause him to cease raving and swearing and preaching, and writing

against Socialism and made of him a real live advocate of red-
redism? He certainly never-read any of those that have a^world-
wide standing in the Socialist movement; those that were written

by men of international authority; those that are officially circu-
lated by the party of which the Marinette Social Democratic organi-

zation is a branch.

Never a Catholic Priest.

Who is this “Reverend Father Bowden,” so glowingly set forth by
the Marinette Socialists as a convert from Catholicism to Socialism?

Is’he a priest? Certainly not a Catholic priest. He is a product of
the “Appeal to Reason,” and the Milwaukee Socialist papers. He
was manufactured, to be used by those who know no better than
the Socialists of Marinette, to off-set the work of men who defend
Christianity against the assault of political atheism. A perusal of
the Catholic Directory will show conclusively that there is no Catholid

priest in these United States named Bowden. Tliis fake eccles-
iastic is palmed off very successfully upon an uninformed public in

communities where Socialist methods are unknown. It is done

in order to impress citizens with the idea that Socialism is not

opposed to religion and to the Christian family.

But thanks to The Eagle-Star, which has been so generous as to
give the Socialists a column of its valuable space, we have a chance to
meet face to face the kind of stuff that is being palmed off daily in the

factories and mills of Wisconsin in order to advance “The Revolu-

tion.”

There is a person named Mr. Bowden, but he never ^s a priest.
He never studied for the priesthood; he never edited a Catholic
paper. This Mr. Bowden, whom Socialists designate as “Father”
was once an advertising solicitor for a weekly paper—^The Catholic
Register. Kindly permit me to quote what “The Catholic Register”
has to say about its former employee, the fake priest, whom the
Socialists of Marinette (while brazenly charging others with being

wolves in sheep’s clothing) so prominently set forth as one of their

valued converts from Catholicism.

Bowden’s Record.

“Nick J. Bowden was employed on our paper in 1908 as an advertising so-
licitor. He was later transferred to the Kansas office of our paper, but his
work was so questionable and so many discrepancies arose that he was dis-
charged. He then started a publication and called it The Leader. Its life
was about twelve issues. He then promoted an advertising scheme called

8



‘Catholic Institutions in Kansas.’ If any of these were ever distributed we
failed to see them. Failing to make a living by grafting methods as a ‘Catholic’
he entered the ranks of the Socialists.”

“The article that has appeared so frequently in papers friendly to Socialism
and credited to ‘Father’ Nick J. Bowden, editor of the Catholic Leader, was
written in IPO9 and first appeared in the Appeal to Reason. It has been going

the rounds ever since. He is of the type qf man that believes in letting women
do the work. He is too lazy to breathe anld without a semblance of sefl respect
or pride. We afterwards discovered that his wife and sister did the work that
he was being paid for. There is no limit to yrhat he will do to keep from work-
ing. He was never a priest, didn’t study for the priesthood and as an editor
couldn’t compose a two-line society local.

“He was dropped from the Knights of Columbus, C. M. B. A., and A. O.
H. He is about six feet tall and he weighs probably 250 pounds; has massive
jowls and a baby, innocent and misleading face. He is about 45 years old and
light complexioned.

“In 1909 he married a girl seventeen years of age. She became a convert

just before her marriage to Bowden, and while she was working for him as a

subscription solicitor. She doesn’t attend Mass any more, so it seems that
was part of his scheme to work the Catholics. She later divorced him for
non-support. He has left a trail of unpaid debts wherever he has been.
“One photographer in Armourdale, Kan., hired a rig and took pictures of all

the Catholic institutions in both Kansas Cities for Bowden. Bowden got the

f I pictures but the photographer has not seen Bowden since. This is but one of

jmthe many instances of Bowden’s crooked methods.”

In conclusion permit me to say the assertion that I was “boosted
out of the Socialist party,” is just as far from the truth as the asser-

I
tion that a study of Socialist literature led a Catholic priest to become

I a Socialist. The fact of the matter is I resigned from the Socialist

I
party on May 23, 1903, after a futile attempt to get it to give up some

I of its false teachings. I shall be pleased, with the kind permission

I
of the editor, to go into the matter more fully at some future time.

I
. Thankingyou in advance for the courtesy of your columns, I remain

Very truly yours,

DAVID' GOLDSTEIN.

Secretary Boston School of Political Economy.

If

9

% -



Rights of Property *

Inviolability of Ownership by Individuals Declared in
Papers Encyclical.

“The Pope condemns Socialists for wishing to destroy private prope^,

and then advocates the very sort of private property that Socialists are striving

for—^individual private property—^which can be assured to all workers orily by
abolishing capitalist property. Individual private property can be assured

only when the means of producing such property are in the possession of the people
collectively.”—James A. Welsh.

In the above statement, taken from a letter published in the Social

Democratic Herald, Milwaukee, Wis., Jan. 18, 1913, Alderman

Welsh asserts that the Encyclical actually condemns Socialism for'

what is not even dreamt of in its philosophy of property while at

the same time it advocates the very thing it condemns.

The Milwaukee Socialist Alderman wonders “wherein the Pope’s

Encyclical really condemns Socialism.” He says

:

“Anyone possessing even a superficial knowledge of Social Democracy, who
would combine that Knowledge with a study of the Pope’s Encyclical, would

soon begin to wonder wherein the Pope’s Encyclical really condemns Socialism.”

Little Brief Authority.

Well do the words in “Measure for Measure” fit our enemy:

“Man, proud man!

Dressed in a little brief authority

Most ignorant of what he’s most assured.

His glassy essence,—^like an angry ape.
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven.

As makes the angels weep.”

What Alderman Welsh failed to see in “Rerum Novarum,” so

able an economist as Prof. Robert Flint of Edinburgh, who is not a

Catholic, saw plainly. He declares that “the great historical docu-
ment” issued by “one of the wisest and worthiest of those who

have occupied the Papal throne,” makes clearly manifest that

Socialism is the very opposite to the teaching of the Church.

Prof. Flint says

:

“In Rerum Novarum Socialism as a solution of the Social question is tested
by the standard of Catholic doctrine, and judged accordingly. The judgment

pronounced on it is one which leaves no room for a Catholic becoming, with-

out the mostmanifest inconsistency, a Socialist in the proper sense of the term.”

—

(“Socialism” page 439.)

10



The statements of the Socialist Alderman could be justly dis-

missed by saying that anyone, with even a superficial knowledge of

words, who does not see that the Encyclical condemns Socialism
must either be deficient in common understanding or he must be
using the Socialist method of attempting to weaken the influence

of the Supreme Pontiff by asstiming that Rome is ignorant of what the
real teachings of Socialism are.

Teaching of Encyclical.

But we shall not dismiss the matter so abruptly. The issue
Alderman Welsh raises shall be taken up in detail in ord'er to make
clear the teachings of the Encyclical on private property in contrast

to what Socialism the world over is striving for. ^d, at the same
time, these opposing views will expose the sophistry of our enemy,

who appears to have considerable of that “most manifest incon-

sistency” of which Prof. Flint speaks.

It is a fact that the Encyclical condemns Socialism for wishing to

do away with private property. To quote

:

“Socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do

away with private property, and cpntend the individual possessions should

become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by
municipal bodies.”

The first question that arises is whether Socialism is striving to

do away with private property. We must answer that it is, and it
is not. Socialism is favorable to the private ownership of tooth

brushes, cabbages, socks, pants, household goods, and other things

that are consumed privately as well as the time checks which the

people are promised for their day’s work in the “classless sopiety”

to come. But when it comes to private ownership of permanent

goods, such as land, buildings, machinery, manufacturing materials

and other wealth which is consumed productively, (i. e. Capital)

Socialism raises a protest. It says “No!” “emphatically no!”

“uncompromisingly no!” WUly, nilly, these things shall be in

the possession the peoplfe coUectively to be administered by a

central directing authority.

Only Half Truth.

When Alderman Welsh says the Encyclical advocates “the very

sort of private property Socialists are striving for,” he utters but a

half-truth. The Encyclical does proclaim the right of the individual

to the ownership of all those things Socialism favors. But the

Encyclical also declares that the individual has the right to own that

kind of private property Socialism aims to abolish.

II



When the Encyclical advocates private property it refers not only
to goods which “perish in the user,” but to stable, to permanent, to

lucrative property—^to land and capital—to what Socialists term
“Capitalist property.” The private ownership of this kind of

property. Socialism opposes most strenuously. Socialists would

permit the individual to convert his earnings—^whether in the form of
time checks or money—into useable goods—^to the fruits of the earth
—

^but not, for instance, into the land itself. The Encyclical says

man has not only the right “to possess the fruits of the earth, but
also the very soil.”

The Encyclical makes plam that when a man works he has not
only a right to his wages “but also to the disposal of such remunera-

tion, just as he pleases.” If he “invests” his “savings in land, the

land is only his wages under another form.” Would Socialism per-

mit the private ownership of land? Certainly it would not. The

Socialist platform declares for “the collective Ownership of land.”

Testimony of Bebel.

August Bebel, one of the foremost Socialist leaders to-day, says:

‘‘Land . . . must be made the property of society together with the means of
production and distribution.” (Woman and Socialism page 407.)

The fourth International Socialist Congress (Basle, Switzerland)

“declared that society has the right to abolish private ownership in land and

convert it into public property and that it is necessary to do so.” (New York
Call, Friday, Feb. 14, 1913.)

We have referred to the right of disposal which Socialists propose
so to limit the exercise of as to virtually do away with private property.

Thus Socialism is again found to be at variance with the Encyclical
—^for
“it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the

property consist of land or chattels”, says Leo XIII.

Socialist Flippancy.

With a flippancy, that is common to Socialists the world over when
confronted with a troublesome question, Victor Grayson in one of

his English campaigns replied to the inquiry: “Do you believe in
private property?” by sa3dng “Yes, I believe a man should keep
his tooth brush and tooth pick.” The right of the individual to own

tooth brushes and tooth picks is fully admitted by the Encyclical,

but the Encyclical also insists upon the individual’s right to own

the means necessary to produce the materials used in the manu-

facture ©f them as well as the factory in which they are manu-

facttired. While the Encyclical is emphatic in its demand for the
12



maintenance of this right it is most strict in its insistence on the

law of obligation which holds the owner of lucrative property legally

and morally responsible to his fellowman, to the State, and to

Almighty God for the use made of his capital. The individual has a
^ht to own it, but he must use it “for the common good.”
The rijght of individual ownership of capital is brought out, inferen-

tially, in that division of the Encyclical which deals with the rights

and duties of both employers and workingmen. The irrational

Socialist principle of the irreconcilability of class interests—that
one class must, in its very nature, be hostile to the other—^is con-
demned most emphatically. The Encyclical declares: “Each needs

the other; Capital capnot do without Labor, nor Labor without

Capital.” In the term Capital the Encyclical personifies those who
have money, land, workshops, factories and other means neces-

sary to the manufacture of commodities and who employ working-
men to operate their industrial processes.

Natural Rights.

Very clearly does the Encyclical explain that individual ownership,

of lucrative property is a natural right. This principal is denied

by every Socialist of authority throughout the world. John Spargo

calls natural rights “a vicious phrase.”
‘‘The theory of natural rights,” says the leading Socialist daily paper, editorially,

“is a figment of the immature capitalist brain—all thoughtful persons know that
there are no natural rights.” (New York Call, March 15, 1909.)

The Encyclical always deals with man as a rational being, one
with the power of intelligent self-direction. Here again do we find
a conflict of principles. Socialism works upon the basis that man
is but a mefe animal, differing from the brute in degree rather than

in kind. Free will is tabooed in Socialist philosophy. Marx tells

us that he deals with men only as “personifications of economic
categories.”

Man, like the animal, says the Encyclical, has the instinct of self

preservation and the desire to propagate his species. But the

animal, being governed by these two main instincts, satisfies them

by using the things that lie within his range—^further he cannot go.
Vhiile man, having the power of self direction, uses his mind and

reasoning faculties to subject his animal nature, his environment,

the forces and substances he finds around and about him to his

will. Man must, to maintain his dignity and station in life, and
that of his family, sedk not only to provide for his present but for

his future wants also—therefore



“every man has by nature the right to own property as his own.*’ It Is “within
his right to possess things not ordy for temporary and momentary use» as odiei
living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession

;

he must have not only things that perish in the ‘user* but those also which,
though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after

time.**

^‘Lucrative Property.”

When the Encyclical speaks of property it refers to investments, to
land, to stable, permanent, lucrative property as well as goods

necessary to satisfy immediate wants.

“Lucrative property which he can transmit to his children by inheritance.”

Here again Socialism is found to be hostile to the Encyclical, for

it proposes to do away with inheritable property, save in those per-

sonal effects, things
*
‘that perish in the user.”

“In the Socialist society,** says August Bebel, “there will be nothing to be-

queath, tmless house furnishings and personal belongings should be regarded

as hereditary portions—where there is no private property, there can be no right
of inheritance.** (“ Woman and Socialism,** p. 470.)

Whereas the foremost Socialist document in the world, “The Com-

munist Manifesto,” declares for “the abolition of inheritance.”

One of the most popular English Socialist leaders, J. Kier Hardie,

M. P., tells us (New York Call, Feb. 14, 1913) that the Basle Inter-
national Socialist Congress “demanded that the right of inheri-

tance be completely abolished.” Thus we see that Socialism
would rob us of this most fundamental natural right.

An intelligent study will show conclusively that the teachings of
the Encyclical on private property are as far away from what Social-

ism is striving for as true principles are from those that are false.

The Encyclic^ declares that.

“the first and most fundamental principle—^must be the inviolability of private
property;** that “the State has the right to control its use but not to absorb it

altogether;** that “it should be borne in mind that the chief thing to be realized is

the safeguarding of private property by legal enactment and public policy** and

that “the policy (of the State) should be to induce as many as possible of the
humbler class to become owners.**

Repudiated by Socialism.

Socialism repudiates every one of these declarations. It scoffs at

the idea of an inviolable right of individual or family property.

Socialist philosophy insists that there is no such right. It argues

that all rights, if there are any, have either been obtained from

society or usurped, therefore society has “the right,” by force

of the will of the majority, to take from the individu^ or the family

their right of private property.

14



Extending the argument, society has not only the right to do so

but it is inevitable that it shall absorb private property altogether—
save in personal effects, things

‘
‘that perish in the user.” Therefore,

in accordance with the Marxian law of “expropriating the ex-

^propriators,” the public policy shall be to reduce, or to do nothing

that shall prevent a reduction of, the property owners to one—The
Community.

.
No Basis of Reason.

The assertion of the Socialist Alderman that only when the means
of producing the things necessary to satisfy our immediate wants are

owned collectively will individual private property be assured to

all the workers, has no basis in reason and it is contrary to his-

torical facts both of Socialist making and of the great governments

of the world. The history of the hundred or more colonies, from
the Brook Farm of the New England literati to the Ruskin colony
organized by the shrewd owner of “The Appeal to Reason,” is evi-

dence sufficient to show that the principle of common ownership
brings disastrous results in place of benefits.

On the other hand it is the superiority of a multiplicity of owners
ovOr the centralization of the ownership of land, for instance, that

caused the Russian Duma to abolish the common land holding sys-
tem of the Mir; the English government to pass legislation which

increased the private ownership of Ireland over 30,000 diuring the

past ten years; the Canadian government to offer special induce-

mentsforfarmersto settle in Western Canada; and &e enactment
of the homestead laws of our own country.

Private Ownership.

The Encyclical, in strict contradiction to Socialism, declares

“that if we would alleviate the condition of the masses the first and most fun-
damental principle . . . must be the inviolability of private property.”

The advantage to human-kind of private to common ownership is

brought out in very simple language by the great Christian economist,

St. Thomas Aquinas, upon whose works Leo XIII, drew profoundly.

St. Thomas says

:

“
. . . every one is more zealous in looking after a thing that belongs to him

than a thing that is the common property of all . . . ” “quarrels are common

between those who jointly own a thing as a whole.”

Speaking from an economic point of view it is generally admitted

that tile State advances' in prosperity relatively as it safeguards

the individual’s right to property and to its disposal. This right being

natural to man is recognized to have existed prior to the State and

. 15



i.^4a

'

therefore the State has no legitimate right to prevent the exercise

of it.

One of the fundamental reasons for the organization of the State
is the protection of private property. The State carries out this

function by making money—^the measure of value and standard of '
price with which to maintain equity between man and man in the
exchange of nierchandise—and by establishing courts of equity

and maintaining the armed forces of government.

Usurpation By State.

Should the time ever come when the State usurps the right of

the individual and the family to the land and means of production
—

“Capitalist property” as Socialists love to call them—^then shall
the State have gone outside its legitimate sphere of action and

tyranny shall be enthroned in the seats of the mighty.

Sufficient evidence has already been presented to show the utter

puerility of Alderman Welsh’s contention that there is no antagonism

between the Encyclical and Socialism relative to the right of private

property. We maintain that an examination of the Encyclical in
contrast to what Socialism is striving for cannot fail to show the

honest truth-seeker that they are as contrary to each other as the

principles of Christianity are from the animalism of Social Democ-

racy. It would be well for our enemy to understand that behind

the great Encyclical stand the teachings and the experience of the

ages as well as the Paraclete whom our Lord sent to guide civiliza-
tion along the pathway of right-reason.

Read $i.25

SOCIALISM : THE NATION OF FATHERLESS CHILDREN.

By

David Goldstein and Martha Moore Avery.
*

THE AVE MARIE, Notre Dame, Indiana:
“Socialism: The Nation of Fatherless Children” is the second edition of

a work which, on its first appearance in 1903^ was honored with the virulent

abuse of the leading Socialists and Socialistic journals in the country.

It is a veritable arsenal stocked with irrefragable arguments against the irre-

ligious economic system with which altogether too many Catholic workingmen
are coquetting, and we cordially recommend it to all our readers. A well printed
16mo. of 384 pages, it is supplied v/ith an exceptionally full index.”

THE AMERICAN ISRAELITE:
“It is an able and exhaustive treatise.”

BOSTON SCHOOL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
468 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, Mass.

:
? : prill'