Ac/^^ The Social Justice Books THE CHURCH AND SOCIALISM AND OTHER ESSAYS THE CHURCH AND SOCIALISM AND OTHER ESSAYS BY JOHN A. RYAN, D.D., LL.D. Professor of Moral Theology at the Catholic University of America; Author of "Distributive Justice, the Right and Wrong of Our Present Distribution of Wealth"; "A Living Wage"; "Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers." Joint Author with Morris Hillquit of "Socialism: Promise or Menace? ' ' WASHINGTON THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1919 ^il)il ofagtat JOHN F. FENLON, D.D. Censor Depvtatus imprimatur * JAMES CARDINAL GIBBONS Archbishop of Baltimore Copyright, 1919 BY • THE UNIVERSITY PRESS PREFACE This volume is a reprint of papers that have appeared in various pubhcations during the past ten years. The opening chapter comprises four articles originally published in The New York Evening Mail in February and March, 1918; the second and fourth have been circulated in pamphlet form, respectively, by the Paulist Press and the Central Bureau of the Central Verein; the third was written for the Catholic Press Association and published by its constituent journals, and each of the others appeared in one of the follownig periodicals: The American Catholic Quarterly Review, The Catholic World, The International Journal of Ethics, The Catholic Charities Review, and America. Acknowl- edgment is hereby gratefully made of the permission granted by the original publishers to reprint the papers in their present form. Although the productions embodied in this book were written at different times and on different sub- jects, it is hoped that they will be found not entirely unrelated to one another. The first sk deal with important phases of the industrial problem, while the last four treat of social questions which have important industrial aspects. Upon the advice of friends the attempt is made to rescue them all from a too speedy oblivion. John A. Ryan. The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C, September, 1919 451045 CONTENTS PA6B I. The Church and Socialism 1 II. Principles and Proposals of Social Re- form 35 III. A Living Wage 57 IV. The Legal Minimum Wage 76 V. Moral Aspects of the Labor Union. . . 100 VI. The Church and the Workingman . . . 152 VII. The Moral Aspects of Speculation . . 163 VIII. False AND True Conceptions of Welfare 180 IX. Birth Control 217 X. Woman Suffrage 236 XI. Social Service as a Profession .... 246 vu THE CHURCH AND SOCIALISM I In the course of the recent war all the belligerent governments extended enormously their control and operation of industry. Here in the United States we beheld the public authorities fixing the price of coal and food, regulating the kinds of bread that we shall eat, operating the railroads, building and sailing ships, and erecting houses for workingmen. Competent stu- dents of the subject fully expected that many of the new forms of state intervention would be continued for some considerable time, if not indefinitely, after the arrival of peace. While none of these activities, nor all of them together, constitute socialism in the true sense, they look like installments of or an approach to a social- istic reorganization of industry. Therefore, the time seems fit for a brief restatement of the attitude of the Catholic Church toward socialism, and toward certain industrial proposals which are improperly called socialism. The authoritative and precise doctrine of the Church on these subjects is found in certain encyclicals and in- structions of Popes Leo XIII and Pius X. In his en- cyclical, "On the Condition of Labor" (May 15,1891), the former Pontiff condemned socialism explicitly as in- jurious to the workingman, destructive of the indi- vidual's natural rights, and perversive of the sphere of the state. The proposals of the socialists, said Pope 1 2 The Church and Socialism Leo, are harmful to the laborer, inasmuch as they would deprive him of the opportunity to invest his savings in land for the increase of his resources and the better- ment of his condition in life. They violate natural jus- tice, since they would prevent men from safeguarding the future of themselves and their families through the possession of durable and lucrative property in the earth's unfailing storehouse. They tend to a social con- dition of manifold disorder and dissatisfaction; for the state ownership and management of productive prop- erty would destroy individual incentive, cause "the sources of wealth to run dry" and "level down all to a like condition of misery and degradation." In his encyclical on "Christian Social Action" (De- cember 18, 1903), Pope Pius X explicitly reaffirmed the main propositions of his distinguished predecessor's de- fense of private property and denunciation of socialism. Two objections have been raised to these papal pro- nouncements: First, that Pope Leo spoke only of land, not of capital; second, that the socialists no longer de- mand that degree of state ownership of land that the Pope condemned. To the first objection the sufficient reply is that all the principles and arguments set forth by Pope Leo in defense of private o^^mership of land apply with sub- stantially equal force to the artificial instruments of production. And they have been so interpreted and ap- plied by all Catholic authorities. With regard to the second objection, it is not possible to speak quite so def- initely, since the socialist position on land tenure and The Church and Socialism 3 management has been somewhat modified since the pub- lication of Pope Leo's encyclical. Many European so- cialists of authority concede that the operation of small farms would better be left to individuals, while the So- cialist party of the United States has gone so far as to declare that it is not opposed to the "occupation and possession" of land by actual cultivators. In the matter of urban land it is probable that the majority of present-day socialists would permit a person to own the site upon which his home was erected, together with a small garden. It seems certain, however, that they would not allow anyone to draw profit from land which he did not himself cultivate or occupy. A less extensive modification seems to have taken place during the last twenty-five years in the socialist proposals concerning capital. The authoritative spokes- men of the party today would permit an individual to own those tools and machines that he could operate by himself or with the assistance of one or two other workers. Apparently they would not prevent the own- ership and management of some of the larger productive establishments by the workers themselves organized in cooperative associations. Making due allowance for all these mitigations of the ancient rigor of socialist doctrine, we still find the scheme' liable to substantially all the objections brought against it by Pope Leo XIII. Socialism still contem- plates government ownership and management of all land used for commercial and industrial purposes, of all mines, of all but the smallest farms, and of substan- 4 The Church and Socialism tially all but the very small artificial instruments of production and distribution. And it still calls for the abolition of all rent and interest, and of all incomes derived merely from the possession of property. Therefore the worker would not be permitted to become the owner of anything from which he could derive an income when he became disabled. He could not put his money into savings banks, nor stocks, nor bonds, nor any other kind of interest-bearing wealth. Inasmuch as only a slight proportion of the workers could be self-employed on the small farms, in the small hand industries, and in the few cooperative establish- ments that the socialist state could afford to permit, the great majority would be deprived of that sense of independence, manliness, self-reliance, self-respect and economic power which can come only from property. It is true that revenue-bearing property is not an indispensable means to adequate provision for the future of the worker and his family. A system of state insurance might, in theory at least, be a satisfactory substitute; that is, so far as concerns the things that can be bought with money. But no system of insur- ance, nor any scale of wages, can provide a man \vith those psychic goods which are an integral element of normal life, and which are only second in importance to food, clothing and shelter. Under socialism the worker would be directly and constantly dependent upon the state, from the cradle to the grave. All his life he would be merely a hired man. He could become con- tented with this degenerate status only after he had lost The Church and Socialism 5 all of that initiative, that self-respect and that ambition which are essential to an efficient and worthy human existence, y' To retort that the majority of the workers are even now deprived of any solid hope of becoming property owners is to miss the point of the issue entirely. This sad condition is no necessary part of the present sys- tem. Not the abolition but the reformation of the ex- isting social and industrial order is the proper and ade- quate remedy. We shall discuss this specifically in a later article. The liberty and opportunity of the worker would be further diminished by his inability to control the most important details of his own life. Under socialism the state would be the only buyer of labor and the only seller of goods. No matter what the provocation, the worker would have no choice of emplo^^ers. He must work for the state or starve. Likewise he must buy the necessaries and comforts of life from the state, and be content with what the state sees fit to produce. Instead of the wide variety of choice now offered by competing dealers he would find only the few standard types of goods regarded as sufficient by the state. It is no an- swer to these objections to prophesy that the state would prove a more generous and humane employer than the majority of existing captains of industry, and that it would provide all the variety of goods that is really required by genuine human needs. The point is that in these vital matters the worker would be denied all liberty of choice. This sort of freedom is a valuable 6 The Church and Socialism possession in itself, on its own account. The mere pro- vision of abundant material goods is not an adequate substitute or compensation. Another grave injury to individual liberty would proceed from the unlimited power of oppression pos- sessed by bureaucrats and majorities. The ofEcials of the socialist state would have not merely political power but unlimited economic power. While they could in time be dislodged by a majority of the voters, the ma- jority itself would enjoy the same power of unlimited tyranny. For example, the workers in the principal in- dustries could effectively combine for the purpose of making their own remuneration exorbitantly high, and the remuneration of all other workers inhumanly low. Indeed, there is no practical limit to the economic op- pression that a majoritj' might inflict upon a minority. Even if we could bring ourselves to put up with a regime of industrial and social servitude, we cannot wel- come a system that would inevitably lead to industrial and social bankruptcy. When we turn from individual to social considerations, we find that a socialist organiza- tion of industry would, as Pope Leo said, end in uni- versal "misery and degradation." It would not work, for the simple reason that it could not command the motives that are required for efficient and sufficient production. The salaried directors of industry would not have the indispensable incentive that is today pro- vided by the prospect of indefinite gain. Even if they had the incentive, they would lack the power; for their positions would be dependent upon the masses who The Church and Socialism 7 worked under their direction. They would not en- danger their place of authority by reprimanding or dis- charging men who refused to do a normal day's work. That the majority would shirk, would work only as much and as long as they liked, is as certain as the certainty that the majority of industrial tasks will remain forever inherently unpleasant. The average man will work hard at them only when compelled by sheer necessity, such as the fear of losing his job. Make the workers masters of the industrial establish- ment, and this fear would be ended. Therefore the only possible outcome would be an immense reduction in the social product, with the resultant universal "misery and degradation." The naive expectation of the socialists that men would work as hard for the common weal as they now do through love of gain or fear of loss is a futile and pitiable act of faith. It has no basis in experience- The assumption that the socialist mechanism would effect a revolutionary transformation in human motives and inclinations, and convert men at one stroke from egoists into altruists, indicates that the socialist be- lievers are in the habit of using their emotions instead of their intellects for the business of thinking, and are unable to distinguish between aspirations and facts. They ask us to accept hope and prophecy in place of . the uncomfortable conclusions of history. So far as the economic proposals of socialism are concerned, the condemnation pronounced by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X remains in full vigor, and the 8 The Church and Socialism reasons for the condemnation are still substantially applicable and conclusive. In the next article we shall consider socialism in its moral and religious aspects. II In the preceding article we showed that the economic proposals of socialism have fallen under the ban of the Church, because they are a menace to individual and social welfare, and therefore to individual and social justice. In the present paper we shall try to show that the socialist movement is antagonistic and harmful to Christian morals and the Christian religion. By the socialist movement we mean the organized association of socialists that exists today, with its writers, speakers, books, journals and other methods of propaganda. It is the means by which socialist prin- ciples are explained, defended and diffused. Now the socialist movement advocates not merely the collective ownership and management of the instruments of pro- duction but certain theories of philosophy and ethics and a certain attitude toward religion. It professes not merely an economic theory but a philosophy of social evolution and of life. This philoso- phy is directly opposed to the doctrines of Christianity. The main tenet of this philosophy, and the main reason of this hostility to Christian principles, is the theory of economic determinism. While this phase is formidable, it is as intelligible as its synonyms, "the economic interpretation of history," "the materialistic conception of history," "historical materialism," etc. The|Chuhch and Socialism 9 According to the theory of economic determinism, all social institutions and social beliefs are at bottom determined, caused to be v/liat they are, by economic factors and conditions, by the methods of production and distribution. At any given time the existing sex relations, governments, laws, forms of religion and education, and the corresponding beliefs, doctrines and opinions, are what they are rather than something else, because the prevailing industrial system is what it is rather than something else. As the economic factor is dominant and determin- ing among the social phenomena of any particular epoch, so it has produced and determined the social changes that have taken place throughout history. The evolution and variations in domestic, governmental and educational institutions, and in the ethical, religious and political beliefs of men, l;ave all been brought about by changes in economic factors and conditions, by changes in the vray men got their living. A few illustrations, taken from standard socialist writers, will help make clear the meaning of the theory: When all goods were owned in common, sexual 'pro- miscuity prevailed, because there was no economic reason for stable unions. When private property was intro- duced the monogamic family came into existence because men wanted their wealth to go to their own children exclusively . Primitive Christianity was mainly a revolutionary movement of the slaves and proletariat of the Roman empire; m.edieval Catholicism was the outcome of the 10 The Church and Socialism feudal economic organization; Protestantism was a revolt against the economic tyranny of the church as regards tithes and indulgences. Slavery gave way to serfdom and serfdom to individual liberty when the economic masters of society found that these institu- tions were no longer profitable. Today the prevailing morality sanctions all ethical notions and all practices which tend to increase the profits of the capitalist. Thus far the determinist. It is now universally recognized by competent students of the subject that economic conditions do exert a con- siderable influence upon other social conditions, and even upon mens practical notions of right and wrong. If economic determinism meant no more than this, it would not necessarily make the socialist movement hostile to Christianity. As understood by its leading exponents, however, the theory goes far beyond this moderate conception. These men have been, with scarcely an exception, believers in philosophical ma- terialism. That is, they hold that all existing things are matter, that there is no such thing as spirit. Hence they deny that the will of man is free, and assert that the economic factors in society produce all the afore- mentioned effects and changes necessarily, as heat melts ice and rain wets the ground. Some of the more important conclusions regarding morality which flow from this theory may be briefly set forth. Since men have not free wills, they cannot properly be blamed for the evil nor praised for the good that they do. They are no more responsible for The Church and Socialism 11 their actions than are dogs and earthquakes. The tyranny of the capitalist and the dishonesty of the laborer are alike caused by forces over which they have no genuine control. Hence the frequent assertion in socialist writings that the evils of our economic order are due to the system and not at all to the individuals. Obviously this rejection of the human soul, of free will, and of human responsibility is directly contrary to Christian principles. As indicated above, the economic determinist holds that the present form of domestic society is an effect of the present form of industrial society. When the system of private ownership of the means of produc- tion has been supplanted by collective ownership, the relations between the sexes will change correspondingly- Woman will then be "economically independent," and therefore will bind herself to a man only when moved by love, and will remain with him only as long as love remains. The union of man and woman under social- ism will be subject to dissolution at the will of either party. In the words of Morris Hillquit, "most socialists favor dissolubility of the marriage ties at the pleasure of the contracting parties ("Socialism; Promise or Menace," p. 163). The antagonism between this view and the Christian principle of marriage is patent. Other anti-Christian implications of the theory of economic determinism are: The child belongs primarily to the state; all actions which are truly conducive to H The Church and Socialism the establishneit of socialism are morally justifiable; the welfare of the socialist state is the supreme prin- ciple and determii)ant of riglit and Avrong; and against the state the individual has no rights. The attitude of the socialist movement toward re- ligion is explained ;is well as stated by the socialist daily, the New York Call: "The theory of economic determinism alone, if thoroughly grasped, leaves no room for a belief in the supernatural" (?.Iarch 2, 1911). Assuredly so. If ail that exists be matter, and if all social institutions, changes and beliefs be produced by economic forces, the-e is no place in the universe for God or a responsible human soul. The economic deter- minist cannot consistently be a religious believer. And he must logically expect the disap],earance of religion in the socialist state. For if religious ideas he deier. mined and caused by the prevailing mode of produdion, they must pass out with the passing of the present sys- tem. Christianity cannot survive the destruction of its capitalistic basis. Such is ti:e attitude toward religion that vre should expect intelligent socialists to take if they were logical. When we exair.Ine their utterances we find this expec- tation fulfilled. Speaking summarily, we assert that all the great leaders, most of the important books and journals and a very large proportion of the oratorical productions of the socialist movement are in greater or less degree opposed to Christianity; and that the num- ber of socialist leaders, journalists and oratorical utter- ances that avow a belief in any form of supernatural The Church and wSocialism 13 religion is negligible. We have not the space to prove these assertions by adequate citations, but we submit three which may arouse sufficient interest to induce further investigation. James Leatham, a prominent English socialist, de- clared that he could not recall "a single instance of a person who is at one and the same time a really earnest socialist and an orthodox Christian." ("Socialism and Character," pp. 2, 3.) William English Walling, an able and well-hnoivn American socialist, tells iis that ''the majority of socialists are firmly convinced that socialism and modern science must finally lead to a state of society ivhere there will be no room whatever for religion in any forv}." ("The Larger Aspects of Socialism," p. 381.) Morris Hillquit, whose competency to rej^resent the mind of the socialist movement will not be questioned, is "inclined to believe that the majority of socialists find it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile their general philosophic views v.ith the doctrines and prac- tices of dogmatic religious creeds." ("Socialism: Promise or Menace?" p. 204. Chapter VI of this work contains an abundance of quotations from, and refer- ences to, other socialists on this subject.) Some of our readers will object that they can be- lieve in the economic proposals of socialism witliout accepting the immoral and irreligious theories outlined in the foregoing paragraphs. We reply by agreeing with them. Economic deter- minism is not essential to a belief in economic socialism. 14 The Church and Socialism Moreover, there exist socialists who have made and do make this distinction. Neither the little band of so- called Christian Socialists nor the select coterie of Fabian Socialists have subscribed to this materialistic ami anti-Christian philosophy. But these groups are relatively unimportant ele- ments in the socialist movement as a whole. The vast majority of the socialists of the world are adherents of what is known as Marxian or International Social- ism, which does profess this attitude of hostility to Christian ethics and the Christian religion. The jew followers of the international movement who still retain their Christian faith belong for the most part to that element of the rank and file that has not had the opportunity or the capacity to become acquainted with the underlying socialist philosophy. According as they make progress in the study of the fundamental principles, they will imitate the great majority by yielding to the anti-religious theories and influences that permeate the leadership, the literature and the entire atmosphere of the organization. Such has been the unvarying lesson of experience. In this situation there is but one possible attitude to be taken by the Catholic Church. It is that of vigilant and ceaseless opposition to the concrete, living institu- tion called the socialist movement. Even if the movement were aiming at the holiest and most beneficent social order that can be conceived, it would necessarily fall under the ban of the Church. An organization and movement that is saturated with The Church and Socialism 1 materialism and irreligion, that constantly propagates an un-Christian philosophy of life, that sooner or later makes atheists or rationalists of all, Catholics included^ who remain within its ranks — cannot reasonably expect to escape the active opposition of the divinely appointed custodian of Christian morals and Christian faith. When this movement aims, as it does aim, at a social and economic order which would be destructive of in- dividual rights and disastrous to human welfare, it is doubly damned. Both as a movement and as an eco- nomic goal, both as a means and as an end, socialism deserves the condemnation of the Catholic Church. In the two following articles we shall show that the church not only does not oppose but sanctions all the reforms that are necessary and desirable in the present economic system. Ill In the presidential election of 1912 the socialist candidate received about 900,000 votes, of whom not more than one-sixth were members of the socialist organization. A very large proportion of the other five- sixths did not accept the complete socialist program. They voted the socialist ticket mainly as a protest against economic abuses and to indicate their desire for radical improvements. They identified socialism with social reform. This attitude is still held by thousands among the working classes, who do not realize the full meaning of the socialist program, and who think that the 16 The Church and Socialism socialist party is the only agency that is striving for the abolition of present economic wrongs. Hence a great number of them assume that all opponents of socialism must also be antagonists of social reform and defenders of the evils of capitalism. To all who hold this opinion, and to all other persons whose minds are open to evidence, we say that all the necessary reforms of our industrial system are eitlier explicitly set dovrn or implicitly authorized in the official teaching of the Catholic Church. These propositions we shall proA'e from that same encyclical, "On the Condition of Labor," which con- demns socialism. Indeed, the discussion of socialism occupies only one-fifth of that document, the other four-fifths being devoted to remedies and reforms. (Copies of the encyclical can he obtained for ten cents each from the International Catliolic Truth Society, 408 Bergen Street, Brooklyn, N. Y., or from any Catholic book store.) The language in which Pope Leo characterizes the evils of the existing system and the need of reform is worth noting for its vigor, insight and sympathy. He declares that ''some remedy must he found, and quicJdy found, for the misery and the wretchedness pressing so heavily and unjustly on the vast majority of the working classes"; that ''ivorkingmen have been surrendered, all isolated and helpless, to the hard-heartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competiiion" ; that "a small number of very rich men has been alle to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke that is little better than slavery." The Church and Socialism 17 These sentences are found in the opening paragraphs of the encychcal; near the close we find this statement: "The condition of the working classes is the pressing question of the hour, and nothing can be of higher interest to all classes of the state than that it should be rightly and reasonably adjusted." The encyclical was published May, 1891. The principles and proposals laid down by Pope Leo may be conveniently presented under four heads : Re- ligion; Individual Action; Private Associations; the State. THE PART OF RELIGION The Pope repudiates the assumption that the Church is so preoccupied with spiritual things that she has no care for men's temporal interests. "Her desire is that the poor should rise above poverty and wretchedness and better their condition in life." "While the chief treasure of society is virtue, it is by no means a matter of small moment to provide those bodily and external commodities the use of which is necessary to virtuous action." In these two sentences are summarily stated the Church's attitude toward the material wellbeing of the masses, and the rational basis of that attitude. The Church is not a social reform organization, nor is social betterment her main function. Her mission is to bring men to religion and to make them virtuous. But they cannot be virtuous without a certain decent amount of material goods. Furthermore, they cannot be virtuous unless they practice justice and charity in 18 The Church and Socialism all the relations of life, including those of an economic character; therefore the Church must lay down and insist upon observance of all moral principles. "No practical solution of the social question," says Pope Leo, "will be found apart from religion and the Church." This statement will not be denied by any person who is acquainted with the facts of history, human nature and present conditions. When we consult history we learn that the Christian principles concerning the dig- nity and sacredness of the individual human person, the essential equality of all persons, the brotherhood of all men in Christ, and the dominion of the moral law over the industrial as well as the other actions of men, brought about the abolition of slavery, the establish- ment of innumerable works and institutions of com- passion and beneficence, the prohibition of usury and the rise of political democracy. None of these reforms and institutions originated in a non-Christian land. When we study honestly the tendencies and limita- tions of human nature we are forced to the conclusion that men will never set up and maintain a regime of social justice until they become convinced that the supreme law of life is the moral law. The most cunningly de- vised social statutes will not be able to compel men to act justly in their economic relations, unless they are im- pelled by a living and enlightened conscience. And the voice of conscience will ordinarily have little effect if it be not recognized as the voice of God. This means that an effective conscience cannot be developed or maintained without the assistance and The Church and Socialism 19 direction of religion. When we consider the profoundly immoral maxims that have ruled economic practices and relations for more than a century, such as that every free contract is a fair contract, that all gain is la\\-ful that can be obtained without the use of physical force or flagrant deception, that power and cunning may with impunity exploit weakness and ignorance, we see no hope of permanent remedies until these perverse prin- ciples are dislodged by religion and religious morality. Neither legal ordinances nor humanitarian appeals will be effective. The determining mass of men must first become convinced that these maxims are contrary to the law of morality and the law of God. They can- not be brought to such a conviction by any social agency except organized religion. But religion will never succeed in this work of moral conversion by the mere preaching of generalities. To proclaim that men must obey God, practice virtue and observe the Golden Rule will not suffice. What is needed is specific moral instruction, specific application of moral principles to the current industrial practices. This was precisely what Pope Leo did, in so far as it was possible in a brief document that had to be adapted to the varying economic conditions of the entire world. Let us glance first at his statements under the head of individual action. Christian morality, says Pope Leo, teaches that the laborer should carry out fully and honestly all equitable agreements and should abstain from all forms of vio- lence against persons and property. Here we have a 20 The Church and Socialism direct condcumaLion of labor-loafing and the use of physica! force in industrial disputes. On the otlier hand, employers, continues the Pope, must respect their employes as human beings instead of treating them as bondsmen, or "merely as so much muscle or physical power"; must not tax work people beyond their strength nor employ them at tasks un- suited to age or sex; must give them rest from toil on the Sabbath and opportunity for the practice of re- ligion; and, above all, must pay fair wages, instead of exploiting the worker's needs for the sake of profit. Finally, the Pope declares that 'property owners have not the right to do what they please icith ivhat they call their own, for they are only stewards of their posses- sions; hence, when they have made reasonable provision for their oum needs, they are obliged to use ivhat remains for the benefit of the neighbor. All these directions are proclaimed by Pope Leo to be matters of strict moral obligation, most of them be- ing required by the law of strict justice. Yet they are openly ignored by thousands upon thousands of employers. The Pope points out that the right of men to unite in private associations, such as a labor union, is a right granted by nature, and therefore may not be denied by the state. In our daj^ and country this right is prac- tically never hindered by the public authorities, but it is openly ignored by those employers who refuse to permit their employes to organize, or who refuse to deal with the representatives of labor organizations. The Church and Socialism 21 The aim of labor unions, says the Pope, should be "to help each individual member to better his condi- tion to the utmost in body, mind and property." He also recommends associations composed of both em- j)loyers and employes to deal with matters that are of common interest, and to prevent discord and strikes. This is a justification of those periodical trade confer- ences that have been fostered by the labor unions and the more enlightened groups of employers. Pope Leo refers to and praises highly the work of the medieval guilds. As we know, the guilds were not merely associations of workingmen in the ordinary sense, but to a great extent were cooperative societies in which the workers were the oAvners of the tools of production and had common rules for carrying on the business of their craft. The modern counterpart of the guild is not the labor union, but the cooperative pro- ductive association. It should be noted that a cooperative system of pro- duction is quite another thing than socialism. In the former the icorkers of a given industrial establishment individually ovjn particular and definite amounts of property in that establishment; under socialism the ichole community ivould own all the industries in general, no indiv'dual being able to say that a definite portion thereof was his private property. The cooperative establishment is managed exclu- sively by the workers engaged in it; under socialism every establishment would be managed by the nation or the city. 22 The Church and Socialism Up to the present tlie cooperative movement has achieved practically all its successes in agriculture, banking and merchandising. Industrial justice and in- dustrial democracy demand that it should become widely extended in the field of production. A social order in which the majority of the wage- earners do not own the tools with which they work, nor any important amount of other productive prop- erty, is abnormal and cannot endure permanently. The majority of the workers must be enabled to become in some degree capitalists as well as wage-earners, owners in part at least of the instruments of production in their respective industries. The frequency with which Pope Leo speaks of the necessity of making the workers property owners, to- gether with his sympathetic references to the guilds, renders it very probalile that he would have favored the principles of cooperative production. Indeed, such an attitude would have been in the direct line of Catholic tradition; for, as Cardinal Gasquet observes, the basis of property in pre-Reformation times was not individualism, but "Christian collectivism." Thank God, ice Catholics are in no degree responsible for the invention of the cold, ugly, soulless thing called modern capitalism, with its industrial autocracy at one extreme and its proletarian masses at the other. Without the Reforniaiion tJie capitalism thai we now Icnow would have been, humanly speaking, impossible. Pope Leo praises and recommends for imitation the action of those persons, not themselves members of the The Church and Socialism 23 wage-earning classes, who unite in various associations for the benefit of the laboring people. In our own country are many such organizations; for example, the American Association for Labor Legislation, the Na- tional Child Labor Committee and the National Con- sumers' League, all of which have produced splendid results. It is regrettable that the Catholics of the United States have not taken a more prominent part in such associations. Indeed, it must be admitted that we have as yet given but a feeble and ineffective response to the in- junction that Pope Leo lays down toward the close of the encyclical, namely, that Catholics "are not free to choose whether they will take up the cause of the poor or not; it is a matter of simple duty." This declaration was repeated in even stronger and more specific terms by Pope Pius X. In the next and final article of the series we shall consider Pope Leo's teaching on the part in social re- form that should be taken by the state. IV WTiile Catholic teaching rejects the complete domina- tion of industry by the state, as proposed in the socialist scheme, it is very far from advocating the opposite extreme of individualism and laissezfaire. Those who believe that the government should pur- sue an industrial policy of non-intervention will find no comfort in the traditional attitude of the Church. And they will be grievously disappointed with the encyclical. 24 The Church and Socialism "On the Condition of Labor." Of the space devoted by that document to methods of betterment fully one- third deals with the positive duties incumbent on the state. Among the general propositions which the encyclical sets forth under this head are the following: Public laws, institutions and administration should "be such of themselves as to realize public well-being and private prosperity "; the state should especially "provide for the welfare and comfort of the working classes"; this is simple justice, for "it may be truly said that it is only by the labor of workingmen that the states grow rich"; while the rights of all persons should be protected, "the poor and helpless have a claim to especial considera- tion." The general principle of state intervention is this: "Whenever the general interest or any particular class suffers, or is threatened with mischief which can in no other way be met or prevented, the public authority must step in and deal with it." The last sentence contains an implicit indorsement of all legslation for the regulation and control of in- dustry that is genuinely necessary. In any particular case the question of state action is to be determined by the facts: is such action the only adequate remedy? If it is it should be utilized. Pope Leo's principle is em- pirical and scientijSc, avoiding both the a priori demand of the socialist for universal state control, and the a priori demand of the individualist for the complete absence of state control. The Church and Socialism ^o Another significant fact of tlie foregoing quotations from Pope Leo is his frank acceptance of the principle that the state has the right and duty of legislating for the benefit of particular classes, more especially those that are incapable of defending their own interests. In taking this position the Pope merely restated the tradi- tional doctrine of the church. According to that doc- trine, the object of the state is not self-glorification, nor merely the common welfare as such, but the good of all individuals and all classes of individuals. The hypo- critical opposition to labor laws on the ground that they constitute class legislation finds no sanction in the Catholic doctrine of the functions of the state. The specific applications which Pope Leo makes of his general principles to labor conditions are worthy of brief notice. (A) Strikes. — When the workers go on strike, says the Holy Father, " it is frequently because the hours of labor are too long, or the work too hard, or because they consider their wages insufficient." The law should pre- vent such trouble by "removing in good time the causes which lead to conflicts between employers and em- ployed." (B) Religion and Rest. — The laborer should be pro- tected in that most precious form of property, "his soul and mind," for "no man m.ay with impunity outrage that human dignity which God himself treats with reverence, nor stand in the way of that higher life which is the preparation for the eternal life of heaven," hence the laborer must be guaranteed "rest from work on 26 The Church and Socialism Sundays and certain holy days." In general, "he ought to have leisure and rest in proportion to the wear and tear of his strength," for "it is neither just nor human to grind men down with excessive labor so as to stupefy their minds and wear out their bodies." (C) Hours of Labor. — The proper length of the working day depends on "the nature of the work, on circumstances of time and place, and on the health and strength of the workman." The general rule is that labor should not be "protracted over longer hours than strength admits." (D) Woman and Child Labor. — "Women are not suited for certain occupations; by nature they are fitted for home work." Children should not be placed "in workshops and factories until their bodies and minds are sufficiently developed," for "too early experience of lifers hard toil blights the young promise of a child's faculties, and renders true education impossible." (E) A Living Wage. — "Wages, we are told, are regulated by free consent, and therefore the employer, when he pays what was agreed upon, has done his part, and seemingly is not called upon to do anything beyond. The only way, it is said, in which injustice might occur would be if the master refused to pay the whole of the wages, or if the workman should not complete the work undertaken; in such cases the state should intervene to see that each obtains his due — but not under any other circumstances. This mode of reasoning is to a fair-minded man by no means convincing, for there are important considerations which it The Church and Socialism 27 leaves out of account altogether . . . Every man has a right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure it in no other way than through work and wages. Let it be taken for granted that workman and employer should as a rule make free agreements, and in particular should agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that remuneration ought to be sufficient to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If, through necessity or fear of a tvorse evil, the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice." The claim of the worker to a living wage is here declared by a strict moral right. Although this prin- ciple had been for centuries an integral part of Catholic moral teaching, and had received some specific recog- nition in the demands of labor unions during the years immediately preceding Pope Leo's encyclical, the doc- trine itself had never before received such precise, positive and authoritative expression. If the doctrine is all but universally accepted to-day a great part of the credit is due to Pope Leo XIII. Two points concerning the Pope's statement of this doctrine require a word of comment and explanation. They are: the meaning and scope of "reasonable and frugal comfort," and the part which Pope Leo would accord to the state in the enforcement of the living wage. As to the first, there ciannot be the slightest doubt that the Pope intended the wage to be understood as comprising not merely the means of keeping body and soul together and continuing at work,^but as including 28 The Church and Socialism all things required for the reasonable maintenance and development of the human faculties, physical, mental, moral and religious. No fair-minded person can read the encyclical through and escape the conclusion that the Pope had not only a warm sympathy with the condition and aspirations of the laboring classes, but a reasoned and profound conviction of the intrinsic worth, dignity, sacredness and rights of the worker as a person, as a human being with an inviolable claim to a normal and human life. Again, while the Pope did not specifically say in the passage quoted above that the living wage should be sufficient for the vrorker's family as well as himself, other parts of the encyclical make the fact clear be- yond any reasonable doubt. In the second paragraph following he declares: "If a workman's wages be suffi- cient to enable him to maintain himself, his wife, and his children in reasonable comfort, he will not find it difficult . . . to put by some httle savings and thus secure a small income." Evidently the "reasonable comfort" and the "natural wage" which Pope Leo has in mind is not the mere equivalent of personal suste- nance. The second question is whether the Pope would have the living wage enforced by civil law. Our only reason for hesitating to give an affirmative answer arises from his explicit statement that recourse should be had to societies and boards, or some other method, "in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the The Chukch axd Socialism 29 state." Should circumstances require, he says, "the state should be appealed to for its sanction and pro- tection." In other words, he vrould have the state called in only as a last resort. He does not say that the state should never enter this province. All the declarations quoted above, including that regarding a living vrage, are found in that section of the encyclical which he him- self specifies as the discussion of the functions of the state. And the second of the longest paragraphs quoted above shows that the Pope explicitly rejects the theory that the state should not interfere with the terms of the wage contract, and clearly implies that it may fix its term.s and enforce a living wage. Those few^ Catholics who still oppose the movement for a living wage by law can get little comfort from the encyclical. Before they can appeal to it with any show of reason they will have to prove that the evil of insufficient wages can be "met or prevented" by some other means. That task will keep them busy for a long time; so long, in fact, that they v/ill all be dead before it is finished. In the meantime, Catholics who read Pope Leo's statements without bias, and who are not afraid to face the deplorable facts of the wage situation, rejoice that the man wdiose name is written in the annals of the United States Supreme Court as the ofiSciai upholder of the first minimum wage law in the United States is a priest, tlie Rev. Edwin V. O'Hara. (F) Private Property. — Pope Leo condemns the in- 80 The^Church and Socialism equitable division of property which enables one party to "grasp the whole of labor and trade, to manipulate for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is even represented in the councils of the state itself." Therefore, he says, "the law should favor oivnership and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the humbler class to become owners." By this means "the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over." The Pope is speaking of ownership of land, and his words are strictly applicable to the rural portion of the United States. All observing students are becoming alarmed at the growth of tenancy in our agricultural sections, and realize that systematic and far-reaching assistance will have to be given by the government to convert the masses of tenant farmers into farm owners. The principle of Pope Leo's statements can be ap- plied quite as well to conditions in the cities. As pointed out in our last article, no permanient solution of the social question will be obtained until the majority of the wage earners become owners of productive property, preferably and so far as possible in the in- dustries in which they work. Neither high wages, nor comfortable working conditions, nor security of em- ployment, nor provision against all the unfavorable contingencies of life, nor all of these together, will render the position of the working classes satisfactory if they must continue in that status of dependence which marks the mere wage earner. Like the tenant The Church and Socialism SI farmers, the urban workers must be aided by the state to become property owners. Such are the doctrines and proposals which Pope Leo would have the state put into operation for the benefit of the working classes. They do not constitute a complete and formal programme of labor legislation, for that was beyond the scope of the encyclical. In a document of that kind the Pope could do no more than lay down certain fundamental principles of state action, and by applying these to some of the foremost needs of labor indicate the broad outlines of a comprehensive system of betterment. The details can easily be filled in by the specialists of each country. As a matter of fact, the concrete methods and re- forms that are mentioned by Pope Leo are in the main strikingly similar to the "platform of minimums" formulated in 1912 by one of the committees of the National Conference of Charities and Correctio'ns (Proceedings, pp. 376-394). Under the head of wages, hours, safety and health, housing, term of working life, compensation or insurance, the committee endeav- ored to define the minimum decent standards of life and labor for the working people of America. Naturally this programme covers the ground in much greater detail than the encyclical, and it includes certain important topics which Pope Leo does not touch; for example, housing and insurance. But it embodies no principle that is not found in Pope Leo's proposals; for example, the question of housing is im- plicity met by the Pope in his declarations on a living 32 The Church and Socialism wage, and the question of insurance by his demand that the worker be enabled to become the owner of property from which he can derive an income. All things co7isidered, we are justiiied in claiming that the principles and proposals set forth by Pope Leo con- cerning the function of the state in relation to labor constitute an adequate scheme of amelioraiion. Were they but reduced to practice, the ivorkers would not only find their condition immensely improved hut would be able of themselves to obtain all the further advantages that are feasible and just. The two supreme evils of our industrial system are the unreasonably small share of the national income obtained by the majority of v/age-earners, and the unreasonably'- large share that goes to a small minority of capitalists. The remedies which Pope Leo offers for the former evil are, as we have just said, sufScient. The second evil he does not directly touch in the en- cyclical. His subject was the "Condition of Labor," not the wider topic of social reform, or social justice. Nevertheless, he makes two or three references to the evil of excessive gain that are not without significance when taken in connection with the traditional teaching of the Church. He declares that the hard condition of the working classes "has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless under a different guise but with the like injustice still practiced by covetous and grasping men." Again, he enjoins the rich to "refrain from cutting down The Church and Socialism 33 the workmen's earnings, whether by force, fraud or by usuriovs dealing." There can be little doubt that the new form of usiirj' stigmatized in these sentences refers to the extortionate prices exacted from the working classes for the neces- saries of life by the m.onopolists. A certain great meat packing industry last year obtained dividends of 35 per cent. During the same period this concern helped to promote an artificial shortage of hides, with the re- sult that the price of shoes was kept at a much higher level than was required by the relation between supply and demand. Were Pope Leo alive, he would probably have little hesitation in classifying this coarse injustice as "usurious." For centuries the Catholic teaching on monopoly has been that a combination which artificially raises the price of products above the market or competitive level is guilty of unjust dealing, and that such practices ought to be prevented by law. Taken in conjunction with the general principle of state intervention enun- ciated by Pope Leo, these doctrines constitute a sanc- tion for the use of any legislative method that is necessary to meet the evil of monopoly. Let us recall Pope Leo's general principle: "When- ever the general interest or any particular class suffers, or is threatened with mischief which can in no other way be met or prevented, the public authority must step in and deal with it." Therefore, if tliat "usurious dealing" which is practiced by monopolistic concerns for the sake of extortionate profits can "in no other 34 The Church and Socl\lism way be met or prevented" than by the destruction of the monopoly, or by fixing maximum prices for its products, or by state ownership of the industry, in whole or in part, or by all these methods combined, the state will have not only the right but the duty to intervene in any or all of these ways. Did space permit, it would be easy to show that all the other social questions, such for example as those of land tenure and taxation, and taxes on incomes and inheritances, can be adequately solved in conformity with the social and moral teachings of the Catholic Church. All the evils of our industrial system can be abolished by sane and progressive measures of social reform, against which the Church has not a word to say. There is no need to resort to socialism, even if that scheme would not leave the last state of society worse than the first. (Elsewhere I have tried to set forth in detail a comprehensive program of reforms, "Dis- tributive Justice," The Macmillan Company.) II PRINCIPLES AND PROPOSALS OF SOCIAL REFORM Social reform is here taken to mean reform of in- dustrial conditions, not of all social conditions; hence we have nothing to do with such social problems as the divorce question, the liquor traffic, tuberculosis, or methods of relieving distress. While all these are sociah questions, they are not the social question. "Industrial conditions" include the production, but chiefly the distribution of wealth. The latter con- stitutes the most important of the social questions, because it deeply affects all the others. Most of the principles, as well as the methods and measures, that I shall advocate would probably be accepted by the majority of the American people. All of the principles have received the explicit endorse- ment of Catholic authority, and all of the measures are in harmony with Catholic teaching. This authority and this teaching are found in the traditional doctrines of the Church, particularlv in the Encyclicals of Leo XIII and Pius X. I shall discuss the subject under the heads of the four main agencies of social reform: The Individual; Private Association; the State; and the Church. The individual is not the mere creation of his en- vironment, as socialists and determinists would have us believe. He can to a great extent control and modify 35 36 The Church and SociALisiM his environment through liis free will. In the majority of cases the laborer could in some dejj^ree better his condition by more energy, honesty, and thrift, and by avoiding indolence, shirking, and wastefulness. He could also acquire a higher sense of his own respon- sibility for his condition. While it is not true that in America everyone gets wliat he deserves and earns, it is a fact that the fortunes of every man depend to some extent upon his own efforts. Individual employers could treat tlieir employes better than they do, despite the sins of other onployers. The well-disposed em- ployer is not aways com])elled to follow the bad example of his comj^etitors by oppressing labor. Even if only a minority of employers and a minority of employes should honestly strive to do a little better than the majority of the members of their classes, their action would have a most beneficial effect upon the whole of industry. Individual employers and individual em.ployes are under moral obligation to rise above the low levels of business and industrial conduct in which they find themselves. To conclude that they must do as everybody else does is to adopt the working creed of cowards. The well-to-do and the rich could put away that false conception of life and values which perm.eates ail classes of contemporary society, and which holds that right life consists in the indefinite expansion and satisfaction of material wants. They could spend very much less money for food, clothing, shelter, amuse- ments, and "social" activities, and very much more for Principles of Social Reform 37 the cultivation of their minds and hearts. As a rule, the family that spends more than ten thousand dollars per year for the satisfaction of its material wants would be better off, physically, intellectually, and morally, if its expenditures were kept below that limit. If the rich and the well-to-do were to adopt saner views and practices in this matter of personal expenditures, they would set a most beneficial example to all the poorer classes, would do much to diminish class envy and hatred, and would have abundant means to carry on charitable, educational, and reform works of every description. The importance and necessity of this kind of individual action can scarcely be exaggerated. The contributions that can be made by individuals to the solution of the social question, is, therefore, by no means insignificant. If men but applied the commandment of brotherly love to industrial relations, they would establish the reign not onlj' of peace and good will, but of social justice; for charity includes and is broader than justice. Since they will not do this to the extent that is necessary, we must have recourse to other and additional remedies. There is need of organization, in order that men may be able to do in this way what they cannot ac- complish separately. First in importance among so- cieties come labor unions. This is the statement of Pope Leo XIII. At this late day labor unions do not call for a formal defense or justification. They have probably done more for the betterment of the woiking population than all other agencies combined, with the A rr-f n/1 c: 38 The Church and Socialism exception of religion. Some of their achievements have been brought about by direct influence exerted upon employers, and, not a little indirectly, by moulding public opinion and legislation. Labor unions are n permanent and necessary institution of our social and industrial life, and ought to be continued for their educational influence, even if they were no longer needed for obtaining such material benefits as better wages, hours, or other conditions of emplo^'ment. To be sure, the abuses must be put away. Violence, limitation of apprentices, and unreasonable restriction of output must bo discarded, not only in theory but in practice. Let us, however, look at this matter in its proper proportions. Every considerable violation of justice or charity by organized labor can be, at least, duplicated in the history of capital. The sins of capital have been less crude and s])ectacular. but not less cruel nor injurious than those of labor. Employers' associations are likewise proper and necessa^5^ Of course, they should not be used for unjust ends any more than labor organizations. Neither kind of association should regard itself pri- marily as a fighting institution, but as a means of promoting the welfare of its members effectively and intelligently, and of solving in the most satisfactory way those problems which are of common interest to both capital and labor. Hence there ought to be some sort of union or conference which vv-jll include the representatives of Principles of Social Reform 39 both employers' and employes' organizations. Pope Leo recommends this form of association, although he admits that it cannot be modeled after the Medieval Guilds, which embraced masters and men in very close union. Probably the only feasible association of this sort is the periodical conference between employers and employes for the purpose of making what are called "trade agreements" regarding wages and all other conditions of employment. Conferences of this kind have been in vogue in the coal mining industry for many years, with the very happiest results for both parties and for the public generally. In great in- dustries these conferences are absolutely necessary in the interest of peace and justice. Employers who refuse to meet their employes on this basis are deserving of the .severest condemnation. This much at least of Christian equality and industrial democracy is es- sential if the wage system is to have the stability to withstand the attacks of revolution. Cooperative societies are also important and neces- sary. These are of many varieties, but the aim of all is essentially the same. They seek to distribute among their members the profits that now go to capitalists and middlemen, and to make the wage-earner a sharer in the ownership of productive property. The chief kinds are producers, consumers, agricultural and credit associations. Consumers' and credit associations have been the most successful, the former in Great Britain, the latter on the Continent, especially in Germany. In the former — that is, cooperative stores — the profits, •K) Th;: Cut rch and Socialism above a inoecific analysis. It is no more valid against a legal minimum wage than it is against any other measure that aims to benefit labor at the immediate and apparent exj)ense of the employer. Every suc- cesful cflort of a labor union to obtain more wages, shorter hours, or any other improvement in working conditions, and every legal regulation of factory con- ditions, of the length of the working day, or of the age of the working child, puts a new burden on the em- ployer and tends to increase the cost of production and the price of the product. Consequently, if the objection were sound, the whole policy of trade unionism and all the achievements of labor legislation would have been futile and without benefit to the working classes. As a matter of fact, this argument has always been used against any interference with the freedom of contract between master and man, wlietlier by legal or by trade imion action. It was for many 90 The Church and Socialism years efFectively urged both hy the manufacturers and economists against the first ])roj)Osals to hmit the hours of labor and age of child emj)loyes in the English factories, something less than a century ago. If it had prevailed, English Avomen would still be laboring as beasts of burden harnessed to carts in the dejjths of mines, children from five years upward would be toiling in the English factories sixteen and even eighteen hours a day under the lash of an overseer, English laborers of all classes would still be forbidden by law to organize for self-protection, the era of English wage slavery would have l»cen prolonged in ever increasing harshness to the present hour, and the degeneration of the city [)opulations of England would have been in- finitely greater than it has actually become (Cf. Gibbins, "Industry in England," pp. 391, sq.). Exi)erience has shown that the injurious results predicted by the opponents of labor legislation and labor organizations have not taken place. There has been no general increase in prices, nor any increase in any case that equaled the increase in wages or the expected increase in other items of the cost of produc- tion. In the majority of instances the greater part of the cost has been met by an increased efficiency in the productive process, that is, in labor, in machinery, and in the combination of these two factors. Another part has come out of the profits of those concerns that were obtaining more than the usual amount of interest on their investment. Precisely the same forces would operate in those industries in which wages would be The Legal Miximlm Wage 91 raised by law to a decent level. It is not, indeed, true that every increase in wages will be followed by an equivalent increase in productive efficiency, so that all the added cost of production will be provided by the workers tiiemselves, or by the workers in con- junction with better technical processes. This will happen in some cases, but no general rule can be formu- lated to indicate when it will hapi)cn (Cf. Ilobson, "The Evolution of Modern Capitalism," chap, xiv, new ed.). It seems quite probable, however, that where the increase in wages is merely sufficient to raise the worker from a condition of sub-normal to one of normal physical efficiency, the greater part of the additional wages will be available in the form of a larger j)roduct. In other words, the underfed, under- clothed and underhoused laborer, when brought up to the level of a normal standard of living, is able to create most of the difference between starvation wages and tlie remuneration necessary to maintain the normal standard. The greater i)art of the remaining cost of the higher wages would proljably come through the substitution of machinery for hand labor, and of better machinery for antiquated processes; through the elimination of the less efficient directors of industry, and the better organization of tlie productive forces; and through a reduction of the returns on monopolistic capital, and on capital that would suffer such a reduc- tion rather than take ffight into other industries. Nevertheless it is overwhelmingly probable that some of the additional wage cost would in some of the in- 92 The Chl-rcit and Socialism dustries he transferred to the product in the form of higher prices. How Large this increase in prices would l)c cannot be determined even api)roximately. Obviously it would differ in different intlustries. The one general statement that seems to he fairly safe is that the total increase in prices in all the industries affected would he less than half the total increase in wages. Conse- quently, even if the laborers themselves were the sole consumers of their proociation are used chiefly to supjiort members who are out of work because of a strike or lockout. Thus the mutual insurance afforded is for the most part only against the necessity of ac- cepting unfavorable terms from the emi)loyer. The first aim tends to become subonlinate to the second, a mere means, a method of securing or retaining indus- trial advantages. Therefore, the justification of the labor union as an institution turns upon the morality of combining to get higher wages, shorter hours or other economic advantages, and of resisting the efforts of the employer to reduce the laborer's present position in any of these respects. Laborers have a moral right to unite to obtain better terms from their employers if this action would 100 Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 101 involve no injustice to either employer or consumer. They may, for example, rightly combine to get higher wages when these would not be unfair wages. But if they are at i)rcsent receiving all the remuneration to which they are morally entitled their action is wrong and unjust. F'or men have no more right as an organization than as individuals to "better their condition" by causing other men to enter into an extortionate contract. What is true of wages applies also to the length of the working day and the other conditions of employment that are commonly at issue between master and man. Again, if the jiurpose of the organization be merely to enable its members to retain present advantages that are fair the union will be morally good. It will be unlawful only when the niembers enjoy conditions that are in excess of the requirements of justice. Hence, whether the union aims at making things better or preventing them from being made worse, it will be justifiable only on con- dition that its members have a right, as against either employers or consumers, to the object sought. This reasoning assumes that there is an element of justice in the labor contract. Neither employer nor em{)loye may exact from the other all that he can but only as much as is his right. Owing to the prev- alence of false theories of politics and rights, this elementary truth has been, and still is, too frequently ignored. Professor Sidg^N'ick confesses that during the greater part of the nineteenth century political economy as well as the business world assumed that a contract 102 The Church and Socialism made without force or fraud was generally a fair con- tract. This extraordinary theory of contractual justice would justify alike the starvation wages of the sweat- shop and the extortionate prices of the most tyrannous monopoly. If it were sound, the question of the morality of labor union aims would be idle and ir- relevant. Whatever the unions could obtain without fraud or force they would have a right to take. They could be condcmnetl only on grounds of exj)cdiency. Happily there is in progress a very general reaction from this immoral tloctrine, and almost all men now admit that there is a fair price and an unfair price for labor, as ^^ell as for all other gootedIy correct. Reference is had, of course, to the laboring class as a whole, not to a small, highly i)aid section; for it seems sufTiciently clear that some grouj)s of workmen receive at present a wage that meets all the requirements of justice, and con- sequently that any attempt on their part, whether by organization or otherwise, to exact more favorable conditions would be an act of injustice. Even in the case of these, however, the labor iniion will usually be necessary in order that effectual resistance may be offered to those forces that tend to reduce the position of labor below an equitable level. In order to realize these aims the labor union is not only justified but indispensable. Unbiased and well- informed men no longer accept the complacent and utterly gratuitous theory of Bastiat and his school concerning the beautiful compensations and harmonies of unlimited competition. Natural economic forces do not tend automatically and inevitably to a con- tinuous betterment of the position of the laborer. It has been proved by abundant and bitter experience 104 THK ClirRCH AN'D SOCIAUSM tliat the unchecked tendencies of the industrial world all point in the oj){)osite direction. So conservative a writer as the late Francis A. Walker declared almost thirty years ajjo that there was no virtue, no tendency even, in strictly industrial forces to make good the loss caused by specific instances of unemployment, waf^e reductions or other labor misfortunes (see "The Wages Question," chap. iv). Fifteen years later we find him writing: "Nothing, economically speaking, can save industrial society from progressive degrada- tion except the spirit and power of the working classes to resist being crowded down" ("Elementary Course in Political Economy," p. 2G6). The fact is that, instead of being endowed with the fatalistic character that is still too frequently attributed to them, economic forces are for the most part created and controlled by the human beings that compose economic society; and if the laborer leaves their direction entirely in the hands of the consumer and the employer, his economic position must grow steadily worse. The consumer generally cares only for cheap goods, and even with the best intentions cannot, merely as a consumer, do much td check this tendency. The majority of emj)loyers are neither suflBciently benevolent, sufliciently far- sighted, nor, in a regime of sharp competition, suffi- ciently powerful to afTord the laborer adequate pro- tection. No entire class or industrial grade of laborers has ever secured or retained any important economic advantage except by its own aggressiveness and its own powers of resistance, brought to bear upon ^^^ Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 10.> employer through the medium of force (economic) or fear. It is not denied that individual employers have voluntarily bettered the condition of their employes, or \villingly refrained from making it ^vorse; but these instances are excej)tions and, considering the whole number of emi)loyers and the entire history of the wage system, rare exceptions. Now it is obvious that the alertness, the aggressiveness, to seize and make the most of oi)j)ortunilies for advancement, the energy and power to resist being crowded down, can be i: ! efficacious only when crystallized in organizations. This a priori expectation has been realized in experi- ence. The labor union has secured large gains not only for the emi)loycs of single establishments but fo^ entire groui)s of workers, and it has ])robably been even more effectual in preventing losses. To quote the United States Industrial Coninissioii: "An over- whelming preponderance of t< alimony before the Industrial Commission indicntcb that the organization of labor has resulted in a niaiked improvement in the economic condition of the workers Vnd it is regarded by several witicsses as an influcnrc of great importance in mridc; ating the severity of dci)ression and diminishing its length" ("Final Report of the Industrial Commission," pp. 802, 8()4j. 1. The Sir ike. — Botli, in its general effects upon the community and in tli« place that it occupies in the minds of workingmen, this is the most imjjortant of labor union methods. Even when it is carried on 106 The Church and Socialism without violation of the rights of any one, it usually causes losses more or less pravc to cmi)loyer, emj)loye arul the general i)ul)lic. it lias, moreover, a strong tendency to foment the passions of anger and hatred, and it i)uts before the workers temjjtations to physical force that cannot easily be resisted.^' In view of these facts, common-sense and respect for the moral law dictate that a strike should not he resorted to unless three conditions are verified, namely: that a j)eaceful solution of the difficulty has been found ineffective, that the grievance is great in pro])ortion to the incon- veuionces that are liable to result, and that there is a reasonable hope that the strike will be successful. Of •"ourse it is always understood that the strike is on behalf of some advantage to which the laborers have a right. Where any one of these conditions is wanting, the calling of a st ike will be unjustifiable and immoral/ Two of the subordinate methods — subordinate be- cause in nearly all cases incident to the strike — that are sometimes employed by union workmen (and others likewise) are violence ami the symi)athetic strike. Concerning the prevalence < f tiie former practice, there is a moat detd of «»aggeration in the public press, and especially in the statements of some em- ployers. For example, the executive committee of the "Citizens' Industrial A-ociation" asserted a few years ago that -vithin the last few years "the cases are innumerable in which workingmen have been disabled and murdered." If words are to be accepted in their ordinary sense, this assertion is Moral Aspects of the Labor Uniox 107 simply false. John Mitchell maintains that the amount of violence in strikes is infinitestiinal when compared with that which attends the ordinary course of life. "After all, violence is a less common accompaniment of lal)or disputes than is often supposed" ("Final Report of Industrial Commission," p. 879). Within recent years there has been a consideral)le improve- ment in this matter — an improvement both in the attitude of the leaders and in the conduct of the workers. Nevertheless, it seems to be even now true to say that the use of physical force in strikes is not of the nature of a rare exception. The conclusion .seems reasonable that a large proportion of workingmen believe that they have a moral riuht to use this method both acamst the intractable employer and against the laborers who would take their places. They seem to claim a certain "right to their jobs." They quit these with the ex- pectation of resuming them when their demands shall have been conceded, and they seem to hold that the employer and the .so-called "scab" are in the position of nicn attemj ting to deprive them of their rights. They conclude, therefore, that they are justified in meeting this aggression with the weapons of might, just as they would resist an attack on their persons or property by robbers. In this claim which we suppose the laborer to make there are two distinct issues which, though often found together, are separable both in logic and in the world of reality. The first is the laborer's right to his job, while the second is his right to just conditions of 108 The CnuRcii and Socialism employment. The latter riglit can exist in the absence of the former, and both miglit be valid withoutconferring on the laborer the right to defei d them by force. Moreover, it is clear that even though there be no such thing as a right to a job, both the employer who discharges his men without just cause and th.e workers who strike without a real grievance will be guilty of violating charity. Does the laborer possess this so-called right to his job.' The question, of course, concerns moral, not legal rights. The Abbe Naudet strongly maintains that such a right exists in the case of skilled laborers. These men have spent a considerable time in learning their present trade and cannot readily become ac- quainted with another equally remunerative. The civil law should guarantee them a right to their avoca- tion (propricl^ dc la profession) similar to that which the officer enjoys with regard to his rank in the army. The skilled laborer ijcrforms, after a costly appren- ticeship, a duty to society, and in return has a right to receive adequate protection in his i)osition ('Tropriete, Capital, et Travail," pp. 383-390). The Abbe Naudet would vindicate this right of the skilled man as against the unskilled, even in the case of a job for which both are competing and which neither has previously held. ^Vhatever may be said about this particular class, the reasons for asserting that some workmen have a right to remain in their present employment as long as they conduct themselves reasonably are much stronger than is commonly assumed. And they are based not Moral Aspects of the Labor Uxiox 109 merely on the principles of social or legal justice, but have to do with the justice that exists between men as individuals. Here is a laborer with a family and owning, perliaps, the home in which he lives. If he loses his present position, he must either accept a much less remunerative job or leave the city. Certainly it seems in accordance with not only the spirit, but the accepted i)rincii)les of justice to say that if this man is discharged v,ithout reasonable cause the injury done him amoimts to a violation of his rights. There is, indeed, no obligation issuing immediately either from the natural law or the wage contract binding the employer to keep this j)articular man on his pay roll, but such an obligation seems to flow mediately from the conjunction of law and contract. The laborer has a natural right to enjoy reasonable conditions of exist- ence. This abstract right takes, on the occasion of the wage contract, the concrete form of a right to reasonable security of position, as well as a right to fair wages. If we comj)aic the right thus claimed with the right of the first occupant to a given portion of land, we shall see that it is not essentially difTerent from or essentially inferior to tlie latter. The first arrival on a i>iece of land has, in common with other men, a natural right to live from the produce of the earth, and, as a corollary of this, a right to hold a portion of the earth as his private property. But he has no immediate natural right to the particular section of the earth that he has seized. There is nothing in the nature of this land nor in his own nature which would dictate that he should 110 The Chlrch and Socialism have it rather tliaii his neighbor, wlio arrived a httle later. How comes it, then, that, according to all Catholic moralists and the practically unanimous usage of all j)eoi)les, the land belongs to th.e first comer rather than to the second? Simply because this arrangement is reasonable. The indeterminate, general and abstract right Avhich by nature every man has to I)rivate proj)erty nmst, if men are to live rationally together, become determinate, particular and concrete in some reasonable way; and one of the reasonable v ays is by assigning validity and sacreiliiess to the contingent fact of first occui)ancy. On precisely the same prin- ciples the laborer that we are considering seems to have a right to his job. His indeterminate and abstract right to private property in the goods that are essential to right living is for the present converted into the determinate and concrete right to fair wages from this j)articular employer, and it would seem that the latter right is not j)roperly and reasonably safeguarded, does not, indeed, contain all that is involved in the right to a reasonable living, unless it includes the further right to continue to receive these wages as long as he honestly earns tliem and the employer is able to pay them. True, there is nothing in the nature of things to suggest or require that John Jones should continue to employ John Smith, but neither is there anything in the nature of things obliging John Brown to recog- nize the right of John ^Yhite to a particular piece of land. What the natural law and natural justice obliges Brown to respect is White's right to some private Moral Aspects of the Lador Union 111 propertj", and through the contingent fact of first occupancy this general right has been transformed into the particular right in question. Similarly, the right of Jolm Smith to the private j)roperty that is necessary for reasonable life has been transformed into the right to a particular job. Both rights are finally determined and in a sense croateil by contingent facts, which derive their entire moral and juridical value from the cir- cumstance that they afford a reasonable method of concreting and safeguarding individual rights. Hasty and unqualified denials of the right to a job are usually based on the assumption that a contract cannot give rise to any obligation of justice that is not expressly set down in the contract it.self. If tliis theory were true, the employer would be bound to pay a living wage only when he had agreed to do so. The fact is that special relations — mere propinquity of various kinds — create sj)ecial obligations, not merely of charity, but of j^istice. .\mericans have duties of justice to one another that they do not owe to foreigners. Brown is obliged to recogni/e White's right to a definite portion of a newly discovered territory because the latter is already in possession, but he may take any other jjart of the land that he choo.ses, regardless of the wishes of Green, who has not yet arrived; Jones is obliged to protect Smith's right to a decent living by paying him a living wage, but he is not obliged to do likewise with respect to Johnson, who is not in his employ. In the use of his faculties and of the goods of the earth, every man is bound in justice to respect 112 TiiK Church and Socialism the riglits of every otlier living soul, which means in the concrete relations of life, not that lie is to concern himself about the rights of all mankind in precisely the same degree — to refrain, for example, from occujjy- ing a tract of land hccaiisc somewhere on the globe there exists a fellow-man whose property rights are unreali/ed — but it means that he is to give special attention to the claims of those with whom he comes into immediate contact, and whose rights, consequently, are more directly afToctcd and more likely to be violated by his conduct. Propinquity in a hundred ways creates, fixes and limits men's concrete rights because only in this way can indeterminate and conflicting claims be reconciled. The reasonable conclu.sion from this long discussion seems to be that men who are performing their tasks efliciently aiul to whom dis- charge will bring very grave inconvenience have a right to their jobs that dilfers in degree only from the right to a living wage and tlie right to land because of first occui)ancy. From this i)rincii)le it follows that the employer has a corresponding right to the services of his employes as long as he treats them justly. They do him an injustice if they leave him without a reasonable cause. A sufficient reason would be, for example, the desire to remove to another local ty, or to get better wa^cs at some other kind of work. In large establisln.ents, however, changes of this nature would usually l)c made by the men individually and at difTerent times, and consequently would not cause the employer serious Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 113 inconvenience. It very seMom happens tliat the entire group of men in a given business quit their employer in a body with a view to getting employment elsewhere. Almost always their intention is to get back the old jobs when tliey sl^all have secured some advantage. Assuming that tlicy have no just grievance, the loss in- flicted on the employer by this interruption of work will in itself constitute an act of injustice. The reason that the emjjloyer has, within tl e limits indicated, a right to the continued services of his men is precisely the same as tl at on which rests tl e right of employes, also within due limits, to tleir jobs, nan^ely, tl e right to the requisites of reasonable living, as modified by the facts of relationship ard environment. In view of these considerations it would seem tl at Carroll D. Wright v.as mistaken wl en l.e declared, ^\ith reference to a miner who had been wantonly disci arged, that emi)loyes lave not only a legal but a moral right to quit ^\ork whenever tl ey cl oose, and t! at tl e employer enjoys the corresjionding right arbitrarily to dismiss. The second assimiption ui)on which strikers some- times seem to base a rigl t to use violence is tl e right to just conditions of employment. We have said that this right could exist even in tl e al sence of tl e right to a job. But the question naturally arises, and is in fact often asked: How can tl.is right, wl ich is in a general way valid, have any bearing on the positions that the strikers have vacated, or affect in any way a man who is no longer their employer.' They must try to secure their rights in a wage contract with 114 The Ciiuhch and Socialism someone else, since their former master lias no further relations with nor ohli^'ations to them. The answer to this presentation of the matter is that it is too simple, too theoret'cal to represent the facts of actual life. Few, indeed, are the str'kes in which there is such a complete severance of the old wage relations. Even in the case of strikes that fail the great majority of the workers involved usually go back to their former j)laces. New men are not taken in sufficient numbers to carrv' on the work alone, and not all of them are retained i)ermanently. Some of them, indeed, never intended to remain beyond the strike period, nor does the emi)loyer desire them any longer. These are the "professional strike breakers," men of great animal courage and recklessness, whose character and ante- cedents make them unsuitable as i)ermanent employes. Of course these men are not engaged in every strike, nor do they ever form more than a small minority of those taking the places of the strikers. At any rate, the general fact is tliat both employer and strikers fully expect that the great majority of the latter will finally get back their old jobs; consequently the effort of the employer is in the concrete an attempt to comi)el the men to return to work on his terms. If these terms are unjust, the employer and those who cooperate with him by taking the places of the former emi)loyes are in very fact engaged in an attack on the rights of at least as many of the latter as will resume their old jobs. In these cases, and a fortiori on the assumption that Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 115 the men have a right to their places, are not the em- ployer and the new workers acting tlie part of unjust aggressors, whom it is licit, within due limits, to resist by force? This is the question that many laborers seem to answer in the affirmative. The Abbe Pottier would turn the problem over to wiser minds, but de- clares that the use of force will certainly not be jus- tifiable unless three conditions are verified, namely: that there be no less objectionable means by which the strikers can obtain justice; that this particular means be efficacious, and that the good to be derived from it be great and certain in projjortion to tlie evils that will ensue ("De Jure et Justitia," pp. 208, 209). In America, at any rate, the last condition is never realized. The wrongs endured by labor are insignificant when compared with the di.sorders that would follow any recognition of the claim that violence is lawful in justifiable strikes. That the state does not, or cannot, protect the laborer's natural right to a living wage, just as it protects his right to .security of life, limb and property, is to be regretted, but the private use of force to defend the former would bring about a con- dition of veritable anarchy. It would be equivalent to a rebellion against existing political institutions, and consequently could be justified only in the con- ditions that justify rebellion. Now, conditions of this force and magnitude are most certainly not created by either the exactions of capital or the sufferings of labor. Evils of equal importance are tolerated by the law in every civilized society, yet no one maintains that they IIG The Church axd Socialism ouijht to he abolished hy private violence. The use of it to redress the j^rievances of lahor cannot he too severely condemned. The synij)athelic .strike is of two kinds — ajrainst anotlicr employer tlian the one concerned in the original dispute, or against the latter hy a section of his em- ployes havin<; no personal grievance. An example of the first occurs when hrickmakers quit work because their employer persists in furnishing material to a building contractor who.se men are on strike. Their sole purpose is to emharra.ss tie contractor and compel him to concctle the demands of his own employes. It is, of course, clear that the hrickmakers have com- mitted an act of injustice if they have violated a contract requiring them to remain at work for a definite period. Even in the absence of any contract, their action will lx», generally speaking, contrary to the law of charity and likewise contrary to justice. It is in violation of charity because it shows a want of Christian consideration for tie Mclfarc of the innocent employer, and it sins against justice because it inflicts upon him a grave loss without sufficient reason. As stated above, employer and employe are too intimately dei)endent upon each other in the realization of their natural rights to make arbitrary severance of their relations consistent with justice. Employes have no right to cause their employer to suffer on behalf of men who are mistreated by some one else. No doubt there are extreme cases in which the outside employer is bound in charity to assist strikers by refraining from doing Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 117 business with the man against whom they have struck, but these are rare. On the other hand, when the sym- path.etic strike afTects only the enij)loyer concerned in the original strike, it will sometimes be not merely licit, but laudable. For example, if the "common laborers" in a business have quit work on account of oppressive conditions, the skilled workers might do a pood action by striking on behalf of their fellow- employes. The obligations owed by the skilled men to their employer would yield before the claims of the laborers whom he is treating unjustly. Their [position is analogous to that of one nation extending aid to another in resisting the unjust aggressions of a third. The case of France assisting the American colonists to throw off the yoke of England furnishes a good example. The obligation of remaining at peace with the oppressive nation does not extend so far as to render illicit all sympathetic action. Similarly, a disinterested spectator may come to the relief of a \\eak man who is suffering at the hands of a strong one. The case for the sympathetic strike becomes clearer when we remember that a single labor union frequently includes men performing very dissimilar tasks. They agree to act as a unit in defending not only the rights and in- terests of the whole body, but those of evjery section of it. Hence a strike of all the employes of a given employer may be called to redress the grievances of a small proportion. If the cause is a just one, this action will usually be lawful and frequently commend- able; for it is becoming more and more evident that only lis The rnrucii and Socialism by this means can the weaker laborers, tlie great army of tlie nnskilled, obtain adequate protection. 2. The Boycott. — Althon^di the boycott is usually begun on the occasion of a strike, it is frequently con- tinued long after the strike has failed. It seems, therefore, worthy of a place among the labor union's primary methods. In essence it c*onsists of a refusal to have business or social intercourse with a certain person or jjcrsons. If the cause on behalf of which it is in- stituted is just, it will, within due limits, likewise be just, provided that it is used solely against those who are acting unjustly. A distinguished Catluilic })rclntc recommended a boycott some years ago when, in a sermon in his Cathedral, he asked the people not to patronize clothing manufacturers who had their goods made in "sweat shops." This would be a boy- cott entirely unconnected with a strike, and it would be justifiable in view of the intolerable conditions that he wished to remove. But the boycott nmst always be kept within the limits of fairness and charity. It must be free from all violence and threats of violence, and it must not be carried so far as to deny to the boy- cotted what the theologians call the " conwiunia siyna charitatis.'' By this phrase are meant those social acts that are dictated by the most fundamental of human relations — those manifestations and tokens of common humanity which man owes to his fellows, even to his deadliest enemy, from the simple fact that they are his fellows. Hence the boycott is carried to immoral lengths when it comprises a refusal to give or Moral Aspects of the Labor Uxion 119 to sell the necessaries of life, or any other action of equivalent harshness. With these reservations, and in a just cause, the boycott may become licit both against the unjust employer and against the work- ingmen who will not strike or who take the strikers' places. Lehmkuhl says that laborers who are con- tending for a living wage may use moral force against workers that refuse to cooperate with them, to the extent of denying to the latter all excei>t the funda- mental forms of intercourse above described (" Theologia Moralis," vol. i, no. 1110). Mueller lays down the same principle ("Theologia Moralis," vol. ii, p. 594, 8th edition). This is the "primary" boycott. There is another form, called by the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission the "secondary" boycott, and by the United States Industrial Commission the "compound" boycott, which consists in a refusal of intercourse with innocent third j)ersons who are unwilling to join in the primary boycott. This form has been condemned by both of the bodies just mentioned, and rightly, for in all except extreme cases it constitutes an offense against Christian charity. To be sure, men may licitly per- suade or try to persuade outsiders to assist them in a just boycott, but they go to an immoral excess when they unite to inflict inconvenience — often grave in- convenience — on those who refuse to be jjcrsuaded. This is the general rule; it is not denied that there may occur instances in which the obligation of disinterested persons to join in a laudable boycott would become so \ 120 The Church and Socialism grave and direct as to render tliem justly liable to tlie penalty of being tlieinselvcs boycotted ^\llen tliey fail to discharge this obligation. The sweat shops, for exanij)]c, to ^\hich reference vas made above, might possibly become so degrading that the buyers of clothing would do right to withhold their patronage not only from the guilty manufacturers, but even from merchants who persisted in handling the sweat-shop goods. Cases of such gravity could, of course, occur but seldom. Moreover, when the utmost that the moral law will allow has been said in defense of the boycott, one all-important consideration remains, namely, that it is. like the strike, a dangerous and ex- treme method, should be emi)loyctI oidy as a last re- source, and then only with the greatest caution. 3. The *' Closed Shop."— This phrase refers to the unionist policy of refusing to work with non-unionists. The "shop," that is to say, any establishment in which the union has got a foothold, is to be "closed" to all except the union's members, not "oi)en" to all comers. The union wishes to organize all the workers in a trade, so that it will be in a better position to bargain with the employer. If this motive is not justifiable, the unionists, it is evident, sin against charity by attempting such compulsion toward their fellow- lal)orers. They offerd against the rule which requires men to do unto each other as they would be done by — to treat one another as brothers. The unionist main- 'aiiis that the ends that he seeks to attain are amply sufficient to justify the policy of the "closed shop." Moral Aspects of the Labor Uniox l^l Workinpmen who refuse to join the union and yet work side by side \vith its members share tlie advan- tages that the union makes possible. They desire to reap where they have not sown. They, furthermore, frequently render impossible collective bargains between the union on one side and the emi)loyer on the other, because they are not amenable to union discipline. It is not fair that the union should be held responsible for the fidelity of men over whom it can have no effect- ive control. Finally, the "open shop" is impossible, since it tends inevitably to liecomc either all union or all non-union. There is constant bickering and ill feeling between the two classes, and, worst of all, the non-unionist too frequently allows the employer to use him as a lever to lo\\cr the conditions of the whole establishment or group. In a word, the demand that all shall join the union is made in the interests of self- protection. Now any one of these reasons would sometimes be sufficient to ai)solve the union from uncharitableness in its jjolicy of the "closed slu){>." To what extent they are realized in the industrial world need not now be discussed, but it seems quite probable that one or more of them finds occasional aj)plica- tion. We may say in a general way that the cause of unionism, which is the cause of labor, renders more or less necessary the organization of all workers. Still less does the method in question seem to be contrary to justice. Neither employer nor non-unionist can show that any right of his is violated by the mere fact that the unionist refuses to work with the latter. 122 TiiK CiiuKcii AND Socialism \Vlierc the union is very stronfi, it is quite possible that this action will de[)rive the non-unioiust of all oppor- tunity of working, and consequently of earninj; a living. If, indeed, the refusal of the unionist were absolute — if he were to say to the non-unionist: "In no circum- stances will I work with you," he would undoubtetily sin against justice. He would violate the non-unionist's right to live from the bounty of the earth, just as truly and as efTectually as the owner of an island who should drive a shipwrecked voyager into the sea. As a matter of fact, the unionist docs nothing of this kind; his refusal is conditional; he says in elTcct that if the non- unionist will not join the organization lie shall not work, but this condition is sometimes reasonable. Then, even though the "closed si op" policy should deprive the non-unionist of all opportunity to work, the blame, so far as justice is concerned, should be placed on his own perverse will. These are the general conclusions. They are evi- dently subject to some qualifications. For there are laborers wliose unwillingness to join the union is due to weighty reasons of personal inconvenience, and not merely to a selfish desire to escape the burdens of unionism or to compete unfairly with the unionist. Again, it seems probable that many of the unions, as at present constituted and led, cannot be trusted to administer moderately and equitably the immense power that comes from complete unionization. This, how^ever, is a question more of expediency than of rights. Undoubtedly the employer has the right to Moral Aspects of the Labor Uxiox 123 oppose the "closed shop" so long as his action does not tend to force unjust conditions upon the laborer. Witliin tiie same limits t!ie non-unionist has the right to keep himself aloof from the organization. The rights of all three, the employer, the non-unionist and the unionist, in this matter are not absolute, like the right to live, but are conditioned, first, by the con- sent of the other party whom it is desired to bring into the contract, and, second, by the efTects that the intended action will have on the rights of others. These several rights have of late been the subject of much loose thinking and looser si)caking. The legal and the moral rights of the non-unionist have been hopelessly confused. But, as John Mitchell i)ointed out a few years ago, the qiicstion is not legal but ethical; for there is no law on our statute books which forbids unionists to refuse to work ^\ith non- unionists, or to attcm{)t by j)eaceable means to unionize any shop or trade. "The rights guaranteed to the non-unionist by the Constitution," which are so in- dignantly and patriotically i)roclaimcd, have absolutely nothing to do with this question, ^ome of the at- tempts to set forth the moral rights involved are equally absurd. \ cry decidedly, the non-unionist has not the right to work when, where, how and for whom he pleases, and even if he had, it would not give him the right to compel the unionist to work beside him. A man has no more right to work when, where, how and for whom he pleases than he has to fire off his pistol when, where, how and at whom Le pleases. No man 124 The Ciilhch and Socialism lias "a rifjlit to do ulint Ic pleases Nvitli Ms o\vn" — neither with h.is life, nor his faculties, nor his property, nor his labor, nor anything that is his. The non- unionist has no ri^ht to ^^ork for John Jones if the latter does not ^visll to hire him, nor, in general, to voik in any circumstances involving the consent of others without having first ohtained such consent/ If one were to take seriously some of the hysterical denuncia- tions of the "closed shoj)," one might he tempted to infer that this i)olicy uas entirely new to the world and in defiance of all the lessons and precedents of history. The truth is that it was enforced for centuries hy the trade and craft guilds throughout \^'estern Europe. Speaking of the charters obtained by the English craft guilds from Henry II. Ashley says: "The only definite provision was that no one within the town (sometimes within the district) should follow the craft unless he belonged to the guild. The right to force all other craftsmen to join the organization — /unft-zwang, as the German writers call it — carried with it the right to impose conditions, to exercise some sort of suj^ervision over those who joined" ("English Economic History," vol. i, p. 8'2). Imagine a modern labor union, say the Amalgamated Association of Street Railway Workers, clothed with this legal privilege! The non-unionist would be prevented not merely by the refusal of the unionist to work with him, but by the law of the land, from securing employment on any street railway in the country unless he became a member of the union. Yet this was the arrangement that arose and flourished Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 12.5 under the guidance and encouragement of the Catholic Church. And it \vas riglit. In those days men be- Heved in tlie reign of law, in the doctrine of live and let live, in security of occupation for the honest worker, in preventing the selfish and irresj)onsihle worker from injuring his fellows; and they knew nothing of that insane individualism that ends logically in the crushing out of the weak and the aggrandizement of the strong. 4. The liinitalion of Output. — Tlie unions are not infrequently accused of fixing an arbitrary limit to the amount of work \>ct day that their members shall do or allow to be done in a given establishment. While this practice is not formally recognized or defended, there is a great deal of evidence teiuling to show that it is more general than labor leaders seem willing to acknowledge. Be this as it may, the morality of limiting a man's outi)ut erated at its highest capacity. Ilis reply is that the exceptional man is welcome to turn out all the work that he jjleases, and to get all the wages that he can, provided that his output is not made the standard for the majority. He complains that in a given trade, say bricklaying, the man of exceptional skill and quickness is often set as a 126 The Church and Socialism pacemaker. To equal what is for liim an ordinary rate of si>ee(J, tie efforts of all tie otl.ers y>'\\\ have to be ext"ao;(Jinary. This is manifestly unfair. Work- m.en of ave a^e capacity — tl at is, tl e overwl-.elming majority — toiling clay after clay, should not be required to perform more than an a\eia;,'c, normal day's vork. Tl:cy ought not to be expected to \vork continuously at the liigl est i)itch of exertion of which tl ey are capable, for tliis is to violate the laws and standards of nature. Man's fullest and most intense exeitions \\ere intended as a reserve for s|)ecial en'.ergeucies, and the attempt to put them forth continuously n.cans disease and pre- mature decay. It is consequently inhuman and imn;o;al. By all means let tie exceptional man pro- duce more and rec*eive moie tl an tie others, but let him not be constituted the standard to which they are comjclled to conform. Tie unionist will sometimes admit that he hinders the most productive use of machinery, but his dcfen.se is that machines are frecpiently run at a sj^eed that demands unreasonable activity and an unhcalthful intensity of effort. This claim is true to a greater extent than most persons susjxct. "Terhaps the most significant feature of modern industry is the increasing intensity of exertion, owing to the introduction of machinery and the minute division of labor. . . . The result is that the trade life of the workingman has been reduced in many industries" ("Final Report of United States Industrial Commission," p. 733). "1 have seen in a New England factory," says John Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 127 Graham Brooks, "a machine working with such rapidity as to excite wonder that anyone could be induced to follow it nine hours a day. Upon irquiry the foreman told me how it had been manapcd. 'This invention,' he said, *is hardly six months old; we saw that it would do so much more work that we had to be very careful in introducing it. We picked the man you see on it because he is one of our fastest. We found out what it could do before we put it into tl:c room. Now they will all .see what it ^\ill turn out when it is properly run.' *Proi)erly run' meant to him run at its very highest si)ccd. This was tlie standard pressure to which all who worked it must submit" ("The i^ocial Unrest," p. 191). In the chapter from which this extract is taken there is a mass of evider ce suflcient to warrant the conclusion that running machinery at such a high speed as to den^ar.d from the tender the fullest exertion and inter.sity of which he is capable is the settled policy of a very large section of tie owners of machinery. As Dr. Cunningham puts it: "There is a temptatrn to treat the machine as the main element in production and to make it the measure of what man ought to do instead of regarding tlie man as the first consideration and the machine as the instru- ment which helps him" ("Th.e Use and Abuse of Money," p. 111). The result is that the machine tenders are worn out, useless, unable to retain their places at fifty and not unfrequently at forty-five. If the trade union or any other lawful social force can "restrict output" suiEciently to prevent this process his Tut: CiiLU(ii AND Socialism of slow murder, it will vindicate tlie moral law and confer a benefit uj)on society that uill le felt not nierely tolies: "They ask us to put in more apprentices when there is no shortage of work- men, wlien we can furnish first-rate men who are now out of work. That would mean that we were to l.elp train new men to compete with our own U'cmbers out of work" ("The Social I nrest," p. 5). The issue here drawn seems to be one of fact: Do or do not the unions allow a sufKcient number of apprentices to be trained to meet the demand? If we look a little deei)er, however, we shall find that we are confronted by two incomplete and therefore inaccurate statements of the same fact. The employer's real burden of complaint in some cases is that he cannot pet enough apprentices to supply the demand that would exist if wages were lower, and wages would be lower if he could increase the supply. This contingency the unionist recognizes, fears and tries to prevent by shutting out some of those Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 129 who wish to enter the trade. He is probably quite willing to admit them in numbers suflficient to meet the demand at current wajjes, or at the higher waj^e to which he thinks he is entitled. Tiie fundamental difference, then, between him and the employer in this matter seems to be one of wapcs. Wh.at, then, is to be said concernin;.: the morality of the practice.^ Conformably to his theory that the skilled laborer has a ri^ht to the trade that he has learned, the Abl)e Naudet nuiiiitains that the limitation of apprentices should be enforced by law (**Proj»ricte, Cai)ital, et Travail," pp. 'JH8, 389). So far as the relations between himself and his employer are concerned, it would seem that the unionist is truilty of no injustice or un(liarit\- in keeping down tlie number of apprentices, j)rovided they are still sufhcient to sui)j)ly the needs of the trade at fair wa^'es. In other words, the limitation should not go so far as to create a scarcity that would cause wages to become extortionate. There is, however, another asj)ect of the question besides the relations between emjjloyer and employe. The more diflicult the entrance to the higher trades the greater are the disadvantages endured by the great mass having no special skill — "the common laborers." "One result of the organization of the skilled trades," says Mr. J. A. Hobson, "has been to render it more difficult for outsiders to equip themselves for effective competition in a skilled trade. To some extent, at any rate, the skilled unions have limited the labor market in their trade. The inevitable result of this l')0 The Chliuii and Socialism has })ocn to iraiiitain a coiilinral ^rlut in tl c low-skilIcations the tctidei.cy vouM, of course, he down- ward. l)ul they are for the most part fairly well organ- ized and pretty well able to take care of themselves. Even after the influx of memhcrs consequent on the removal of restrictions they wotild he in a much better IK)sition than the great hody I e!ow tl em. It is the almost complete helplessness of tl c latter that nakes the "hilior (piestion" so threatening and so difl ciilt of .solution. 'Ihe skilled workers, as a rule. re(ei\e toler- alilc justice, and do not constitute a serious problem. In view of these facts there seerrs to he an obligation of charity forbiiidjug the skilled workers to rerder the elevation of their less fortunate fellows as difhcult as they sometimes do by the limitation of api'rentices. 6. Tyranny and Di.shnnc^ly. — Tl.ese features of the labor movement cannot in the strict sen.se of the word be called methods, but they I ave attracted sufFcient attention and criticism to deserve notice in any treat- ment of the morality of union [)racticcs and tendencies. .\ peculiarity of nuich discussion of the labor union is the amount of denunciation visited upon the walking delegate. lie is regarded by many as the chief cause Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 131 of labor disturbances, while as a matter of fact lie is merely the rei)resentativc. tie business apent, as he is called technically, of tl e union, appointed to execute its will, not clotl ed with the powers of an autocrat. Only in rare instances has he the power of his own motion to declare a strike or inaugurate any other movement of similar importance. Generally speaking, all his lar^'cr acts, tyrannical or otherwise, are the acts of the men whom he represents. He could not long retain his position were he to conduct himself with the lordly independence and indifTcrence that is sometimes attributed to him. "For trade unions at large in the United States the walking delegate repre- sents the opinion and will of his union more closely than most Congressmen represent the oi)inion and wdl of their constituents" ("The Social Unrest," p. 151). And he is absolutely necessary if the union is to attain its object of enabling a group of individuals to act as a unit in dealing u ith their employer. To eliminate him would be to eliminate the union. This, however, does not mean that some of the petty tyrannies practiced both by him and the privates in the ranks could not consistently with the welfare of the union be abolished. In the manner in which strikes are sometimes called and conducted; in the reckless, inconsiderate, even cruel use of the boycott; in the oppressive enforc-ement of the "closed shop" jmlicy. hardships are inflicted on the employer, the laborer and the general public which cannot be adequately described except as mean ad- vantages taken of temporary helplessness. Especially 1S€ The Chirch and Socialism is this true of tlie innocent third party, the customer or consumer, wlio is dependent hotli upon the union and the employer. Want of space forhids pivinp instances of such petty annoyances and injuries, but anyone who has come into actual and interested contact with the disj)utes hetwecn lahor and capital knows that they are not is()late.d excej)lions. It is a question not of any one definite method, hut of a reprchensihle lial)it <»f mind and will which finds numerous and various outlets for practical exi>ression. The \niionists make the mis- take of enforcing a too rij^id interpretation of their rights in circumstances where their op|)onents or their innocent dcj)cndents are i)eculiarly unable to help themselves. They — or .some of them — should try to realize that even in war certain weai>ons and i)ractices are tabooed by all civilized peoi)les; that the use of oppressive tactics by the emjjloyer does not justify them in retaliatinfi in kind; that, in the words of the poet : It is excellent To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant. The charge of dishonesty is directed almost entirely apain.st the leaders. Those who make tliis accusation oftenest could not, in all probability, name half a dozen among all the union leaders in the United States. It is safe to say that many of tlicm have in mind only one man, the notorious Sam Parks. Tl.c fact seems to be that the proportion of labor leaders who Moral Aspects of the Labor Union* 183 are dishonest is smaller tlian tlie proportion of dishonest politicians or dishonest public ofl cials. Tarks vas, indeed, both unfaithful to his fellow unionists and extortionate in his dealing's with en\i)loyers. He misused the funds of the union, called strikes with a view to bcinj: paid for dec!arin<; them off, and in return for bribes allowed employers to hire non-unionists instead of unionists. Vet even he represented the will of the union, inasnujch as the majority of its mcndiers were not sufliciently vigilant and afr^ressive to depose him. "How was it i)ossible for such a man to control absolutely his thousands of iron workers?" asked Ray Stannard Baker of a labor leader, and pot this reply: "If you will exi)lain h.ow Ooker bossed the Demo- cratic party of New York — a party full of honest men — when every one knew he was grafting ; how he collected money from the wealthy owners of the street railway comj>anies, and gas comjjanies, and from other promi- nent business men, I will explain how Parks gets his hold on the building trades" {McCIutcs Ma'jazhie, Novera- l)er. l!)0.i). There is no reason in the nature of things why a labor leader should be proof against the temptation to misuse his power for private gain any more than there is reason to expect that a public oflicial will always be scrupulously honest and faithful. Especially if, as Mr. Baker has shown to be true in the case of Parks, there are employers who prefer a dishonest labor leader. Mr. Baker maintains that some employers, particu- larly in the building trades, do not vn ant honest walking delegates any more than they want honest building 1S4 The Church and Socialism inspectors. Tlicy bribe ti.e latter in order to escape comj)Iiaiicc ^\ itli tie c-ivil law, and tlie foriiier in order to circumvent their agreements ^vith the union or to secure an unfair ad\antaj:e over a rival eni])lover. They have inear. It is not reason- able to exj)ect that men who will bribe a public oflicial should hesitate about bribing the agent of a labor union. And, as already noted, we ought not to expect a higher grade of honesty from the representatives of labor than from the representatives of the general public. In the words of District Attorney Jerome: "This corruption in the labor unions is merely a reflection of what we find in public life — and this cor- Moral Aspects of the Labor Un'ion 135 ruption in public life is merely a reflection of the sordid- ness of private life." , , r • i 7 Kvcessire Demcimh.—k large number of the friends of labor are tempted to oppose the whole labor move- ment because of what seem to theni unreasonable de- mands for higher v ages and shorter hours. 1 hey com- plain that tl;e unions very fre(,uently show a disposition to take all that they can pet, regardless of considerations of justice, and an utter indifTerenc-c to the welfare of the consumer. Now. it is beyond reasonable doubt that unfair conditions have been demanded and ob- tained bv some unionists. For just as there is a wage that is too low to be e(iuitable. .so is there one that is too high Laborers have no more right to force wages indeflnitelv up than employers have a right to force them indelinitely down. \ cry few laborers seem to rcali/e that a limit to the material advancement of the great nuijoritv of them has been fixed, not only by justice, but bv the country's resources, hi the present state of the arts of production and of the productiveness of nature, it is absolutely impossible that all American.s or even a bare majority, should be provided with annual trips to Europe, automobiles or palatial dwell- ings; or even with long vacations, a horse and carriage and a piano. After the primary wants of all had been supplied-which is very far from being true at present -there would not be enough of these secondary goods to go round. Li the most equitable scheme of distribu- tion practicable they would have to be reserved for a minority comprising two classes: those who could make 136 The Church and Socialism the best use of such superfluities, and those whose social services are so iniiiortaiit that tlioy can dcniaiui and receive from society an excc{)tio:!al remuneration. This is not to imi)ly that all who at present enjoy these thin;,'s fall into either of these classes. ^A'e are not now concerned with the inequalities of the existing distri- bution, but witii the indestructible and undeniable fact that the physical inii)ossii)inty of an indefinite improvement in the condition of the mass of laborers renders the claim to such advancement ethically invalid. Consequently they outrht not to indul^'c in vain exi)ec- tations nor talk glibly about rights that have no foun dation in reality. In si)ite of these general truths the difficulty of determining the upper limit of fair wages for any concrete grouj) of laborers is so great as to compel a jjrudent moralist to pau.se before attempting to estimate it in dollars and cents. All fair-minded men admit that the laborer has a right to a wage siifli- cient to maintain himself and family in the conditions of a comfortable, reasonable and moral life, and that this mininuim varies for different clas.ses, in accordance with the nature of their work and the standard of life to which they have been accustomed. But this is merely an irreducible moral mininuim: it is not necessarily the full measure of comj)lete justice. To deny this is to assume that of all the classes of the population, laborers only have not the right to use their power of entering into advantageous contracts — in their case, wage con- tracts — for the purpose of obtaining a higher standard of living. This position would scarcely be maintained Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 137 by any moralist of authority. Consequently those persons who assert tliat the unions have demanded more than is just would probably find it difficult to prove this assertion in more than an insignificant minority of instances. And this minority is un- doubtedly smaller in proportion than the number of employers who receive exce.ssive interest or excessive profits. There seems to be a larjie amount of truth in the charpe that the unions are frequently indifferent to the welfare of the consumer. A particularly flagrant tj-pe is described by Ray Stannard Baker in McClure^s Magazine for September, 1903. Certain employers' and employes' associations in Chicago entered into an agreement which prevented the laborers concernctl from working for anyone who was not a member of the employers' association. On the other hand, the em- ployers bound themselves not to hire anyone not belong- ing to the association of laborers. Tlie result was a monopoly more thorough than any combination of laborers alone or of employers alone. And they seem to have used their power to exact both unfair wages and unfair profits, tie excess being charged to the con- sumer. Similar combinations, though not so oppress- ive nor so strong, exist elsewhere. And yet anyone wl.o is acquainted v.ith tie ir.dustrial history of the last century is bound to acknowledge that the consumer is only receiving a modicum of poetic justice. During the first tliree-quarters of the nineteenth century the whole organization of industry was directed to the 138 The CiiLnni and Socialism supreme end of producing cheap goods. The human beings who j)roduced the goods were almost entirely ignored by that portion of the community that is somewhat vaguely described as "the general public." "Cotton is already twopence a yard or lower, and yet bare backs were never more numerous among us. Let men cease to spend their existence incessantly contriving how cotton can be made cheaper, and try to invent, a little, how cotton at its present cheapness couUl be somewhat justlicr divided among us." Thus Carlyle, in that passage in "Past and Present" which contains his merciless castigalion of the (i()s|)el of Manunonism and Competition, as it was preached and practiced in the England of his day. Indeed, the gospel of cheap goods is still somewhat widely practiced, for exami)le, in the sweat sho{)s of our great cities and in the cotton mills of the Southern Slates. At any rate, the con- sumer stands in no immediate or grave danger. Long before his exploitation by the labor unions — either singl}' or in combination with employers — becomes general, the state will undoubtedly resume a function that it should never have abdicated, namely, that of limiting the power of either labor or cai)ital to exact extortionate prices. In this respect they managed things better in the Middle Ages. To quote Ashley: "Then, again, it is the merit of the guild system that it did for a time, and in a large measure, succeed in recon- ciling the interests of consumers and {)roducers. The tendency of modern competition is to sacrifice the producers; to assume that so long as articles are pro- Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 139 diiccd cheaply, it hardly matters what the remunera- tion of the workmen may be; but the guild legislation kept steadily before itself the ideal of combining good quality and a price that was fair to the consumer, with a fitting remuneration to tlie workman" ("English Economic History," vol. ii, pp. 108, 1G9). The unfavorable criticisms of the labor union which have been so frequent of late come mostly from em- ployers who hold a partisan theory of the wage con- tract, or from public speakers and writers who cling to a false theory of individual freedom. Representatives of the former class seem to let pass no opportunity for denouncing the infringement of their rights committed by the unions that insist on the "closed shop," the limitation of apprentices and similar practices; and they seem to believe in their asser- tions. A good example of this habit of mind is seen in a speech made by the toastmaster of a banquet held hy the Building Contractors' As.sociation in Chi- cago: "It is ridiculous to think that you should be obliged to waste your time discussing your rights with walking delegates, business agents and labor leaders. You have vour rights, and no man should be able to step in and dictate to you and tell you where your rights begin and end." Employers of this type are very fond of the word "dictate" in condemning the attempt of the unionist to lay down conditions without which he will not enter the wage contract; whereas the simple truth— self-evident to all except the prejudiced— is that in a two-sided contract, such as that between 140 The Ciiiik h and Socialism employer and rmployc, even' condition, concomitant and consequence lliat afTects l)(>th parties should in all reason and justice )^ determined by both [)arties. The non-unionist who says to his employer: '* I nless you p'i\'c me a rise in wages I will not work for you any longer," is just as truly and as effectively "dictating" as the unionist wl>o says: "I will not contimie in your employ if you hire men that do not belong to the union." The same remark applies to about every other condition that the union regularly insists upon; and the employer has no more right or reason to assume that his employes sl-.ould have no voice in the deter- mination of these conditions than that they should have no voice in fixing the rate of wages. lie would be incensed — and rightly — if they should refuse to hear any ol)jecti()n that he might have to the "closed shop," and should take the position that any attempt to in- duce them to concede this point, or even to discuss the question, constituted an attack on their "sacred right to work under whatever conditions they pleased." Yet this contention of the laborers would be no more tyrannical, unjust or unreasonable than the employer's assumption that any attempt to secure or to discu.ss the "closed shop" is an invasion of his right to "man- age his business as he pleases." One potent cause of this unreasonable position is the fact that niany of tlie conditions of employment which the unionist now insists on helping to determine have until recently been under the exclusive control of the employers. \ ery naturally many of the latter do not Moral Aspects of the Labor Umox 141 take kindly to the relinquisliment of powers which they had come to repard as rights. In the beginning they opposed the union as such because its officials "inter- fered" between them and their own emjjloyes; now they object to the unions "going beyond their proper sphere." Mr. John Graham Brooks says that em- I)loyers spoke very friendly words before the Industrial Commission concerning tlie right of labor to organize and the usefulness of the unions, "when they kept to their i)roj)cr business, , . , l)ut the labor organiza- tion ^\ liich most emj)loyers approve is a docile, mutual benefit association. It is a trade union that makes no trouble for them. The actual trade union which exists to maintain what it believes to be its group rights, to make its bargains collectively and to struggle for every advantage it can get, few cm|)loyers would tolerate an instant if they could avoid it" ("The Social Unrest," p. 37). The exj)laMation of this attitude is, of course, to be found j)artly in the desire for gain, but it is to a large extent due to the desire for power, "the passion for masterhood," which in days gone by kept the .serf in subjection to the lord and the slave in subjection to the master, and Avhich still shuts out the negro from all but menial occupations. Consciously or uncon- sciously, too, many cniijloycrs continue to regard the laborer as the lord looked upon the serf — a being of a lower order who was not qualified and should not pre- sume to have a great deal to say in shai)ing the relations between himself and his master. The instinct of suj)e- riority which in one or other of its myriad forms is as 142 The Church and Sociausm old as tlie race and as long lived is hurt when the sui)erior is placed on an equal fooling of contractual I)OWer with those who ha\c long hccii rc;_'ai(lc(l as inferiors. Disinterested i)ul)lic s|K>akcrs and writers who find fault with the principle of unionism or with its legiti- mate methods are largely influenced by a false concep- tion of the lil)erly and rights of the individual. This conception, this theory, was sujjreme in France and throughout the English-speaking world at the beginning of the modern industrial regime one hundred years ago, and is still sufliciently strong to work immense harm in every relation of .social life. "The principle which was in the mind of every eager politician Adam Smith and the Physiocrats ai)plied to industry and trade. . . . .Vdam .*^mith believe*] iti the natural economic equality of men. That l)eing .so, it only needed legal etpiality of rights and all would be well. Liberty was to him the gospel of salvation; he could not imagine that it miulit l)ecome the means of destruction — that legal iil)crty where there was no real economic inde- pendence migiit turn to the disadvantage of the work- men" (Toynljee, "The Industrial Revolution," pp. l.S, 17). Preci.sely this hai>pened. The doctrine of unlimited competition, of no interference with the industrial activity of the individual, either by tl;e state or by private associations of men, which was adopted as the supreme princii)le of the economic order that was ushered in by the great mechanical inventions at the end of tl.e eighteenth centurj', soon led to the awful Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 143 wage-slavery that for almost fifty years disgraced EngUnd. Not only women, but children from six years up were kept at work for sixteen hours out of the twenty-four, and the factories were operated by night as well as l)y day. "In stench, in heated rooms, amid the constant whirling of a thousand wheels, little fingers and little feet were kept in constant action, forced into unnatural activity by blows from the heavy hands and feet of the merciless overlooker and the infliction of bodily pain by instruments of punishment invented by the sharj)ened ingenuity of insatiable selfishness" (Alfred, "History of the Factory System,'* vol. i. j)p. 21, 22). This was only the logical result of the doctrine of unlimited individual freedom, the free- dom of the citizen to sell his labor, atul that of his wife and ciiildrcn, in whatever conditions and on whatever terms he saw lit. without let or hinact.s, solemnly recognized and sworn to, as a condition of his xmction and coronation, and was hemmed in on all sides by free institutions, hy the Universal Church, 'tlie Chris- tian Rcimhlic' as it was called, hy universities, coq)ora- tions, hrothcrhoods, monastic ortlcrs; hy franchises and privileges of all kinds, which in a greater or less degree existed all over Europe" ("A Century of Revolution," p. 8). On the other hand, the fiction of the physical and mental and economic equality of all the memlters of the commonwealth and their complete individual independence was nowhere assumed or aimed at. The very obvious fact that all the citizens have not the same interests, but are divided into classes, chiefly on economic lines, was frankly recognizeecause it imposed a heavier burden on the larger incomes. Vet this was one of the law's vital purposes. The attempt to regard as equal men who are not equal hinders proportional justice; for, as Mcnger has finely said, "Xotliing can l)e more unequal than to treat unequals equally." To remedy this condition there is no need to return to the industrial organization of tiie Middle .Vges, to the guild system, for it could not be adai)ted to the regime of machinery and large businesses. This is not the only objection to a return of the old order, but it is sufliciently powerful to con- vince any well-informed man that the i)lan — and we sometimes hear it proposed seriously — is utterly im- practicable. What is wanted is recognition of the political and social principle that underlay the guild organization of industry, the i)rinciple that so long as dif- ferent economic classes exist each must receive the meas- ure of protection, encouragement and privilege that is re- 148 Tun Cin Hcii and Socialism quired to secure its rights and welfare. To this end it is necessary that tl:e nicnihcr.s of cacli chiss he organized; that the orpanizations be not merely tolerated and controlled, but assisted by law as well as by public opinion; tliat the labor union and every other lawful association be afforded adequate means to defend itself against both the unjust aggression of other classes and the earcd; serfdom was made l)earal)le, and l)ecame in time transformed into a status in which the tiller of the soil enjoyed security of tenure, protection against the exactions of the lord, and a recognized place in the social organism. Owing to her doctrine that lahor was honorahle and was the universal condition and law of life, the working classes gradually acquired that measure of self-resi>ect and of power which enabled them to .set up and main- tain for centuries the industrial democracy that pre- vailed in the medieval towns. Her uniform teaching that the earth was given hy Cod to all the children of men, and that the individual proprietor was only a steward of his possessions, was preached and empha- sized by the Fathers in language that has brought upon them the charge of communism. The theological principle that the starving man who has no other re- source may seize what is necessary from the goods of his The Church axd thk Workingmax 155 neighbor is merely one particular conclusion from this general doctrine. She also taught that every commod- ity, including labor, had a certain just or fair price from which men ought not to depart, and that the laborer, like the member of ever>' otl;er social class, had a right to a decent living in accordance ^vith the stand- ards of the group to which lie l)elonged. During the centuries preceding the rise of morecept and by action, all intelligent persons, whether Catholic or not, will subscril>e. Oi)inions will differ only as to the extent to which she ought to go in this direction. I>et us consider first the j)roblem of her function as teacher. The Church cannot be expected to adopt formally' any particular programme, either jiartial or comprehen- sive, of social reconstruction or social reform. This is as far out of her proWnce as is the advocacy of definite 156 The Church and Socialism methods of political organization, agriculture, manufac- tures, or finance. Direct particii>ation in matters of this nature uould absorb energies that ought to be devoted to her religious and moral work and would greatly lessen her influence over the minds and hearts of men. Iler attitude toward specific measures of social reform can only be that of judge and guide. When necessity warrants it, she i)r()nounccs upon their moral character, condenming them if they are bad, encouraging them if they are good. They come within her province only in so far as they involve the princij)les of morality. With regard to the n'oral asjicct of existing social and industrial conditions, the Church does lay down sufhciently definite principles. They are almost all contained in the Encyclical, "On the Condition of Labor," issued by Pope Leo XI H. Passing over his declarations on society, the family, socialism, the state, v.onum labor, child labor, organization, and arbitration, let us emphasize his pronouncement that the lal^orer has a moral claim to a wage that will sui)j)ort himself and his family in reasonable and frugal comfort. Beside this principle let us put the traditional Catholic teaching concerning monopolies, th.e just price of goods, and fair profits. If these doctrines were en- forced throughout the industrial world, the social problem would soon be within measurable distance of a satisfactory solution. If all workingn;en received liv- ing wages in humane conditions of employment, and if all capital obtained only moderate and reasonable The Church and the Workixgmax 157 profits, the serious elements of the problem remaining "uould soon solve themselves. But the social principles here referred to are all very general in character. They are of very little practical use unless they are made sj)ecific and applied in detail to concrete industrial relations. Docs the Church satisfactorily perform this task.^ Well, it is a task that falls upon the bishops and the priests rather than upon the central authority at Rome. For examjjle, the teach- ing of Vope Leo about a living wage, child labor, woman labor, oppressive hours of work, etc., can be proj)erly api)lied to any region only by the local clergy, who are acquainted with the precise circumstances, and whose duty it is to convert general principles into speci- fic regulations. In this connection another extract from the j)rivate letter cited above may be found inter- esting and suggestive: "If the same fate is not to over- come us that has overtaken — and justly — the Church in Eurojic, the Catholic Church here will have to see that it cannot commend itself to the masses of the people by begging Dives to be more lavish of his crumbs to Lazarus, or by moral inculcations to em- ployers to deal with their employes in a more Christian manner." There is some exaggeration in both clauses of this sentence. The defection of large numbers of the people from the Church in certain countries of Europe cannot be ascribed to any single cause. Some of its causes antedate the beginnings of the modern social question; others are not social or ndustrial at all; and still others would have produced a large measure of 158 The Church and Sociausm damaging results despite the most intelligent and most active efforts of the clerg>'. When due allowance has hccn made for all these factors it must still be admitted that the losses in question would have been very much smaller, possibly would have been compara- tively easy to restore, had the clergy, bishops and priests realized the significance, extent, and vitality of modern democracy, economic and political, and if they had done their best to permeate it with the Christian princi|)les of social justice. On the other hand, where, as in Germany and Belgium, the clergy have made serious efforts to apply these j)riii(ii>les both by teach- ing and action, the movement of anticlericalism has made comparatively little headway. At any rate, the better i)Osition of the Church and the sui)erior vitality of religion among the peoj)le in these t\\o countries can be traced quite clearly to the more enlightened atti- tude of their clergy toward the social j>roblcm. The second clause of the quotation given above underestimates, by implication at least, tlie value of charity as a remedy for industrial abuses It cannot, indeed, be too strongly nor too frequently insisted that charity is not a substitute for justice; on the other hand, any solution of the social problem based solely upon conceptions of justice, and not wrought out and continued in the spirit of charity, would be cold, lifeless, and in all probability of short duration. If men en- deavor to treat each other merely as equals, ignoring their relation as brothers, they cannot long maintain pure and adequate notions of justice nor apply the The Church and the Workingman 159 principles of justice fully and fairly to all individuals. The personal and the human element will be wanting. Were employers and employes delii)erately and sin- cerely to attempt to base all their economic relations upon Christian charity, upon the Golden Rule, they would necessarily and automatically place these rela- tions upon a basis of justice. For true and adequate charity includes justice, but justice does not include charity. However, the charity that the writer of the letter condemns is neither true nor adequate; it neither includes justice, nor is of any value in the present situa- tion. Let it be at once admitted that the clergy of America have done comparatively little to ai)ply the social teach- ings of the Church, or in particular of the Encyclical "On the Condition of Labor," to our industrial rela- tions. The bishops who have made any pronounce- ments in the matter could probably be counted on tiie fingers of one hand, wliile the priests who have done so are not more numerous proportionally.' But there are good reasons for this condition of things. The moral aspects of modern industry are extremely diflicult to evaluate correctly, its physical aspects and relations are very complicated and not at all easy of comi)rehension, and the social problem has only in rec-ent times begun ' In January. 1919, the four bishops who constituted the .Ad- ministrative Committee of the National Catholic War Council issued a Program of Social Reconstruction which has been almost universally acclaimed as the sanest pronouncement made on that subject. 160 The CiirRni and SoriALisM to become acute. Add to these circumstances the fact that the American clcrpy have for the niost part been very busy or/^anizing ] arishes, building churclies and schools, and providing the material equipment of religion generally, and you have a tolerably sufhcient explanation of their failure to stiuly the social problem and expound the social teaching of the Church. The same conditions account for the comparative inactivity of the American clcrgj' in the matter of social ivorks. Up to the present their efforts have been confined to the maintenance of homes for defectives and dependents and the encouragement of charitable societies. In some of the countries of Europe, par- ticularly Ccrmany and lielgium, and more recently France and Italy, bishops and j)riests have engaged more or less directly in a great variety of projects for the betterment of social conditions, such as cooj)erative societies, rural banks, ^vorkingmen's gardens, etc. Obviously activities of this kind are not the primary duty of the clergA', but are undertaken merely as means to the religious and moral improvement of the people. The extent to which any j)riest or bishop ought to engage in them is a matter of local expediency. So far as general principles are concerned, a priest could with as much jjropriety assist and direct building societies, cooperative associations of all sorts, settlement houses, consumers' leagues, child labor associations, and a great variety of other social reform activities, as he now assists and directs orphan asylums, parochial schools, St. Vincent de Paul societies, or temperance societies The Church and the Workixgman 161 None of these is a purely religious institution; all of them may be made effective aids to Christian life and Christian faith. The necessity for both social teaching and social works by our American clergy is very great and very urgent. To this extent tiie sentence quoted in the body of this paper is not an exaggeration. There is a very real danger that large masses of our workingmen will, l)efore many years have gone by, have accepted unchristian views concerning social and industrial in- stitutions, and will have come to look ui)on the Church as indifferent to human rights and careful only about the rights of property. Let anyone who doubts this statement take the trouble to get the confidence and the opinions of a considerable number of intelligent Catholic trade unionists and to become regular readers of one or two representative labor journals. We are now discussing things as they are, not things as we should like to see them, nor yet things as they were fifteen or twenty-five years ago. Persons who are unable to see the possibility of an estrangement, such as has occurred in Europe, between the i)eople and the clergy in America, forget that modern democracy is twofold, political and economic, and that the latter form has become much the more important. -' By economic democracy is meant the movement toward a more general and more equitable distribution of eco- nomic power and goods and oj)portunities. At present this economic democracy shows, even in our country, a strong tendency to become secular if not anti- 162 The Church and Socialism Christian. Here a^^ain we are dealing with the actual facts of today. Consequently, unless the clerpj' shall he ahlo and willing to understand, appreciate, an i syinj)athetically direct the aspirations of econoiuic democracy, it will inevitably heconie more and more unchristian, and pervert all too rapidly a larger and larger proportion of our Catholic population. VII THE MORAL ASPECTS OF SPECULATION Taken in its narrowest sense, the word speculation describes transactions that are made for the sole purpose of gettinj^ a j)rofit from chan^^es in i)rice. This is the sense in which it will l)e used in this j;aper. Furthermore, the discussion will be confined to opera- tions on the stock and produce exchan^'cs. The speculator, then, buys and sells i>roj)crty because he expects to realize a pain from changes in its price, not because he expects to be a sharer in its earnin^'s. The reason that he does not intend to profit by the earninj^s of the i)roperty that he ostensibly buys and sells is to be found in the fact that his control of the [)ropcrty will be eitlier too brief to secure the actual earnings or too indefinite to create earnings. The former is the usual case of speculation in stock, the latter, of sj)ecula- tion in produce. Some examples will make clearer this distinction between the speculator and the ordinary investor or trader. The man who buys railway stocks merely to sell them in a few days at an expected advance is a speculator; the man who buys them to hold permanently for the sake of the dividends that they will yield is not a speculator. The former looks to price changes for his gains, the latter to proi)erty earnings. Again, two men buy wheat on the board of trade: the first is a miller who wants wheat to grind; the second is a speculator who has no particular use for wheat. He ics 101 The CiirHCH and Socialism docs not intend to clianf^c its form in any way or hring it nearer to tlie consumer; his interest in it is confined solely to its fluctuations in price. From these he expects to make liis j)rofit. The miller, on the other hand, will add utility to the wheat by converting it into flour. His profit will be in the nature of a payment for this productive and social service. In like maimer, the dividends received by the genuine investor in railway stocks w ill be a return for the use of his cai)ital in a proro- fessional speculators of our produce exchanges. As to stock sj>eculators, it may be reasonably ad- mitted that they know tlie true value of tliC various securities more accurately than the small investors, and that they are able to fi.\ more correct prices than Moral Aspects of Speculation 169 would be possible without their activity. Yet if there were no dealing in stocks, except for permanent investment, tliere would still be a stock market. That is to say, if there were no speculators, and if stocks were bought solely for the sake of their dividends, it would still be possible for an investor to buy them at quotations sufliciently correct and stable. This fact is exemplified today in the case of numerous securities that are not dealt in by speculators nor listed on the exchanges. It is worthy of note that two prominent German economists, who maintain that the produce exchange is a necessary institution, declare that the stock exchange is "an unnecessary and injurious one." The institution of organized speculation is not only of doubtful benefit to the community, but i)roduccs serious public evils. Only tho.se who l.ave expert knowledge of market conditions can, in the long run, make money on the exchanges. These are the prominent i)rofes- sional speculators, the "big o])erators," as they are often called. The great majority of all the others who speculate, namely, the outside public, either know nothing of the intricacies of the market, or rely on "inside information" that is worse than useless because misleading. Out of the losses of this cla.ss comes the greater part of the gains of the big o})erators. One proof of this is seen in the fact that, when the general public and the small operators desert the exchanges after being fleec-ed, speculative activity is cliecked until such time as the "small fry" begin operations anew. And yet the general public continues to patro- 170 The Chirc ii and Socialism nize the centers of speculation in ever-increasing num- bers, notwithstanding the lessons of tlie past. Thus the chief losses of speculation are borne by those who can least afTord to bear them. Sjieculation absorbs a considerable amount of the community's capital and directive enerpj'. It diverts money from productive enter])rises and engages the activity of men who, if removed from the unhealthy atmosphere of the exchanges, would be of great service to the worhl of industry. By holding out to its votaries the hope of getting rich quickly, it discourages industry an«I thrift and makes men worshipers of the goddess of chance. It imbues thousands with the persuasion that ac(|uiring wealth is a colossal game in which they are to be fi)rtune's favorites. The career of the '* Frank- lin Syndicate" in Brooklyn, in IHDO, is a typical instance of the way in which those who have caught the speculative fever disregard the laws of probability and the laws of wealth. The promoters of this company agreed to |)ay 10 j)er cent i)er week on all dejjosits, pretending that they were enabled to do so through their "inside information" of the stock market. Within a few weeks they took in nearly one million dollars, showing how large is the number of peoj>le who regard the stock exchange as an institution that creates wealth without labor. To the question that was asked above — Does speculation perform any social service? — the correct answer, then, would seem to be in the negative. At any rate, its good features, which are problematical. Moral Aspects of Speculation 171 are more than offset by its bad features, which are grave and unmistakable. Hence there is no reason to regard organized speculation as morally good because of any economic or social function that it exercises. If the institution of speculation is at best of doubtful moral and social worth, what are we to .say concerning the moral character of th.e indiiidiial act of speculating in stocks or prmlucc? According to Funck-Brentano, .speculation on the exchanges, altl ough not highway robbery, is "robbery according to the rules of an art so refined that the keenest lawyer cannot exactly de- termine the point where fraud begins and legality ceases," This condemnation, hov.ever, .seems too sweeping; for many of th.e tran.sactions on the exchanges are made by men who have no intention of acting dishonestly. At the worst, they are actuated merely by the spirit of the gambler. Bnt it is true that moral and immoral operations arc often inextricably mingled, so that it is extremely diff cult, no less for the moralist than the lawyer, to separate the good from the bad. For our puri)ose it will be best perhaps to point out the dishonesty of .some of the more notorious practices and the extent to which they are followed, and then discuss the morality of speculative tran.sactions that are entered into with the most upright intentions. A favorite method of manipulating values is to disseminate false reports concerning property or market conditions. A description of the various ways in which this scheme is practiced is not possible nor neces- 172 The Church and Socialism sarj' here, but a t\'})ical instance may le piven. In the si)riiig of 1900 a prominent manufacturing com- pany, having its headquarters in New York, sent out a report tliat a tlividend was to be immcJiatcly de- clared on its stock. This caused tlie stock to rise several points, and the directors and their friends then "sold for a falh" Next the rei)ort concerning the dividend was denounced as false, and ofTicial announce- ment was made that the company's condition did not warrant the jiaymcnt of a dividend. Immediately values began to fall, and those who had sold "short" bought in at a profit, while the small holders of stock became panic-stricken and sold tlieir iioldings to the larger ones. This last phase of manipulation, which consists in dcj)!cssing values for the i)uri)ose of getting possession of the stock of tlie small holders, is ex- pressively termed "shaking out." The industrious circulation of false reports is an essential part of the process kno^\n as "supportirg." The owners of some stock tl at is v. orth little serd out glowing accounts of its desirability as an investn ei.t, and of the earning capacity of the property tl at it represents. At tlie same time they begin to n al e purely speculative purchases on a large scale. Tl e intention is to deceive the public into tl e belief tl at t! e owners have confdei ce in tl e future of tl eir owr. piop- erty. The result is that tl e price of tl e stock rises. When it has reached what tie conspiiators regard as its maximum, they sell both their cash stock and their purely speculative purchases to a confiding public. Moral Aspects of Speculation 17.'J Then tlie stock rapidly sinks to its proper level. Another way of manipulating is by "wash sales." One or more oi)erators sclene to depress tl:e quotations of a particular stock by making a show of enormous sales. The natural effect of such wholesale selling when reported on the stock market is to cause a fall, but the peculiarity of these transactions is that they are not .sales at all, for the same person is both buyer and seller. lie em[)loys two brokers, one of whom sells to the other. Thus the supposed sales are all counterfeit, since the supposed buyers have no exist- ence. The same principle can be carried out in at- tempts to inflate values, and in the case of produce as well as stock. A simpler form of manipulation is the attempt to raise or depress the value of a stock by extensive genuii.e buying or selling. \Miere several operators act together the operation is called a "j)ool." An extreire instance of continued buyiiig for a rise is th.e "corr.er. " If it is successful, the result is that one or a few men get control of sufficient of the available supply of a certain [)roduce or stock to create what is practically a nionopoly, and thus force up prices almost at will. The corner, however, is rarely successful. The schemes above described are some of the more common forms of manipulation. Clearly they are all immoral, and the gains accruing from them dishonest. Closely allied to false rumors as a source of unjust profit is the special and secret information that is so often turned to account on the exchanges. When this 174 The Chirch and Socialism special information concerns a movement of prices tliat will come about naturally, not artificially, and when the information is acquired hy the expenditure of some labor, either intellectual or physical, or when the information is not entirely certain — there would seem to he nothing wrong in making use of it for profit. But it is difficult to see how the profit will be honest if any of these conditions be wanting. Sui^imsc that a certain stock is about to be mani{)ulatcd upward. Now if an "outsider" is appri.sed of this fact, and buys some of the stock to sell at the advance, he is sim|)!y realizing unique j)ossibilitics of stealing. lie defrauds the other party to the contract; for artificially proulation and the various otlier forms of immoral sj)cculation prevail? A preci.se and definite answer to this question is, of cour.se, not obtainable, but it is safe to say that on the more prominent exchanges of the country questionable methods are in very common u.se. "Schaeffle, who is not only an eminent political economist, but has been minister of commerce to one of th.e great political powers of Europe, says that when he became acquainted with the bourse he gave ufj believing any longer in the economic harmonies, and declared theft to be the princi}>le of modern Euro[)ean commerce" (John Rae, "Contemporary Socialism," p. 3'-2C). A meniljcr of the New York Stock Exchange declared a few- years ago that 50 per cent of the operations in that institution were attemjjts to manipulate prices. The maneuvers of the great operators have often been compared to a game in which the successful players use loaded dice or marked cards. Indeed, many close observers of the speculative market assert that, in the long run, money is made only by tho.se who resort to questionable devices. This is probably an exaggeration, but we can readily see that when men 170 The Church and Socialism havinj? ^Tcat power, the hig o[)erator.s, are crpapcd in operations ^^llcse success (.'ej ends solely on the n ove- ment of prices, they \\'\\\ be strorply temj ted to isc their power in order to influei cc this noven ei.t. It is impossible to watch tlieir tactics for ary lenpth of time without concluding tliat they repaid n anii>ula- tion in some form as an essential feature of sj eculative oi)erations. The stock irarkct columns of aln est aiy morning newspai)er will show tliat on the pieceding day tliere was "an assault by the bears" on this or that stock, and that under "constant hanurerinp" the stock fell one or more points. Or, we are inforn:cd that, "after a rally by the bulls," such a stock "went skyward." So far, at least, as the big operators are concerned, the exchange is a ba tlefield on w hich two opjjosing armies, the bulls and the l)ears, aie constai tly enpaped at close ranpc. "All is fair in war," and it is not surpris- ing that in the sj)eculators' warfare nice ethical dis- criminations as to n ethods should lie overlooked. Manipulation is regarded as lawful, since it is n.erely fighting the enemy with his own weapons. The intel- lectual atmosphere of tie bourse is so befopped that the moral vision of its l.abitnes becon.es easily dulled. The mental qualities that are most frequently called into play among j^rofessional speculators are those that characterize the activities of the professional gambler, "A man's nerve is put to the highest tension; his mind is always on th.e stretch; not guiding the policy of a great commercial venture, but bearing Moral Aspects of Speculation 177 up under, and w atclung over, t^ e fluctuations of some stock which, in tl e oi)inion of tl e n ajoiity, and by virti e of \vl at las I.een j aid for it at tie oi.tset, is wortli only so much, and which 1 e 1 as estim.ated at a different value. Tl e trade is not a noble one, and tl ere are few noble men engaged in it" {Frazer's Magazine, vol. 94, p. 81). So much for i)ractices of si)eculation that are cer- tainly dishonest: what al)out the acts of a si)eculator who has no desire to take advantage of any unlawful practice? Is it wrong to make a purchase or sale on the exchange solely for the j)ur|)ose of realizing a profit out of a ch.ange in prices? The purchaser or seller, we will suppose, seeks no dishonest advantage, but is willing to take all tl e risks of an unfavorable turn in prices. We cannot say that such a trarisaction is, in itself, wrong. At the worst it is merely a wager on I)riccs, and wagers are not immoral, i)rovided: (1) that those who take i)art in them have the right to di.spose of the property that they hazard; (2) that neither fraud nor violence be used; (.'3) that the chances for winning be apj)roximately equal, so far as the knowl- edge of the participants is concerned; (4) that the parties risk no more than tl ey can afford consistently \\ith the duties of their condition ai:d calling; and (5) that the transaction in question is not forbidden by the positive law. All of these conditions may easily be present in a speculative deal; consequently th.ere may be nothing in it contrary to the moral law. This statement applies to an act of spaculati m i;i the ab.tact, not in the actual conditions of to-day. 178 The riiriuii and Socialism For ^\e have seen that from the side of economic welfare the wliole institution of non-productive specula- tion is in all prohahility useless; that from the side of social welfare it involves many grave evils; and that from the side of morality its transactions are to an alarming extent carried on by dishonest methods. In the light of these facts, we may safely conclude that, so far as the principal exchanges of th.e country are concerned, it is morally impossible for a man who spends all or the greater part of his time speculating, to avoid all the dishonest practices of speculation. Secondly, we would seem to be justified in asserting that men who, even without any intention to be dis- honest, participate to any extent in speculative transac- tions on these exchanges, are engaging in actions that nuiy easily be morally quenlionahle. As we said above, the isolated act of speculation may in itself be without censure — may be no worse than the |)lacing of a wager — but because of its connection with a questionable institution, and because of its grave danger to the individual himself, it can never be pronounced licit in the sense tiiat the transactions of ordinary trade are licit. The shadow of immorality is over it always. Every speculative deal is a participation, remote and insignificant, perhaps, in what can without exaggera- tion be regarded as a social and moral evil, namely, the institution of organized speculation.' Every an- ticipated profit, almost, is in danger of being promoted ' For a strong confirmation of this vii w, seo A. Crump's well- known work, "The Theory of Stock Speculation." Moral Aspects of Specui^vtion 179 by illicit manipulation; for the well-meaning outsider can seldom be certain, even if lie tries, that movements of price by wliich he is the gainer have not been artifi- cially produced. Every man who yields to the seductive temi)tation to sj)eculate feeds the passion of avarice, strengthens the ignoble desire to profit by the losses of his fellows, cultivates a dislike for honest, productive labor, and exposes himself to financial ruin. Hence, no man who is fully acquainte I with the character and effects of sj)eculation, and who is possessed of a fine moral nature, will ever participate in the purely speculative operations of either the stock or i\\c produce exchanges of our largest cities. The question — "Is speculation wrong.^" — cannot, tlierefore, be answered categorically. The phenomena with which it deals are too complex. Ikit, with the help of the distinctions above drawn, an answer may be obtained that is fairly definite. To resume, then: speculation as an institution is economically of doubtful utility; socialbj, it is productive of great and wide- spread evils; and umralbj, it is vitiated by a very con- siderable amount of dishonest "deals" and j)ractices. VIII FALSE A\D TRUE CONCEPTIONS OF WELFARE I Between the ages of sixteen .iiul fifty, tic great majority of Americans unceasingly strive and hope to "better their position" hy increasing their incomes, and thereby raising themselves above the social and economic j)lane upon which they have hitherto stood. In so far as they are successful in this aim, they obtain an increased satisfaction of their n^atcrial wants. Increased satisfaction is inm cdiatcly foIlo^\ed by a st 11 larger increase, both numeiically and intensively, of tlie wants themselves. It l>ecomcs literally true that "tl e more nen 1 ave, tl e more tl ey want." In proof of this staten ent, all that is recessary is to make a raj)id survey of the chief ways in which material wants call for satisfaction. The man who occupies a plain hou.se of seven or eight rooms will expend a part of his larger income for a better house. A better house means, in the first place, a larger house. A larger house will, usually, be built of more costly materials. In addition, it will demand a greater quantity and a more expensive quality of equii)ment, furniture, and utensils — woodwork, wall paper, carpets, chairs, beds, tables, chinaware, etc. It means a larger outlay for "helj)." It implies also a more "select" neighborhood where land and, con- sequently, rents are higher. The cost of the new house 180 False and True Welfare 181 and furnishings may be, let us say, $'•20,000 while the old one was built and equipped for !?j,OJO; yet when the occupier's income is still further and in a considerable degree increased, there will emerge in liis consciousness, or in that of his family, the want of a still better house. This will necessitate a considerably larger expenditure for all the items above eiuimeratcd, as well as an additional outlay for several others that have hitherto been un though t-of or disregarded. When income permits a change men are no longer content with plain and nourishing food. They must have more tender n^.eats, more select vegetables, richer and more varied desserts, older and more costly wines, and comi)licated mixtures instead of plain beverages. The manner in which the food is served becomes more formal, elaborate, and expensive; there must be many courses, more and dearer chinaware, and much cut glass. The same process appears in relation to clothing. After tlie demands of reasonable comfort have been met, there will rise the desire for a greater number of suits, a more frequent rej)lacement to conform to the fashions, a better quality of materials, and a more high-priced tailor. All tl.ese and many other expansions of the clothing want become operative in the case of men, and to a ten-fold degree in the case of women. Witness the single item of jewelry. Intimately connected with and dependent upon the standard of shelter, food, and clothing is that class of wants that is somewhat inadequately called "social." With increased expenditure for the former, the last- IR-J TlIK CinUCU AM) S()( lAlJ^N! named want inevitably becomes more complicated and more costly. Entertainments and "functions" be- come more frequent and more elaborate; a notable increase takes place in the accessories of entertaininp, such as decorations, flowers, attendants, etc.; and there is a considerable additional outlay for food and clothing. Finally, the desire for amusement and recreation is also capable of indefinite expansion. The person of moderate means goes to the theater occasionally and occupies a cheap seat. The rich or well-to-do person goes more frequently, rides to and from the theater in a carriage, pays much more for a seat, and not infrequently buj's an elaborate luncheon after the performance. The pleasure trips and vaca- tions of the poor and the moderately situated consist of trolley rides and a few days spent in some near-by town or country district; those who are rich enough to afTord it possess carriages and automobiles, .spend months at the seaside or in the mountains, take long ocean voyages, and n^.ake extended sojourns in Euroj)e. In the case of all but the few extremely rich, the.se five wants or classes of wants, comprised under the head of shelter, food, clothing, "society," and amuse- ment, can be expanded indefinitely and can absorb all of a man's income. No matter how much a person spends in meeting these wants, he can still maintain, in accordance with the language and standards of th<» day, that he has merely "bettered his social position." Now this indefinite striving after indefinite amounts of material satisfaction is not an accidental feature of False and True Welfare 183 modern existence. It is but the natural outcome of the prevailing theory of Hfe. "The old Christianity," says Paulsen, who is not medieval in his sympathies, "raised its eyes from the earth, which offered nothing and promised notliing, to heaven and its supersensuous glory. The new age is looking for heaven upon earth; it hopes to attain to the perfect civilization through science, and expects that this will nuike life healthy, long, rich, beautiful, and happy" ("A System of Et^.ics," pp. 130, 140). According to the dominant view, the loftiest object that man can pursue is the scientific knowledge of nature— not, indeed, for it.self, but because of the abundance of material goods that it will put at his disposal. Hence the practical conclusion of the practical man is that he should .seek to enjoy as much of these goods as possible. "It is a favorite principle of the ethical materialism of our days that a man is all the happier the more wants he has, if he has at the same time sufficient means for their satisfaction" (Lange's "History of Materialism." p. 230). Such is the prevailing conception of "wider and fuller life." Since life is merely, or at any rate chiefly, an aggregate of sensations, more abundant life means tl:e multi- plication of sensations, possessions, and pleasurable experiences. This theory of life is evidently false. Not the number but the kind of wants that a man satisfies is the im- portant thing. Reasonable human life is primarily qualitative. It consists in thinking, knowing, com- muning, loving, serving, and giving, rather than in 184 TiiK Church and Socialism having or enjoying. Wlien tlie demands of liealth and moderate comfort have been supplied, additional sense-satisfactions contribute little or nothing to the development of body, heart, or mind. They necessi- tate an expenditure of time, energj', and resources that might be employed in building up the higher and rational side of num. Tlicy exert a damaging influence upon morals, mind, health, and happiness. I/Ct us view the situation in some detail. First, as to morals and character. The qualities that are fostered through the activities of "society" are, in great part, uiulesirable and ignoble. This assertion applies not only to the doings of the most wealtliy and exclusive "set," but to all of those more or less formal and pretentious "functions" whose participants regard themselves as "in .society," though they may belong within the middle class. Except in a very small proportion of cases, the functions and gatherings of "society" do not make for true culture or for intellectual improvement. Their primary object is to entertain, but they have come to include so many factitious elements in the matter of dress, decorations, feasting, and other accessories, that one of their most common by-products is a group of unlovely and un- christian qualities. One of the most marked of these qualities is tl.e desire for social preeminence, the passion for distinction, the wish to be thought at least as prominent as any other person in one's social set. Thus the desire to excel, which is in itself laudable and useful, becomes, in the case of a large number of society False and True Welfare 185 persons, an ambition to outdo one's neighbors in the splendor of gowns, the elaborateness of feasting, and not infrequently in the ostentation and costliness of the entertainment generally. In the pursuit of this am- bition are developed the vices of envy, hj-pocrisy, vanity, and snobbishness. The realm of the animal appetites presents another instance of the damaging effects of the excessive pursuit of material satisfactions. In the matter of food and drink the line between sufliciency and gluttony is easily passed. Immoral indulgence takes place under the name of a more thorough, more discriminating, and more refined satisfaction of the desire for nourish- ment. Those who are guilty of tliis inordinate in- dulgence often do not realize that they are acting the part of annuals rather than of rational beings, in whom the higher nature ought to exercise a controlling influence. Again, violations of the j)recej)t of chastity are apt to increase rather than diminish when the personal exi)enditures of the individual pass beyond the limits of moderate and reasonable comfort. Ex- cessive satisfaction of the other .seii-ses creates increased cravings in the sex apj)etite. And these cravings are less likely to be resisted, precisely because the persons who experience them have become unaccustomed to deny the demands of the other a})i)etites. Another evil effect is the weakening of the religious sense and of the altruistic sense. It is a fact of general observation that after the stage of moderate income and plain living has been passed, there follows in 186 The Church and Sociausm probably tVe majority of instances a decay of religious fervor and of deep and vital faith. Tl e thinps of God are crowded oi t, "cl oked by t' e cares and ricbes and pleasures of life." Owing to tl e essei tial selfishness of t! e process, inordinate satisfaction of n aterial wants also veakens tie feelings of disinterestedness and generosity. Hence tl e rule is almost universally valid tl at persons above tl.e line of moderate comfort give a smaller proportion of tl.eir income to charitable and religious causes than those who are at or somewhat below tl at level. Did men put a true valuation upon material goods, they would increase th.e proportioti of their income given to these causes wl erever an increase took place in the income itself. For example, if tl;e man w ith an income of $-2,000 per year contributed 3 per cent of this sum, the man who received $4,000 ought to give more than 3 per cent. The bulk of the extra thousand dollars goes, in most cases, to satisfy less important material wants; consequently, a larger proportion of it ought to be expended in meeting the higher want, that is, benevolence. What generally hai)pens, however, is that the proportion decreases. The explanation is obvious; tlie receivers of the larger incomes become dominated by a false idea of the relative values of things, holding tie goods of tie senses in higher esteem than when tl.eir income w as smaller. Moreover, tl ere are certain of the higher comfort and conveniences whose net effect upon human welfare is probably good, which involve no self-indulgence False axd True Welfare 187 t^^at is act' 1 ally immoral, and yet which are in a con- sldeable decree injurious to c^ a-acter. For example, the 1 abit of using parlor ca-s, e'ectric hells, and street cars, in season and out of season, m.akes us dependent upon them, and renders us less capable of that measure of self-denial and of endurance which is indispensable to the highest achievement. These and many other contrivances of modern life are undoubtedly an obstacle to the development of that invaluable ingredient of character which consists in the pouter to do without. They contribute insensibly, yet eflectivcly, to a certain softness of mind, will, and body which is no advantage in life's many-sided struggle. It does not follow that these conveniences ought not to be utilized at all; it follows that they are not the unmixed blessing which they are commonly assumed to be. Nowhere are the harmful effects of this materialistic conception of life tl at we are considering more manifest than in the i)henomena associated with the reduced birth rate. The delil erate limitation of ofTspnng is as yet chiefly confined to the middle and upper classes, to the persons whose elementary and reasonable wants are already fairly well supplied. They wish to be in a position to satisfy a larger number of material wants in themselves and to ensure the satisfaction of a still larger number in tl eir children— if tley have any. They speak much of aiming at quality rather than quantity in offspring. They do not realize that the special qualities developed in the artificially restricted family are almost entirely materialistic, while the 188 Tin: CnvRcu and So( ialism qualities that go to make up strong and virtuous characters are almost inevitahlj' neglected. In one word, the theory of life-values, which impels men and women to decline the burdens of a normal family, makes for enervating self-indulgence and perverted moral notions in parents, a morally and physically enfeebled generation of children, a diminishing j)oj)ula- tion, and a decadent race. So much for some of the damaging results to morals and character. It .seems inevitable that mental powers and activities nuist likewise .'suffer. A people devoted to the pursuit of material things, of ease, and of jtlcasure does not .seem to possess the l)est conditions for achieve- ment in the higher and more arduous fields of mental eflfort. Even today an ever-increasing proportion of our college and university students choose those courses of study that have a "|)racticar' rather than a theo- retical or academic object and outcome. Whether or not this training is as efTective as the "liberal " branches in develojiing the mental powers, those who select it will almost all devote their energies in after life to the business of money-getting. This means the exercise of the lower powers of the brain and intellect. The products of their mental activity will be material things and mechanical progress, rather than the thoughts and ideas and knowledge that make for the intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement of the race. While the proportion of our population that is educated has greatly increased, there is reason to doubt that the proportion which reads serious, solid, and uplifting False and True Welfare 189 literature is any greater today than it was fifty years ago. The great mass of tlie reading public is now satisfied with the newspaper, the cheap magazine, and books of fiction, good, bad, and indifferent. Half a century ago the majority of those who read had access to only a few books, but these were generally serious and highclass, and were read again and again. It is maintained In- some that the general quality of litera- ture itself has deteriorated. Thus, Mr. Frederick Harrison, whose Positivism would naturally dispose him in favor of the present age and spirit, recently wrote: "As I look back over the sixty years since I first began to read for myself, English literature has never been so flat as it is now. . . . In my student days, say, the mid-lO's and mid-jO's, our poets were Tenny- son, the two Brownings, Fitzgerald, Rosseti — all at their zenith. So were Dickens, Thackeray, Bulwer- Lytton, Kingsley, Disraeli. The Brontes, Trollope, George Eliot, Swinburne, Morris, were just coming into line. Year after year Ruskin poured out resounding fugues in every form of melodious art. Our historians were Carlyle, Cirote, Milnian, Macaulay, Kinglake — then Froude and Newman. Our philosophers were Mill, Buckle, Newman, Hamilton, Mansel. As I look back over these si.xty years, it seems to me as if English literature had been slowly sinking, as they say our eastern counties are sinking, below the level of the sea. . . . Railroads, telegrams, telej^hones, motors, games, 'week ends,' have made life one long scramble, which wealth, luxury, and the 'smart world' have debauched 190 The Ciiurcii axd Socialism Jrhe result is six-pciiny maj-'azines, four-and-six-penny Ouvcis, 's'.ort stories' in every half-jeniiy rag — j)rint, print, print — everywl ere, and 'not a drop to drink' — sheets of j)icturc advcitisen ei ts, Lut of literature not an ounce." Amonp tie forces responsible for this t!ecat!e; ce Mr. Harrison n er.tions "tie increase of material aj)pliances, vulpatizing life and n^aking it a scramble for good tilings" (quoted in the Literary Digest, March 9, 1907). The indefinite pursuit of material satisfaction is, in conside.able n easuie, injurious to health. Rich and varied food is irot always more nourishing and 1 ealthful food. Lsi:ally it perverts the taste and artificially stinuilates the aj)j elite to such an extent as to j)roduce serious ailmer.ts of the digestive organs. The in- ordinate and feverish endeavor to increase income, tl e mad race for social distiirction, and the unceasing quest of new enjoyments, new v>ays of satisfying tyrannical and jaded appetites, is disastrous to the nervous system. As a consequence of this twofold abuse of their physical and mental faculties, a large section of the American people are already confirmed dyspeptics or confirmed neurasthenics. The injurious physical effects of un- chastity and intemperance are too obvious to need extended comment. Even the claim that a larger volume of happiness will result from the development and satisfaction of a larger volume of wants is unfounded. For tire greater the number of warts tlrat 1 ave becom.e active, the greater must be the pain or inconvenience suffered False axd True Welfare 191 while these wants a-e unsatisfied. Tl e more nr.meroiis the wants that clajror for satisfaction, tl e greater is the likelihood of disappoir.tn ent, tl e greater is tl e care and worry needed to meet tl.em, ard tie more numerous are tlie instarccs in which satisfaction leads inevitably to satiety. The m^ore frequent and the more varied the satisfaction accorded to any want, the more must the stimulus or satisfying object be increased in order to produce the forn er measure of enjojTi ent. In a sense, v\e are all slaves to tie wants that we habitually satisfy; conseqrently, the greater the number of indulged wants, the greater is tl:e slavery. Socrates thanked the gods because they had given him but few wants; both Ei)ic irus and Diogenes sought haj>[)iness in freedom from vants. As the author of the "Simple Li e" says: "The question of food and shelter has never been sharper or more absorbing than since we are better nourished, clothed, and housed than ever. It is not the woman of one dress who asks most insistently how she shall be clothed. Hunger has never driven men to such baseness as the superfluous nee s, envy, avarice, and the thirst for pleasure." Not only the rich but the middle classes experience increased discontent as a result of yielding to the "higher-standard-of-living" fallacy. An effective illus- tration of this fact is contained in an article by Annie Webster Noel in the New York Independent, October 26, 1905. Following are some of its most pertinent passages: "We married in New York City on twelve a 192 The Church axd Socialism week. ... If our friends would only be happy our great trouble would be removed. They do enjoy staying with us. It is t' e i)lunge (into a cheaper house and neighborhood j that is hard. The fact is that our happiness, without so many of the things being striven for, is a slap in the face. . . . We kept house on twelve dollars a week for three months, on fourteen a week for six months. Then we had twenty a week. We have come to the conclusion that twenty a week is about where poverty covimences. Below that con- tentment is found in meeting living exj)enses. But above that new wants begin to take shape. If one hasn't a dollar, one stays at home and is content. But whoever went out to buy something for a dollar and did not .see just what she wanted for two.*' . . . We have reached the critical stage in our mhxage. We are spending a little more here, a little more there. We are entertaining a little more. We are mixing more with peoj)le of larger means. . , . Throiigh a gradual in- crease in our income we have been reduced to poverty." In other words, the increase of income brought into practical consideration new but purely material wants, whose satisfaction or attempted satisfaction not only did not make for improvement of mind or character, but left this woman and her husband less contented than before. The worst effect of the failure to find increased happi- ness in the increased satisfaction of material wants is the realization of this fact by the seekers. The disillu- sion and disappointment not infrequentl}'^ make them False and True Welfare 193 pessimists in their view of life as a whole. Having cherished for such a long time a false conception of what constitutes true wortli and rational living, they do not readily return to saner views. In this connec- tion the work of Paulsen, already quoted, furnishes some significant passages. After citing a document which was placed in the steeple-knob of St. Margaret's Church at Gotha in 1784, and which glorifies the modern age, with its freedom, its arts, and its .sciences, and its u.seful knowledge — all pointing to greater material enjoyment antl greater liaj)piness — the author makes this coniment: "When we compare the self- confidence of the dying eighteenth century, as expressed in these lines, with tiie o])inion which the dying nine- teenth century has of itself, we note a strong contrast. Instead of the i)roud consciousness of having reached a pinnacle, a feeling that we are on the decline; instead of joyful pride in the successes achieved and joyful hope of new and greater things, a feeling of disai)point- ment and weariness, and a premonition of a coming catastroi)he; . . . but one fundamental note running through the awful confusion of voices: pe.ssimi.vn! Indignation and disai)i)ointment; these seem to be the two strings to which the eniotional life of the y)resent is attuned. . . . What Rousseau hurled into the face of his times as an unheard-of paradox, namely, that culture and civilization do not make men better and happier, Schopenhauer teaches as a philosophical theorem: Civilization increases our misery, civilization is the one great favx pas" ("A System of Ethics," pp. U7, 148). 194 The CnuRcn and Socialism This doleful picture is truer of Europe tlian of America. We iiave not ^et adojtcd tl e pliilosojjliy of Sclioj)etiliauer. \A'c are younger tl an tl e European peoples, and liave less experience; consequently, we have more enthusiasm, more illusions, more hope, more faith in ourselves and in the satisfying qualities of the material riches that we will secure from a land lavishly endowed hy nature. And yet the rai)idly increasing nimiber of persons among us whose creed is pessimism, indicates that with the coming of more years, more exi)erience, and more mature knowledge, we too shall he of the opinion that "culture" — so- called — "and civilization" — so called — "do not make men better and happier." It is sometimes asserted that the indefinite j)ursuit of material goods is ncccs.«ary for the sake of beauty and refinement. Indoubtedly these have a legitimate place in any comi)lcte theory of right living, but their imi)ortance is only secondary. They ought not to be sought or obtained to the detriment of the primary goods of life, such as health, mentality, virility, good morals, contentment. Besides, much of the so-called refinement, that is so much prized and sought, is not genuine. It is largely imitation, effeminacy, artifice, vulgarity. True refinement includes not merely ele- gance, polish, and delicac}' — which often appear in very artificial forms — but purity of mind, feelings, and tastes. In the endeavor to satisfy minutely one's material wants, the latter qualities aie often %Aeakened instead of being develoi)ed. The search for beauty and magnificence also leads frequently to grave per- False and True Welfare 195 versions. Professor Veblen maintains that the ex- penditures of the riclier classes in America are governed by "the principle of conspicuous waste." This means that a man or a woman — especially the latter — must strive in the nuittcr of dress, entertainment, and equipage, to show that he or she is able to conmiand the most costly articles that money can buy, and then must treat them with such recklessness as to indicate that they could be immediately replaced. And Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Stetson tells us in The Home that, "woman puts upon her body, without criticism or objection, every excess, distortion, discord, and con- tradiction that can be sewed together. . . . The esthetic sense of woman has never interfered with her acceptance of ugliness if ugliness were the fashion." This superficial survey of a field that is so broad as to demand a volume for adequate treatment, and .so difficult as to be nearly incapable of definite descrip- tion, no doubt appears fragmentary, vague, and possibly exaggerated. Nevertheless, the hope is enter- tained that two or three points have been made more or less clear. First, that the theory of values and of life which impels men to multiply and vary and develop and satisfy indefinitely those wants that are grouped under the heads of shelter, food, clothing, social intercourse, and amusem.ent, is false, and makes as a rule for physical, n ental, and moral decadence. To those persons — and tlieir number is legion — who exi)licitly or implicitly adopt and pursue this material- istic ideal, money is literally "everything." Money 196 The Church and Socialism does, indeed, "enslave" tliem. And it is difficult to say wliicli class receives the greater hurt — those who succeed to a considerable recisely constitutes excessive attachment or misuse in the nuitter of f()oatible with the claims of Christian brotherhood. Chris- tianity is ascetic in the stricter sense of the term when 200 The Ciilrcii and Socialism it urges, nay, requires men to do without many things which are in themselves lawful, in order that they may be the better able to pass by the things that are un- lawful. The words of St. Paul concerning the athlete who "refrains himself from all tilings" express the true Christian theory and practice. Both the natural and the Christian laws of conduct are, conscciueiitly. ojjposed to the current ideals of life and welfare. lioth demand that llie power t(vdo without shall be cultivated to such a degree that the lower nature in man shall be kci)t in constant subjec- tion to the higher. Hoth deny that it is lawful for num to satisfy all wants indinVrciitly or to .seek the indefinite exj)ansi()n and satisfaction of his material wants. Concerning the value of material goods, the teaching of the Divine Founder of Christianity is clear and forcible. Consider a few of his pronouncements: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." "Woe to you rich." "Blessed are you poor." "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth." "For a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of things that he possesseth." "Be not solicitous as to what you shall eat, or what j'ou shall drink, or what you shall put on." "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you." "You cannot serve God and Mammon." "If thou wouldst be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and come follow False and True Welfare 201 me." The doctrine of these texts is remote, indeed, from the theory that rijjht life consists in the ever- widening and varying of material wants, and the ever fuller and more diversified satisfaction of them. In many places, and under many different forms, Christ insists that material possessions are unimportant for the child of God, and that those who have much wealth will find it almost impossible to get into his kingdom. The great Fathers of the Church used strong, almost extreme language in describing the dangers of riches and denouncing the men of wealth of their time. Many of them are so severe that they have been, incorrectly however, classified as socialists. St. Thomas Aquinas declared that although nran cannot entirely disregard the pursuit and the possession of external goods, he ought to seek them with moderation, and in conformity with the demands of a simple life. Es- sentially the same views have been held and taught by all the representative authorities of the Church through- out the Middle Ages and down to the present hour. Neither Christ nor His Church has ever sanctioned the theory that right and reasonable life requires mag- nificent houses, furnishings, equipage, and entertain- ment, sumptuous food and splendid apparel, costly recreation and luxurious amusements. Let us apply these general truths and principles to the use of material goods and the process of satisfying material wants, with a view to more definite and particular conclusions. To begin with, we can enclose 202 The Church and Sociausm the field of material welfare by certain upper and lower limits, within which ninety-nine of every hundred persons must have a place if they are to enjoy satis- factory conditions of Christian living. It would seem that these conditions are lacking whenever an average- sized family in one of the larger American cities re- ceives an annual income of less than $1,;">0(). When the family income falls below that amount j)er year, the ciuality and ;inK)unt of food; tl'C si/e, apj>carance, adornment, and o(iuij)mcnt of the home; the kijid of clothes; the scant j)rovision for sickness, accidents, and old age; the lack of sufficient means for recreation, books, newspapers, charity, and religion; and the oppressively real fear of want, will subject the members of the family to severe temptations that would be un- felt, or nmch less keenly felt, if the income were above the figure named. Insufhcient and monotonous food increases the craving for strong drink; shabby clothes make persons ashamed to appear among their fellows, and lead to loss of self-respect, discouragement, and discontent; an unattractive home produces similar results and impels some members of the family to seek outside associations, perha{)s in the saloon; lack of provision for the untoward contingencies of life fosters discouragement and discontent which are harmful to thrift and industry, and j)roductive of irreligion and envy of the neighbor; inability to contribute to religion causes men to remain away from church, while the absence of reading matter leaves the mind barren; in- sufficiency of recreation is injurious to health, efficiency, False and True Welfare 203 and contentment. All these evils are, indeed, relative. They are felt by families above as well as by those below the $1,.500 limit. Nevertheless, they inflict se- rious, objective injury upon one hundred of the latter to one of the former. How shall we define the upper limit of family ex- penditure that is compatible with decent Christian living? The question may at first sight seem prepos- terous, ina-much as reasonable life is possible at many different stages above the decent minimum. Yet if the Christian view of life is correct, the maximum as well as the minimum ought to be susceptible of concrete statement. If expenditures for material goods begin to be harnifid as soon as the limits of moderation are passed and the satisfaction of the senses comes into conflict with the life of the spirit, those limits ought to be capable of definition in terms of goods and of money. To deny this is implicitly to defend the theory that right life consists in the in- definite satisfa tion of indefinitely exf)an ling wants. In the matter of shelter the maximum for an average- sized family — husband and wife and four or five children — would seem to be a house of about twelve rooms. Obviously the mere fact that the residence contains a larger number of rooms does not constitute a serious impediment to reasonable living. Not the quantity of housing, but its accidentals and accessories, is the important consideration. Not the rooms in excess of twelve, but what they generally bring in their train, makes the difference.. When the limit here set 204 The Church and Socialism down is passed, it is not additional comfort in the legitimate sense of tliat term tl.at is desired, but rather accommodations for numerous servants, facilities for elaborate social functions, and the consciousness of occupying as iar^'e or as imposing a dwelling as some neighbor or neighbors. Such a house will usually involve adornment, furnishings, aiul equipment which will be distinguished more for costliness, richness, and magnificence than simply for beauty. All these and many other ends, which assume j)romin- ence about the time tliat the twelve-room limit is exceeded, do create real and serious hindrances to decent Christian living. Chief among these hindrances are: a great waste of time, energj', thought, and money; many other demoralizing conditions that seem to be in.separable from sumptuous dwellings and the in- diviilual and social life therein fostered; the inevitable intensification of the passion of envy; the desire to outdo one's neighbors in the sj)lendor of material possessions and in outward show generally; a diminu- tion of sincerity in social relations; a lessened con- sciousness of the reality and the universality of Chris- tian broth.erhood; and, finally, immersion to such a degree in tlie things of matter that th.e higher realities of life are easily forgotten or ignored. Satisfaction of the foo 1 want becomes excessive when the appetite is stimulated or pampered to the injury of health, and when victuals come to be prized for their capacity to please the palate rather than for their power to nourish. These conditions are reached False axd True Welfare 20.1 sooner than most persons realize. IlaVjitually to pass by plain food, and to seek the tenderest and most delicate grades, implies a condition in which the digestive organs are being overtaxed. ]Mere variety in the articles of diet, when extended beyond moderate bounds, produces the same result. A liberal use of the accidentals, such as condiments, relishes, exquisite desserts, is likewise harmful. Even a nice attention to the preparation and serving of the food easily i)roduces undue and injurious stimulation of the appetite. The.se physical excesses, or extravagances, are generally accompanied by evils of the moral order. The pleasure- giving aspects of diet and of eating become too promi- nent and are too carefully sought. There is an ex- cessive attention to the satisfaction of the food Axant which constitutes one form of the vice of gluttony. From it follows a lessening of control over other ap- petites; for the power of governing the .senses is a unified thing which becomes weakened as a whole whenever it sufl'ers injury in any i)art. Failure to control the food appetite, for example, reduces the ability to govern the sex appetite. Finally, the limits of reason are exceeded when the accessories of eating, as the service, the dishes, the dining-room furniture, are distinguished chiefly for their costliness, richness, and magnificence. With regard to clothing, there is excess as .soon as the desire to be dressed comfortably and decently becomes less prominent than the desire for conspicuousness, richness, elaborateness, splendor. All these are re- 206 The Church and Socialism finemeiits, artificial complications, of tlie process of satisfying the clothing want. When tliey come to be re^Milarly sought after, they cause a ^aste of money and a deterioration of character. Tliere is waste of money, inasmucli as these ends are relatively — indeed, we niif,'ht say, ahsohitely — of no importance to reason- able living. The character sufTers through the indul- gence of the passion for distinction in mere possessions and the passions of pride, vanity, and envy. It is obviously imj)()ssible to draw with precision the line which separates comfort, decency, and simple beauty from consi)icuousness, richness, elaborateness, splendor; but the several estimates of a carefully .sclectce- yond this figure they are satisfying wants which in the interests of the best Christian life ought to be denieothetical injury to seif-res})ect does not deserve serious considera- tion, inasmuch as it refers to a false self-respect, a fear of being looked down upon by those who liave false standards of worth, dignity, and decency. The self- respect which is based upon the extravagant satis- faction of material wants, and conditioned by the approval of those who believe in that sort of thing, ought to be trampled upon and eradicated. Suppose that Mr. Carnegie, who has declared that the duty of the man of wealth is "to set an example of modest unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance," were to take these words seriously, interj)reting them according to their ordinary accep- tation, and to move from his sumptuous Fifth Avenue •■'I'i The Ciilhcii a.vd Sociaf.is.m mansion into a comfortable, metlinm-sizctl houjic in a respectahle, middle-class neiglil)orhoopine.ss. At least, this would be the result if practically all who are now above the $10,000 level were to place themselves below it; for the principal factor impelling men to believe in the worth of luxurious living', namely, the .social worshij) (»f luxury, would have di.sappeared. It is the popular faith in the happiness-i)roducin^ power of abuiulant nuitcrial satisfaction that leads the possessor of such satisfaction to cling to it. In reality it causes a greater slavery of the mind to the senses, and in- creases anxiety, worry, and satiety. "In proj)ortion as a man strives to exalt and secure himself through external goods, he falls back wretchedly upon himself, and experiences an increase of dissatisfaction and ennui'' (Perin, "De la Richesse," p. 11). If only a few were to make the experiment, they would undoubtedly sufTer considerable mental anguish, but it would be only temporary. Besides, it would be False and True Welfare 213 more than offset by the increase of mental and moral freedom, by a deeper and truer self-respect, and by the Pennine approval of the larger and saner part of the connuunity. The foregoing discussion may be profitably supple- mented by a \vorroblem. The sole object of these pages has been to define as precisely as possible the range of expenditure which is most com- patible with — which, indeed, may be called normal for — Christian living. Describing this in terms of dollars may, at first sight, seem ridiculous. Never- theless, those who admit the soundness of the underlying principles cannot set aside the estimate with a wave of the hand. Possibly they will find that it is not easily overthrown by concrete argument. Throughout the article the writer has had chiefly in mind Catholics. For tliey too are, to a deplorable extent, under the 216 The Church and Socialism delusion that valuable life consists in the indefinite satisfaction of material wants. This delusion injures those who are below as well as those who are above the reasonable maximum. The former are discontented where they ought to be well satisfied, and envious where they ought to be thankful because of the temptations that they have escaped. The latter frequently see their chiUlreu grt)w weak in faith and character, while they them.selves become worldly, cold, and ungenerous. The contributions to religion, charity, or education by Catholics who live sumptuously, by all Catholics, indeed, who exceed the bounds of simple and moderate living — arc, gc?icrally speaking, utterly inadequate as compared with their income. Herein consists the inordinate attachment to wealth which is contrary to the Christian j)rinciplc. It is no longer that ridiculous passion for gold which obsessed the misers of our nursery tales; it is simply the striving for and indulgence in excessive amounts of material satisfaction. IX BIRTH CONTROL I At the forly-fourtli annual meeting of the American PubHc Health Association, held in Cincinnati, October 27, 1J)1C, Dr. S. Adolphus Knoi)f read a paper ad- vocating deliberate family limitation by the poor. The Women's (^ity Club of New York has endorsed the practice and the movement. In suspending sen- tence for burglary in the case of a mother of six children who has a tuberculous husband. Judge Williiun II. Wadhams, of New York (^ity, denounced the law which forbids giving information on methods of preventing motherhood. He maintained that women in the circumstances of the one before him for sentence should be provided with this species of " knowledge." A New York wonum who was sentenced to thirty days in jail for violating the law which prohibits the spread of .such information went on a "hunger strike" and, after eleven days, was pardoned by the Covernor on her promise not to break the law again. While she was in prison a large ma.ss meeting of protest was held, at- tended mostly by women, and by many girls of high school age. "The boxes were filled with richly dres.sed jx-rsons, many of whom are socially prominent." The sister of the woman in jail was "wildly cheered" by the audience when she declared her intention of continuing to break the law, and the meeting adopted resolutions to work for the abolition of all laws such 217 218 The Church and Socialism as the one violated by tlie imprisoned woman. The physicians of the Ilealtli Office of New York City admit tliat they tell the ■women who come under their care, sufTcring from tuberculosis and some other dis- eases, liow to avoid prepnancy. Evidently they do not believe that the use of such devices is an essential violation of the moral law, and they contend that they are not transgressing the spirit of the civil law. The instances just cited arc sufficient to indicate the wide and varied activity of the agitators in this move- ment. In the presence of such open propaganda. Catholics can no longer afford to remain silent and inactive. The policy of reticence must, so far as necessary, be modified. If it is continued, if we persist in ignoring thi/; insidious movement, our own j)eople will in considerable numbers be among its victims. The practices of marital perversion will be more and more generally urged upon Catholics of the laboring class as a remedy for social and economic ills. Social workers and friendly visitors rei)resenting secular charitable organizations will be particularly zealous in impressing upon indigent mothers the necessity of having no more children. This indecent meddling creates a new duty of charity for our social workers. They must assist th.e poor, not only along the well- recognized lines, but in this new and rei)ulsive field which has been brought into existence by the contra- ceptionists. Our Catholic poor who have come under the influence of these pestiferous persons must be firmly and clearly told that these unspeakable perversities Birth Control "2 19 are deadly sins, violations of the law of nature and of God. No condition of poverty nor any other set of physical evils can justify the perpetration of moral evil. A good end never justifies a bad means. Perhaps the most pretentious argument yet made in favor of hirth control is that contained in the ])ai)er, rofered to above, which was read by Dr. Knoj)f before the American Public Health Association. Inasmuch as it comes from a medical man, and was given a place in the proceedings of an important society, it will be accorded considerable authority. In tiie following paragraphs we shall examine it critically, and take therefrom occasion to state the correct and Catholic position. II The paper defends birth control on grounds of public health, economics, and ethics. Let us first deal with his contentions under tl\e head of health. Dr. Knopf: Child mortality is extremely high among th.e large families of the ])Oor. The reasons are: the weakening of tlie mother through frequent pregnancies and labor in factory or shop, congestion in the home, and lack of suflficient income to prevent and cure illness. This is particularly true with regard to tuberculosis. This statement of fact, and all the reasons given but one, may be accepted without admitting for an instant that the proper remedy is smaller families obtained through artificial prevention of conception. 220 The Church and Socialism The obvious, the rcasonaMc, and the just remedy is a living wape for the father; that is, a uapc sufhcient to enable him to support the entire family in reasonable comfort. It is monstrous and cov ardly to attenift to put upon the parents the responsibihty for a condition «^•hich is plainly due to social injustice. It is unjust and imrcasonable to require the parents to jrive up tlieir ri^ht to a normal number of children, uhile the em- ploying classes and society continue to profit by the exploitation of undori)aid labor. r)esj)itc the eni|)hasis placed by the doctor on tuberculosis, it offers no ex- ception to the foregoing .sentences. The true remedy is more income. The insinnntion that frequent l)reg- nancies are in themselves harmful to the average woman is simply not justified by experience. Such a result sometimes hai)pons in th.c cn.NC of i)oor moth.ers, but the true cau.se is malnutrition and overwork, not the mere number of pregnancies. Here, again, the genuine and the just remedy is a living wage for the father. Dr. Knopf: In Holland, where artificial birth re- striction is encouraged by public authority, it is said that the stature of the people has increased 4 inches in the last fifty years. This statement is "important if true." As a man of science. Dr. Knopf ought to know that he is acting quite unscientifically and uncritically when he accepts this remarkable assertion on the authoritj' of an unnamed speaker at a eugenics congress. If he were a logician he would realize that, even though the increase in height had taken place, it might properly Birth Control 221 be ascribed to many other factors than the practice of birth restriction. As a matter of fact, the birth rate of Holland during the last sixty years has varied from 37,7 to 29 per thousand, reaching the latter figure only in the year 1910. This average rate is almost as high as that of Germany, and exceeds that of Belgium, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Massachusetts (Thompson: "Poj)ula- tion: A Study in Malthusianism, pp. 104-109"). Consequently the argument from Holland must be revised somewhat as follows: Possibly, though quite imi)robably, the people of Holland have, in the last fifty years, increased their stature by 4 inclies; if this has occurred it may have been due to birth restriction, which, however, has not been greatly practiced, either extensively or intensively, as is evident from the fairly high birth rate that has i)revailed in that country .synchronously \\'\\]i the remarkable elongation of its inhabitants. Dr. Knopf draws some equally authentic, scientific, and convincing examples and proof from certain sections of the j)eoplc of France and Australia. P'ar be it from us to suggest that the shoemaker should always stick to his last, that the good doctor can serve humanity better in the field of medical i^ractice than in applied sociology, III The second division of Dr. Knopf's paper deals with the economic and sociological aspects of birth control. 222 The Church and Socialism V^e consider briefly his main contentions under these heads. Dr. Knopf: The economic loss caused by the presence of thousands of children, mentally and physically crippled for life, is beyond calculation. This is a t>'])ical examijle of the loose and exaggerated statements of the contraccptionists when they touch the question of heredity. So far as the "menially crippled" are concerned, birth control is utterly ir- relevant; for the persons who are likely to transmit this defect will not generally be induced to adoj)t the devices of contraception. Willi the exce] lion of syi)hilis, the physical defects that are strictly here- ditary are relatively unimportant and affect an in- significant nujiiber of persons. The transmission of sj-jjhilis can and should be i)rcvented by entire ab- stention from marital intercourse. The majority of the babies who now come into the world puny and anaemic would not be thus handicapped if their mothers were properly nourished. Here, again, the real remedy, the normal remedy, is a larger family income. Dr. Knopf: The larger the family of the poor, the more child labor and family disru};tion, and the lower the standards of life and morals in general. The child lal)or to which the doctor refers is either a good thing or a bad thing for the child. In the former case, there is nothing to deplore; in the latter case, the laws against child labor are at fault, not the size of the family. As regards the charge that the integrity and Birth Control 228 morals of the family decline as its size increases, we take the liberty of making a flat denial, aid we ask the Doctor to produce his evidence. "More domestic trouble ocfurs in Chicago families with one child than in those with a large number of childn-n." states the monthly report of the non-support cases in the Domestic Relation Court of Chicago. Among 535 warrants issued for negligent husbands. 147 were sworn out by women with one child. 118 by mothers of two. 15 by mothers with live and one each by women with from nine to thirteen children.' Dr. Knopf: Judicious birth control does not mean race suicide; for in Holland the death rate declined faster than the birth rate betAveen 1881 and 191^2. This is another of tho.se superficial and un.scicntific inferences which arc all too conmion in the writings of birth control advocates. Dr. Knopf draws a general conclusion from the stati.stics of three cities of one country. As we intimated above, he would be well advised if he kept out of the field of statistics. What are the general facts about the relation of the birth rate to the death rate? If we divide the countries of the world for which we have appropriate statistics into two classes, calling those with a birth rate of thirty or more per th.ousand high birth rate coimtries, and those falling below that figure low birth rate countries, we get the following results : In tlie nine low birth rate countries, including Holland but excei)ting Denmark, the rate of increase of population declined between 1880 and 1910. At the former date the aver- age rate of increase of these nine countries was U.'2 per cent per thousand; in 1910 it was only 11.6 per 224 The Church and Socialism cent. We take the year 1880 as a starting point because most of the countries do not present statistics for an earh'er date, and tliose that do ^ive earlier figures show the same trend for the forty-year as for the thirty-year period. In five of the nine high birth rate eountries, the rate of j)opulation increase was higher in 1!)1() than in 1880. Three of the nine give figures only from 1800, l»ut they show a ri.se in the rate of increa.se for the twenty years between that date aiul 1010. The last of the nine, Uruguay, presents statistics for only twenty years, but they indicate a decline in the rate of increase. The average rate of increase of all nine countries in 1010 was 1M,3, which was 'i.l per cent higher than the average at the earlier <'ates. In the low birth rate countries, therefore, the falling birth rate has not been offset by the falling death rate, and the present rate of population increase is lower than it is in the high birth rate countries. Moreover, the decline in the death rate was considerably greater in the high birth rate countries than in the low birth rate countries between 1880 and 1 !)]().' We shall not imitate Dr. Knof's rea.soning by concluding that the greater decrease in the death rate of these countries was caused by their greater birth rate. It was mainly due to the fact that they had a further distance to go before they should reach the point at which the rate of reduction necessarily becomes relatively slow. •The statistics upon which our computations are based will be found in Thompson's "Population: A Study of Mallhusian- ism," pp. 104-109. Birth Control 225 Since most of the low birth rate countries have now got tl eir death rate down rather close to the lowest practicable limit, future reductions of it will be both slow and slight. On th.e oth.er hand, their bnth rate will in all prol.ability continue to dcchne mdcfinitely. France has practiced birth control much longer than any other country, and its population is now stationary. There is no reason to expect that any other country xN-hich adopts the practice widely and generally will check it in time to escape a like condition. Indeed, there are solid, positive grounds for fearing this very outcome. In order that the population of a country should make some increase, those couples that marry must avera^e about four children each; but no social class that adopts the theory and practice of contracep- tion shows such a high average; consequently a station- ary or declining I )opulation becomes inevitable as soon as the cult has i>ccn taken up by all the important social classes. Once the laboring and farming groups be- come addicted to the practice in this country, the days of increasing population will be ended, ^^e might agree with Dr. Knopf that "judicious" birth control need not lead to race suicide, but we know that if it be- comes general it will exceed the limits of the "judicious." IV Dr Knopf: The sufferings of frail and poverty- stricken mothers and of their puny and ill-fed babes have convinced me that thoughtless procreation is utterly immoral. *2C The Cnuncn and Socialism The doctor identifies immorality with pain. Conduct that prothiccs i>leasiire, or lia[)piiie.ss, is pood; conduct that produces pain is liad. If one accepts this view, and is caj)aMe of logical tliiiikinp, one must look upon duty, heiievolcrice and symj)atliy as superstitions, or at least as having no value excejjt in so far as they bring pleasure to oneself. Pleasure and hai)piness are pood only because they are my pleasure ai:d haj)i)iness. If I find happiness in beinp truthful, honest and chaste, it is reasonable that I should j)ra(ticc all these virtues; but if they do not brinp me liapi)iness I am a fool to trouble myself with them. Such is the moral code of the num who accepts tlie doctrine that immorality and sufl'erinp are one. Needless to say, Catholics reject this pleasure-and- pain standard of morality. It is condenuicd by the Church, and it is contrary to the voic-e of reason. Ripht reason tells us that those actions are morally pood which are in harmony with our rational nature, which jiromote the perfection of human nature, both individual and social. Therefore, the question whether pleasure and pain be morally good or morally bad depends upon their relation to rational nature and the ends of rational nature. We may agree with Dr. Knopf that the use of birth control devices will in some cases increase pleasure and diminish pain, but these practices remain bad simply because they are contrary to nature and nature's purposes. They are a perver- sion of nature, since they use the generative faculties in such a way as to prevent the natural ends of the Birth Control 227 faculties from being attained. The very use of the faculty is made an abuse; marital intercourse is made an acted lie. This is intrinsically, essentially, neces- sarily and forever wrong. No considerations of pleasure or pain or any other form of mere utility can make it morally right. We are well aware that this reasoning will not be convincing to persons who believe in tlie pleasure and pain theory of morality. Such persons, if they are logical, must also deny the immorality of infrequent acts of solitary unchastity or solitary drunkenness. These cannot be shown to be wrong e\cej)t on the ground that they are perversions of nature. To per- sons who believe that all three of these classes of actions are morally good in so far as i)lcasurablc we can only say, in the words of Lijicoln, " Jf that is the sort of thing these people like, why, that is the sort of thing that they like." For Catholics the morality of artificial devices for preventing conception is not entirely dei)endent upon our percei)tIon of their unnatural character. They have all been condemned by the authoritative decisions of the Church. Of course we admit that the sufTering involved in bearing children is in some rare cases a moral evil. When it interferes gravely with the maintenance of a reasonable degree of health, and w hen it prevents mem- bers of the family from having access to those other goods which are essential to reasonable and virtuous life, it is not a morally good thing. The question is sometimes 228 The Church and Socialism asked whether it would l)e permissible to advo- cate "birth control by self-control" in extreme cases, as when insanity or feeble-mindedness in the parents was likely to be transmitted to the cliildren. Perhai)S the safest answer to this qncstion is to cite the ai){)r()- priate general i)rincii)le laid down by the moral theo- logians. It is that if pra\e injury, such as loathsome disease, will follow intercourse, the parties, t)r either of them, are justified in refraining from intercourse. Our oi)inion is that the same course is justifief: Fear of a large family prevents in- numerable young men from marrj'ing early; con- sequently they become diseased through irregular intercourse and afterwards transfer the disease to their innocent wives and children. This is pretty far fetched. The men who resort to such unchaste relations are generally well acquainted with the artificial devices for keeping families small. Moreover, the men who indulge in contracei)tive prac- tices in the marriage relation have few moral scruples Birth Control 2-29 af^ainst commercialized adultery, and have peculiarly strong temptations in t'lat direction. As a "moral" remedy against the contraction and si)read of venereal disease, instruction in birth control methods seems to be preposterous and futile. Dr. Knopf: I have been the recipient of communica- tions from many leading physicians, divines, political economists and sociologists, all agreeing with me that judicious birth control, under the highest ethical medical guidance, is a national necessity. The doctor then submits eighteen or twenty names of rather prominent persons who are in favor of birth control. A few of these are repeated in a list of some fifty names appeiidcersoii who holds this theory, and Aviio is capable of loj^ical thinking, will find tliat he must give up entirely the utility doctrine of morality or come to the conclusion that not social hut indi\idual welfare and happiness is the rule of right and wrong. In this case he will liave to maintain that any action whatever, which nuikes for one's happiness or pleasure is morally good, no matter wliat suffering it brings to the neighbor or to society. Probably no human being has ever compl(>tcl\- a(lo[)ted or acted upon this luori- strous principlf The birth c<^iitrol "authorities *' take into account fniIy one, and that the superficial, a.sjiect of the situa- tion. They see clearly that in thousands of poor families a smaller number of children \\ould mean a smaller amount of physical liardship. \\ hat they do not see, or see with suflicient clearness, is that if the laboring classes were to adopt the practice of birth control tliC country would inevitably witness a declining population. The birth control advocates hope to see a situation in which the poorer classes would deliberately keep their families small ^hile the comfortable and rich classes would have fairly large families. If these birth controlists were not so superficial, if tliey A\ould take the trouble to consider adequately all sides of the question, they would realize that this hope is vain. It is precisely among the better-ofT clasess that the practice of avoiding large families is most prevalent. BiRTii Control ^38 No arguments of patrotism or social welfare will prevent these classes from continuing their selfish course; for the man and woman who deliberately violate some of the strongest instincts and dictates of nature for the sake of ease and j)leasure will he deaf to appeals drawn from the conmion good. They are too deei)ly sunk in the quagmire of egotism. The average number of children per family among those classes that now practice birth control is not sufficient to produce a third generation that will be equal in numbers to the present generation. For example, any one hundred couples addicted to birth control will not have one hundred married couples among their grandchildren. The studies that have been made of birth control couj)lcs all show that they average less than three children each, whereas an aver- age of between three and four children per family is necessary to maintain the present numbers of any group. The excess above two children is recinired on account of those who die before maturity, those who do not marrv', aner of women generally. Most of the leaders are exceptional rather than tj7)ical. Their dissatisfaction with male political rule and their desire tliat women should share the business of govern- ment arise mainly from facts and considerations peculiar to their special classes, and sometimes to their i)ersonal conditions. No doubt these leaders think that they represent their sex, but calm observation and analysis seem to show that their ideas and i)yscholog>' are remote from t!ie mental habits and attitudes of the majority of women. What are the proofs of this assertion? There is none that amounts to a demonstration. Neither is there any conclusive argument for the contrary proposition. All the surface indications — and we have nothing better to go by — show that the majority of women have not asked for, indeed, do not want tlie privilege of voting. By far the greater number of the women acquaintances of any of us are either opposed or indifferent to political 238 The CiiuRcn an'd Socialism enfranchisement. In fact, the suffragist leaders liave pretty generally rejected j)roj)Osals to leave tie decision of the question to the women themselves. They have preferred to entrust their cause to the men rather than to the members of their own sex as a whole. Again, the position, antecedents and opinions of the most active leaders in the suffrage movement create a strong presumf)tion in favor of the belief that their social and political views are not typically feminine. For the most part, they are either women of means, women of leisure, women in the i)rofessions, or women active in labor unions. Those in the first two of these categories have taken up suffrage agitation largely by way of reaction from lives of cmi)tincss and aimlessness, and with the desire to be of some genuine service to their sisters. In the main, they are responding to essentially the same motives that impel other women of their class to go in for settlement work and works of philanthropy generally. Equally with the latter they are exceptions in their class. Professional women in the suffrage movement, particularly teachers, find therein scope for the exercise of their active and com- petent minds. They are in an exceptional position to see the great influence exerted by politics and government upon education and industry. They come to have some understanding of politics, and they have the desire and the leisure to translate that understand- ing into action. While their motives are mainly un- selfish, it is obvious that their circumstances and mental processes are not typical of their sex. The trade- Woman Suffrage 239 union women have a very practical reason for tlieir activity in tlie suffrage movement, for they see the in- dustrial abuses and evils suffered by wage-earning women, and tl:ey know that most of these bad condi- tions can be removed by legislation. They realize that if women wage-earners had the franchise and would use it intelligently, the industrial position of the latter could be imi)roved promptly and considerably. Nevertheless, it is fairly certain that the great majority of women workers do not grasp in any vital or tenacious way the reasoning or the convictions of the officials of the female trade unions; for the great majority are unorganized even industrially, have not acquired the industrial Op political consciousness of the leaders, and are constantly hoi)ing to abandon at an early date the j)osition of wage-earner for t';at of housewife. Moreover, the whole numijcr of female wage-earners constitutes only a small minority of tlie women of the United States. The situation seems to be this: While the leadership of the suffrage movement in New York has been con- siderably tainted a\ ith excessive radicalism of various kinds, it does not adequately represent the great majority of the women, even on the question of the desirability of suffrage; therefore the antecedents of female enfranchisement provide no solid reason for thinking that th.e masses of \\ omen voters will be found on the side of radical movements or measures. In these circumstances, the proportion of the woman vote in New York that will support advanced feminist proposals, such as easier divorce, legitimizing birth- 240 The Church and Socialism control propaganda, the legal right to bear children oiitsitle of niatrinioiiy, etc., will (Icj^end entirely upon the extent to which the diflerent classes of women accept their new political responsihilities. If only those women who believe in socialism, feminism, and other forms of radicalism exercise the franchise, such movements will be strengthened politically. If the women who do not accei)t these radical theories take the trouble to vote, the political influence of the feminist group will be nnich more than counterbalanced. Indeed, if the women of each social and economic class of the community go to the polls in as large proportions as the men of the same class, unsound social proposals will j)robably receive a smaller share of the vote than they do today; for in every class the proportion of women extremists is smaller than that of men. Recent news despatches represent King Albert of Belgium as affirming his belief in woman suffrage as inevitable after the war. It is not generally known, perha{)s, that before the war the socialists of that country were mostly opposed to this policy; for they were afraid that their cause would suffer through the preponderance of conservative voters among the women. What the socialists feared in Belgium, the friends of sound social policies may await calmly in the State of New York. Even in this land of greater freedom and opportunity for women, they are less attracted than men by revolu- tionary social doctrines, and our Catliolic women, naturally, are the most conservative of all. It is of the greatest and most urgent importance that Woman Suffrage 241 the Catholic women of New York, and all other women who believe in the integrity of the family and in the maintenance of Christian social principles and institutions, should realize inmiediately that political enfranchisement has put upon them a very serious responsibility. The power to vote is not a personal prerogative that one is morally free to use or not to use. It is a personal privilege granted for a social purpose, and carrj'ing with it social and civic obliga- tions. If the women who cling to right social doctrines fail to vote in as large proportions as the feminine adherents of extreme theories, they ^\ ill l)e as certainly and as definitely to blame for the resulting injury to the home and to right social order as though tliey had openly preached the doctrines they abhor. In order that they may exercise the franchise intelli- gently, in order that tl-.ey may be able to distinguish between good and bad political j)olicies, they will obviously be compelled to study consistently social and political questions and conditions. Undoubtedly this will be the most irksome feature of their respon- sibilities as voting citizens. Many Catholic and other conservative women of New York State will accept this conclusion with great reluctance. They will insist that they had not desired this privilege and this responsibility. They will complain that the men voters acted unfairly by impos- ing the franchise upon them in order to please a small but active minority of the women of the state. Un- doubtedly it would have been better to permit the 242 The Church and Socialism majority of the women themselves to decide the ques- tion of suffrage. The refusal of the leaders of the movement to seek or consent to such a decision, showed not only a lack of faith in the political sense of their sisters, but a want of regard for the methods and principles of democracy. Had the extension of the franchise been left to the determination of the masses of the women, they probably would have refused the privilege at first; but the field would then have been open for a direct campaign of political education among those who most needed it, the women them- selves. By the time that the majority of them were convinced and ready to accept the franchise, they would have a much better conception of its importance, power and responsibility than they have as the result of an appeal which was primarily addressed to males. All these complaints and all these speculations on "what might have been" are now worse than futile. The outstanding fact is that the women of New York have been empowered to vote; that if they wish to be good citizens they must inform themselves concerning public and political questions and conditions, and that the Catholic women may not conscientiously shirk their new obligations. Some twenty-five years ago the writer defended in a classroom essay the proposition tl:at female suffrage had become reasonable and expedient, on account of the large number of women that are otl;erwise occupied than in the home. Time and observation have strength- ened him in that opinion. That woman's true and Woman Suffrage 243 permanent place is the home, and that her duties as homemaker are so engrossing and so remote from political problems as to make her much less apt than man to acquire political knowledge or capacity are propositions that will always be true of the wives, mothers and daughters whose time is devoted to domes- tic occupations. With a reasonable amount of effort they can, however, learn enough about the more concrete political and civic matters to provide the basis for a fairly intelligent exercise of the voting privilege. They can make themselves fairly well acquainted with those public problems, situations and projects which affect the home and morals. And their instincts in this province are sounder than the instincts of men. As regards the more abstract political issues, they will probably vote in the same way as their husbands, fathers and brothers, thus doing neither more good nor harm to the public weal than the latter. On the other hand, the millions of women who have gone, for longer or shorter periods, into professional, industrial or commercial occupations will have the same interest in the politics of domestic and moral questions as their sisters of the household, and in addition will be immediately and vitally concerned with those political proposals which affect their own gainful occupations. The conditions surrounding and affecting women who work for wages are far from satisfactory. For the majority, neither the remunera- tion, the hours of labor nor the sanitation and safety are up to the standard required by decency, humanity €44 The CnrRni and Socialism and Christianity. Most of the measures nccessarj' to remove these abuses will have to con^e throuph lepislation. Owinj; to their intimate and practical connection with these problems, wage-earning women are in a position to understand most of them, quite as well as men, and some of them very much better. After all, one of the fundamental justifications of democracy is the fact that the members of every social or intlustrial cbiss understand certain of their own needs better than do the members of any other class. The principle is strikingly true of wage-earning women. While writing the concluding j)aragraphs of this paper, I received a letter from a talented and active Catholic woman who declares that educated Catholic women are doing splendid work in purely charitxible fields, but have taken little or no interest in civic and social reforms. This thought reinforces and makes more concrete what I wanted to say by way of con- clusion. I have already pointed out the responsibility that rests upon the Catholic women of New York State to use their votes against socialism, feminism, and all other forms of extreme radicalism. But if their political interest and activity do not go beyond this purely negative policy they ^\^ll prove themselves no better citizens, and, from the vie^\"point of civic opportunity, no better Catholics than their corelig- ionists of the male sex. It is unfortunately still a com- monj)lace that the majority of our Catholic men have restricted their beneficent activity in civic and social movements to the task of combating WTong views and Woman Suffrage 245 measures. In the main they have done little or noth- ing for constructive reforms. The Catholic women of New York State have a sj)lcndicl oi)j)ortunity to put the men to shame. May they realize this opportunity by taking the trouble to find out the social, civic and industrial evils that ought to be removed, and to sup- port and vote for positive measures of betterment. Once they seriously atlopt this resolution, they will find the practical ways and means ready at hand. XI SOCIAL SERVICE AS A PROFESSION It is only those who are profoundly ignorant of the needs an«. fH^** yaftt [E"™t!L JUIt.2 719» m Ly-Series 444 «ttt ^^^1-H9^^ 1 ERSITY of CALIFOKIHa AT Jnivefsil, of Ca«tcyna ^05 Angete^ i i 1 1 II II 1 ll,M ill II 1 II li: III lii L 005 241 080 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY |i|ni|fflnn||in||iniij|iiijn||ii)ii|ii im ii ni AA 001 107 001 8