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 ino<lprate rate of interest to tlie stockiiolders,
are divided among the purchasers of goods and the
emplo;,'es of tl:e concern. Tims wage-earners and
salary-earners become owners of small caj)ital and
receive the profits that otherwise v.ould go to a distinct
capitalist class. Of credit associations the most
prominent are the Raififeisen bard^s, which are found
ch.iefly in agricultural districts, and loan money to
members at 5 per cent. They are particularly bene-
ficial to small farmers, who would be unable to obtain
credit at the ordinary commercial banks. Approxi-
mately one-fourth of the population of Great Britain
shares in the benefits of cooperative stores, while in
Germany alone more than tvvo million persons are
interested in the RaifTeisen banks. Cooperative as-
sociations for production have not been so successful,
owing to their greater complexity and the greater need
of specialized business ability, but they are growing
steadily all over Europe, especially in Great Britain,
and with time and patience will undoubtedly continue
to increase and prosper. In agriculture, cooperation
takes the form mainly of associations for production,
as the cooperative creameries of Denmark and Ireland,
and for marketing, as the farm.ers' selling associatioi^s
m England. In all th.ese kinds of cooperation the
Catholics of Europe have taken a very prominent part,
both the laity and tlie clergy.
The United States are still very backward in this
movement, but there are signs of a concerted and
widespread advance in the near future. Through co-
Prin'ciples of Social Reform 41
operative associations the high cost of living can be
reduced, farmers and city consumers can become
mutually helpful and profitable, small farmers can
unite in the ownership of costly machinery, the social
spirit can be developed in rural regions, country life
can be made more attractive, the disastrous trend to
the cities can be checked, and city wage-earners can
be made less dependent upon distributive and manu-
Tacturing capitalists.
While not much emphasis is laid upon coopera-
tion in most of tl.e current proposals of social reform, it
is an essential element in any complete scheme that
rejects socialism or other revolutionary systems. Con-
fining our attention now to the laboring classes, we see
that, in addition to the material benefits already de-
scribed, cooperation would be of the highest educational
value. It would develop the laborers' business capacity
initiative, sense of .self-reliance and of responsibility,
organizing ability, feeling of economic security, and
reasonable contentment. No one will deny that im-
provement in all these lines would make the laborer a
better citizen, a better man, and a better Christian.
/Dne of the most telling counts in the socialist indict-
ment of iijudern industry is that the laborer has been
divorced from ownership in the tools of production,
and beeri luiide a mere wage receiver, utterly dependent
upon a ic'purate class of beings called capitalists. I
do not believe that this condition is final./ If the
wage system and the system of private ownership of
capital are to endure, this baneful and unnecessary
42 The Church and Socialism
separation of the capitalist as such from the laborer as
such must be greatly lessened. Laborers must, in
ever-increasing numbers, become caj^italists as well as
wage-earners. Of course this result can be obtained in
some measure through profit sharing and stock owner-
ship in the ordinary private corporation, but these are
much less desirable and effective than the cooperative
association. Owing to the many and great obstacles
confronting it, the cooperative movement will advance
slowly, but such has been the history of all movements
that have arrived at permanent and far-reaching results.
If anyone should hasten to conclude that coopera-
tion is essentially collectivism or socialism, let me reply
that the difference between the two systems is fun-
damental. Cooperation is much more democratic than
any form of state ownership and management, for it
leaves the control of the business in the hands of those
immediately interested. As already noted, this de-
velops the business talents and the self-reliance of the
members; moreover, it excludes paternalism and
bureaucracy. It is better for a local group, just as it
is better for an individual, to do things themselves than
to have others do things for them. State officials in
charge, say, of a municipal bakery would, indeed,
represent the people, but acting, as they do, through
state forms and state macliinery, they are farther
away from the people, less responsive, and less demo-
cratic in their administration and spirit than a co-
operative association. For citizens to call upon the
state to manage affairs which they can as eflBciently
Principles of Social Reform 43
manage themselves through private associations, is to
hasten the advent of the servile state and to exchange
dependence upon tlie capitalist for dependence upon a
bureaucracy, a form of government whose "idea of an
earthly paradise," to quote the words of George Russell
in his delightful little volume, "Cooperation and
Nationality," "seems to be to have rows of electric
buttons all round the official armchair; so that when
one of these buttons is touched whole battalions of
people can be set in motion," The essence of pater-
nalism consists in an unnecessary extension of state
activities. Hence it would be paternalism to have
state operation of any industry that is small, local, and
naturally competitive in character. Such industries
are the legitimate field of cooperation. The great
industry and the natural monopoly are beyond the
scope of cooperative effort.
A final form of private associations to be mentioned
is mutual insurance societies. These may have one
or more of a great variety of purposes, but the most im-
portant of them aim to protect their members against
sickness, accidents, invalidity, and unemi)loyment.
Within their legitimate fields they have about the same
advantages over state insurance and other forms of
state protection that cooperation possesses over state
operation of industry; but there are very large classes
of persons whom they cannot adequately protect,
namely, poorlj" paid wage-earners.
We Catholics are fond of contrasting the modern
industrial system uith the organization of industry
44 The Church and Socialism
that prevailed in the Middle Ages. Well, the leading
features of the medieval system were private associa-
tions of all kinds, a sort of dual ownership of land be-
tween the lord and the tenant, and labor ownership of
the tools of production. Tliat system can never be
restored as it then existed, but the principles underlying
it can and ought to become the foundation of a re-
formed industrial order. Accordingly we must have
private organizations of every conceivable legitimate
sort and for every legitimate purpose; and the supreine
aim must be to make the mass of the wage-earners,
in some degree, owners and managers of capital.
This is one essential part of social reform on Catholic
lines, and it is a vital part of any scheme that v.ould
be an effective alternative to socialism.
Individual effort and associated effort will not
suffice to carry out an adequate scheme of social reform.
An important share in the work must be taken by the
state. Under this head are embraced the city, the state
in its special American accei^tation, and the nation.
Opinions concerning the proper industrial functions of
the state vary from socialism to the extreme but happily
antiquated individualism which would restrict these
functions to the prevention of violence and fraud, and
the enforcement of contracts. Neither of these is the
Catholic view. In the words of Pope Leo XIII:
"Whenever the general interest or any particular class
suffers, or is threatened with evils which can in no
V, ay be met, the public authority must step in to meet
them." In this general statement we find warrant
Principles of Social Reform 4.^
for the principle laid dovvn above, that the state should
not do for individuals anything that they can, either
separately or by association, do themselves. Going
more into detail, Pope Leo says that the state must
protect the rigl.ts of every class, and must especially
care for the most helpless sections of the community,
the poor, and the wage-earners. All this is in accord
with the traditional Catholic doctrine, which is that
tl e state has two chief duties, namely, to protect
natural rights and to promote the interests of all orders
and classes in the community.
What does this cover in our present industrial con-
ditions. ''y ''To prepare the way for a systematic and
comprehensive answer, let me point out the two great
evils of the present situation : first, millions of the
poorest paid laborers are insufficiently protected against
unjust conditions of life and employment, and, second,
immense masses of fortunately placed capital receive
excessive and unnecessary profits or interest. Neither
of these evils can be adequately met except by the
action of public authority, the state.
In particular, therefore, the state must enact legis-
lation which will prevent any worker from being com-
pelled to accept less than decent living wages. Between
50 and 75 per cent of our laboring population got less
than this measure of remuneration in 1914 and only a
small proportion of these persons were able to in-
crease their wages themselves, through organization
or otherwise. LaAvs of this kind have been successful
in Australia and England, and the agitation for their in-
46 The Church and Socialism
troduction in this country is rapidly growing. While
Pope Leo did not expressly advocate this measure of
state activity, his language seems to imply it. Most
Catholic authorities today favor it as included in the
primary function of the state, that is, the protection of
natural rights. Pope Leo declares explicitly that the
intervention of the law must be sought to prevent
injury to health by excessive labor, or by work unsuited
to age or sex. In America, this would seem to mean a
legal eight-hour day in most industrial employments,
abolition of night work for women and children, and the
fixing of sixteen years as the minimum at which children
could be continuously employed as wage-earners.
Legislation is likewise imperatively needed to provide
effective measures of conciliation and arbitration in
industrial disputes and to modify judicial discretion in
the matter of injunctions and boycotting. Further-
more, there must be provided legal insurance against
accidents, illness, invalidity, and employment. While
insurance through private societies is preferable to
insurance by the state, it is beyond the reach of the
majority of workers. For these the only adequate
provision is through state action, either entirely in the
case of those who are not affiliated with a private
society, or in part by subventions to those societies
that are able to give partial insurance. The latter
method is better than complete state protection, inas-
much as it encourages and requires the workers to do
what they can for themselves. In many of our great
cities the public authority will be compelled to under-
Principles of Social Reform 47
take, directly or indirectly, the housing of the poorest
classes on such terms as will promote instead of weaken-
ing thrift and self-reliance. In conjunction with this
movement the state might well encourage and assist
the migration of urban dwellers to the land. Sys-
tematic action in this direction would seem to be neces-
sary to reduce the price of food-stuffs, to better the
condition of those who are willing to go to the country,
and to safeguard the health and vitality and morals
of the nation. The fact that between 1900 and 1910
city population in America increased 34 per cent, while
the increase in rural districts and unincorporated
towns combined was only 11 per cent, is of sufficient
gravity to warrant and demand some deliberate public
action of the kind just recommended.
Turning to the second of the two great evils to be
met by state intervention, we see that measures must
be taken to prevent capital enjoying monopolistic
privileges from obtaining more than the ordinary and
reasonable rate of profit. Since the days of Aristotle
men have known that human beings cannot, as a rule,
be trusted to exercise justly and reasonably the power of
monopoly. When this power is not restrained by
public authority, it is generally used to extort un-
reasonably high prices and exceptionally high profits
and interest. Catholic theologians have always con-
demned these monopolistic practices, and Pope Leo
XIII probably had them in mind when he denounced
that "rapacious usury" which has reappeared in new
forms. It is the current teaching of theologians that
48 The Church axd Socialism
a man should not charge more tban a moderate rate or
the prevailing rate of interest on money that he has
loaned; consequently, he is not justified in using the
power of monopoly to extort a higher rate of interest
or profit on the money that he has invested in a pro-
ductive enterprise. To be sure, allowance must be
made for greater risk, and a bonus ought to be given
to encourage and reward any genuine cheapening of
the cost of production. Apart from the bonus for
improvements in methods of production, however, not
a single valid reason can be given for allowing monop-
olistic capital to obtain higher profits or interest than
capital which is compelled to face competition. To
demand that the state sliould somehow require monop-
olistic capital to be content with competitive rates of
interest is merely to demand the enforcement of an
elementary rule of justice. It is the perception, more
or less instinctive, of this elementary truth by the
average man that accounts for the universal outcry
against trusts and monopolies in America. This outcry
is sometimes the result of misinformation as to par-
ticular facts, but it is never mistaken in its apprehension
of the fundamental moral principle.
Just how the state is to prevent this kind of extor-
tion in the various fields in which it is practiced cannot
here be described in detail. In general the state
should regulate the rates and charges of all natural
monopolies, such as railroads, street railways, tele-
graphs, telephones, lighting, and ot' er public service
corporations, so as to leave them only the prevailing
Principles of Social Reform 49
rate of interest on their actual investment. Indeed,
this is the theory upon which those corporations are
regulated now, but unfortunately the practice does not
always correspond to the theory. /'If the policy of regu-
lation should prove inadequate after a fair and sufficient
trial, undoubtedly we shall be compelled to adopt
public ownership of these natural monopolies, after
the manner of so many countries in Europe and
Australia. / As for those monopolies that are not
natural, or that have not been proved to be of this
character, those concerns commonly known as trusts,
they must likewise be restricted to the prevailing
rate of interest on their actual investment. One
of two, or possibly three, methods must be adopted
to reach this end. They must be divided into a
sufficient number of parts to ensure actual com-
petition, or if this proves to be impossible or unde-
sirable, the state must fix the maximum prices tV'at
they will be allowed to charge consumers. This
would be merely returning to t' e practice of the Catho-
lic Middle Ages. The possible third alternative is
that the state should compete with some of the ob-
stinate and intractable trusts by manufacturing and
selling their kinds of products. However, this seems
scarcely necessary, except temporarily, and in a few
extreme cases. If competition ^\ ere only guaranteed a
fair chance, something that it has not enjoyed in
this country for t^ e last t' irty years, it would probably
produce goods just as cheaply as monopoly, would
permit of the largest plants that are economically
50 The Church and Socialism
desirable, and would, therefore, render unnecessary
legal regulation of prices.
Finally, the state must introduce comprehensive
reforms in the field of taxation. The rapid increase
in the value of land, both rural and urban; the vanishing
supply of new agricultural land; the immense numbers
of people who possess no land and who find possession
of it becoming, day by day, further and further beyond
their reach, and the appalling congestion of population
in many of our great cities — demand immediate and
systematic correction and remedy. Between 1900 and
1910, farm land rose in value 108 per cent per acre, while
great tracts in the cities have advanced with even
greater rapidity. In the interest of the common good
it would be highly desirable that the average value of
land should not rise above its present level. While
the upward movement cannot be wholly prevented, it
can and should be moderated by a gradual transfer of
some of the taxes from the necessities of life and from
improvements to land, and by a special tax on the
increases in land value, particularly in cities. Both
these methods have already been employed with
excellent results, the former in Australia and Western
Canada, the latter in Germany. Of course this higher
taxation of land should not be imposed in such a way
as to inflict loss upon any land-owner, for, despite
the contentions of the single-taxers, titles to land are
quite as valid in morals as any other property rights.
But there is no practical danger that anything of this
sort will happen. Moreover, all incomes and inherit-
Principles of Social Reform 51
ances above certain minimum exemptions should be
subjected to taxation, and the tax should be progressive.
This would be in harmdny with the rules of just taxa-
tion as laid do'wn for centuries by the Catholic moral
theologians.
All these activities of the state make for greater
social justice. They are all necessary because the
reforms that they aim at cannot be brought about in
any other way. They are neither paternalistic nor
injurious to the liberty of the individual; for they do
nothing that the individual could do for himself, and the
only individual liberty that they interfere with is the
license of a small minority to oppress the majority.
While they are not all specifically recommended in Pope
Leo's Encyclicals, they are in agreement with the
general teaching of these documents.
Pope Leo declared that while the social question
demands the attention of "the rulers of states, of
employers of labor, of the wealthy, and of the working
population themselves, ... all the striving of men will
be vain if they leave out the Church." Surely no man
who honestly studies social facts and tendencies as they
are can doubt this statement. The social question will
not be solved without the aid of religion. On the other
hand, religion alone will not and should not be expected
to furnish the whole solution. For the Church is not a
social reform institution, nor is it her function to pro-
pose specific economic and social remedies. Her pri-
mary and supreme mission is to save the souls of men
for an eternal existence with God. To take social
52 The Chuuch and Socialism
reform for her mission "would be to mistake a part of
the mxans for tiie end. The Church is interested in
the social question only in so far as it is related to souls,
that is, in so far as it involves questions of right and
wrongj/ She cannot be indifferent to those aspects of
the social problem which involve relations of charity
and justice. To these issues she never has been in-
different. Her insistence upon the supreme principles
of individual sacredness, the essential equality of all
individuals, and the right use of wealth, brought about
the abolition of slavery, the medieval system of dual
ownership of land, the guild organization of industry
in the towns, and the establishment of democracy as
against the absolute rule of kings, lords, and tyrants
of every description. These doctrines have lost none
of their efficacy or appropriateness. All that is neces-
sary is that they be applied specifically and in detail
to the new conditions.
Under the head of charity the Church teaches that
all men are brothers, that the Golden Rule has not
become antiquated, and that a man's superfluous goods
belong to his needy fellows. The last doctrine is far-
reaching, but is today more honored in the breach than
in the observance, even by the majority of those who
call themselves good Catholics. On behalf of the virtue
of justice, the Church demands that workmen perform
their tasks faithfully and abstain from acts of violence
against persons and propert}^; that employers should
pay at least living wages to all their employes and
refrain from overtaxing age, sex, and strength; and that
Principles of Social Reform 53
capitalists should discontinue the practice of new and
insidious forms of usury. All tliis is explicitly con-
tained in Pope Leo's Encyclical on the "condition of
labor." With him we may well ask, "Were these
precepts carefully obeyed and followed, would not
strife die out and cease.''"
In addition to her positive teaching, the Church
provides the most effective motives for social action.
No motives of mere brotherly love, or naturalistic
morality, can stimulate so powerfully the individual
conscience as those drawn from the fatherhood of God,
and tlie sanction of heaven and hell. No mere external
agencies, no mere social machinery, whether in a
private or public organization, will produce systematic
and lasting reform without a quickening of the indi-
vidual conscience. And tliis must be the work of
religion.
Now we are obliged to admit that, while the true
and effective motives of social duties are fairly well
tauglit in the Church, her positive teaching with regard
to charity and justice has not yet been applied with
sufficient definitiveness and thoroughness to the in-
dustrial conditions of our time and country. Is it
right that Catholics should spend so much money on
themselves as do the very rich, and, indeed, almost
all classes except the very poor.' Are Catholic em-
ployers who fail to pay living wages, and who oppress
their work-people in other ways, sufficiently instructed
concerning these relations and sufficiently corrected
when they fail in these duties? Are the methods of:
54 The Church and Socialism
getting money through monopoly, which are con-
demned by the general conscience of the American
people, morally right or morally wrong? What are we
to think of professing Catholics who do not hesitate to
make use of these methods and to profit by them?
These, and many similar questions, are extremely
practical and are all moral questions. They are diffi-
cult and they are new; therefore they cannot be fully
answered as promptly as we should like to see them
answered. Yet they must be faced, fully, frankly,
and honestly, and we must receive answers and solu-
tions that will be at once sound, and unequivocal, and
comprehensive. This aspect of social Catholic reform
is fundamental and is a necessary preliminary to effec-
tive work in all the other departments of social action.
If Catholics are to do effective work in solving the
social question and in counteracting revolutionary
social theories, they must possess a definite and con-
structive program. Neither vague and edifying gener-
alities, nor mere opposition to socialism, will any longer
suffice. The generalities are self-evident, but they
bring us nowhere; opposition to socialism is a necessity,
but by itself it may do us as much harm as good.
The program of principles, methods, and measures
which I have tried to outline may claim, I think, to
be fairly comprehensive. Probably it includes all the
reforms that we can hope to see realized within the next
quarter of a century. Indeed, some will be inclined
to call it "advanced." That is a question of personial
appreciation and viewpoint. The epithets * ' advanced ' '
Principles of Social Reform 55
and "retrograde," "radical" and "conservative," "pro-
gressive" and "reactionary," are all relative. Most of
the time they do service as mere catchwords in the
mouths of persons who are too indolent to exercise the
thinking faculty. Social principles and proposals can-
not be permanently justified or condemned because of
their factitious connection with a catchword. Their
only enduring and rational test is the test of truth.
And the standards of social triith are to be sought in
the teaching of the Catholic Church, the precepts of
the moral law, the conclusions of economic authority,
and the verdict of experience. Judged by these
standards, the program that I have all too briefly and
feebly put forth in these pages will, in its essentials at
least, prove to be constructive, efficient, and im-
pregnable.
No loyal Catholic, priest or layman, is permitted to
be indifferent toward the movement for Catholic social
reform. In the first place, we are all commanded to
Interest ourselves in the work by the supreme authority
at Rome, Pope Leo XIII enjoined every minister of
religion to "throw into the conflict all the energy of his
mind, and all the strength of his endurance"; and
reminded the laity that they were "not free to choose
whether they will take up the cause of the poor or not;
it is a matter of simple duty." These mandates have
been more than once reaffirmed and emphasized by
Pius X. In the second place, Catholic social reform is
necessary in the interests of morality and for the glory
of God; without it millions of men, women, and children,
56 The Church and Socialism
for whom Christ died, will continue to be deprived of the
material means of living decently and serving God
properly. Finally, unless Catholics enter actively and
intelligently upon this work of social reform, large sec-
tions of our wage-earning co-religionists will be drawn
from their Catholic allegiance into Socialism or other
revolutionary and anti-Christian organizations. That
this is an impending and an imminent danger, no one
who is moderately acquainted with our working popu-
lation would think of attempting to deny. Despite the
comforting assurances of complacent optimists, there
exist today in our American industrial society forces
and tendencies which, if unchecked by intelligent and
sympathetic Catholic action, will lead to such a defec-
tion from the Church among the masses as has taken
place in raoie than one country in Continental Europe.
Given essentially similar conditions, history is likely
to repeat itself.
Any one of the three considerations which I have
just set forth ought to be sufficient to rouse sluggish
Catholics to a sense of their social obligations; taken
together they leave the socially indifferent Catholic
without a voslige of excuse for his inactivity.
Ill
A LIVING WAGE
I
"A Living Wage" forms the title of a chapter in
Professor William Smart's "Studies in Economics."
This chapter was written in Scotland, November, 1893.
In its opening sentences we are told: "The last few
weeks have seen the birth of a new and attractive
catchM^ord. Before it has even been defined, it is
already put forward as arguing a claim. . . . The ex-
pression 'living wage' seems to give a reason and a
basis for a certain amount of wage. It has, accordingly,
found its way into every-day language, and we may
expect soon to find that the conception which it ex-
presses has taken its place among the convictions of
many."
In all probability, these sentences describe the origin
of the phrase, "living wage." But the idea that it
expresses goes back much farther than the sum.mer of
1893. Because the idea is so much older than the
expression, it has "taken its place among the con-
victions of many" to a far greater extent and with
much more rapidity than Professor Smart expected
when he wrote the words just quoted. Because the
expression neatly and concretely sets forth the idea,
it likewise has obtained a currency that the professor
never anticipated. Both the idea and the expression
owe their vogue and their popularity to the fact that
they represent a fundmental principle of justice.
57
58 The Church and Socialism
Although the idea of a living wage goes back at
least to tl.e early Middle Ages, it received its first
systematic and authoritative expression in the En-
cyclical of Pope Leo XIII, "On the Condition of
Labor." This was published in May, 1891, something
m.ore than a year before the "catchword" was first
heard in Great Britain. In that document the great
pontiff flatly rejected the prevailing doctrine that
wages fixed by free consent were always fair and just.
This theory, he said, leaves out of account certain im-
portant considerations. It ignores the fundamental
fact that the laborer is morally bound to preserve his
life, and that his only means of fulfilling this duty is
to be found in his wages. Therefore, concluded Pope
Leo, "a workman's wages ought to be suSicient to
maintain him in reasonable and frugal comfort."
This proposition, he declared, is a "dictate of natural
justice."
What is "reasonable comfort?" Evidently, it is
something more than the conditions and essentials of
mere existence. To have merely the means of con-
tinuing to live and to work is not to be in comfort.
What degree of comfort is reasonable? To this
question we could get a hundred different answers
from as many difTerent persons. Each of the one
hundred might conceive reasonable comfort as that
to which he had become accustomed, or that to which
he aspired because it seemed to bring happiness to
others. The reasonable comfort that the Pope had
in mind is m^erely the reasonable minimum. It is
A Living Wage 59
that smallest amount which will satisfy right reason.
One way of fin ling o it how muc'i is req li e 1 by t 15
standard is to consult the judgment of competent and
fair-minded men. Another and more fundamental
method is to interpret reasonable comfort in the light
of man's nature and essential needs. These are the
ends to which any degree of welfare is but a means.
Man's nature and needs, therefore, should indicate
the amount of goods that constitute the minimum
measure of reasonable comfort.
Like every other human being, the wage -earner is a
person, not a thing, nor a mere animal. Because he is a
person, he has certain needs that are not felt by animals,
and his needs and his welfare have a certain sacredness
that does not belong to any other species of creatures.
A dog or a horse may be used as me-e instrameits to
the welfare of man. They may rightfully be killed
when man no longer wants them. Not so with the
human person. He has intrinsic worth and dignity.
He is made in the image and likeness of God. He is
an end in himself. He was not created for the pleasure,
or utility, or aggrandizement of any other human
being or group of human beings. His worth and his
place in the unive-se are to be measured with reference
to himself, not with reference to other men, or to
institutions, or to states. He is worth while for his
own sake.
What, then, are the needs to which are attached this
prerogative of intrinsic worth and sacredness.' How
much of the good things of life must a man have in
60 The Church and Socialism
order that he may live in a manner worthy of a person?
In general, he must have sufBcient goods and op-
portunities for the exercise of all his faculties and the
development of his personality. On tlie physical side,
this means food, clothing and housing adequate to
maintain him in health and working efficiency. If he
si underfed, or insufficiently clothed, or improperly
housed, he is treated with even less consideration than
wise and humane men extend to their beasts of burden.
Since the worker is not merely an animal and an
instrument of production, but an intellectual and
moral person, he requires the means of exercising and
developing the faculties of his soul. Therefore he
needs some education, some facilities for reading and
study, the means of practicing religion, an environ-
ment that will not make unreasonably difficult the
leading of a moral life, and sufficient opportunities of
social intercourse and recreation to maintain him in
efficiency and to give him that degree of contentment
that is essential to a healthy outlook on life. As
regards the future, the worker requires a certain
minimum amount of security against sickness, accident,
and old age. Finally, all these goods should be avail-
able to the worker, not as a single man, but as the head
of a family; for marriage is among the essential needs
of the great majority.
All the foregoing goods and opportunities are in-
cluded in the concept of reasonable comfort. Within
the last few years, many groups of persons have at-
tempted to translate these requisites into more con-
A Living Wage 61
Crete symbols. They have tried to describe reasonable
comfort or a decent livelihood, in terms of food,
housing, insurance, etc. Their statements and esti-
mates have shown a remarkable measure of agreement.
This substantial uniformity proves that "reasonable
comfort" is not only a practical and tangible concep-
tion, but one that springs from the deepest intuitions
of reason and morality.
We pass over their specific statements concerning
the amount and kinds of food required, as these are
too technical for our present purpose. It is sufficient
to say that these specifications cover an allowance of
food adequate to the perservation of health and work-
ing efficiency. As regards clothing, the estimates
include not merely what is needed for health and
efficiency, but t'lose additional articles and changes of
raiment which are essential in order that the worker and
his family may, without loss of self-respect, attend
church, school, and participate in public gatherings,
and various forms of social intercourse. The provision
of apparel for tliese latter purposes may not be directly
necessary on the ground of health, but it meets one of
the fundamental needs of a human being. It is among
the requirements of the mind and the emotions. To deny
it to a man is to treat him as somewhat less than a man.
In the matter of housing, the authorities agree that
the wage-earner and his family require at least four or
five rooms, with adequate sunlight, ventilation, and
all the elementary requisites of sanitation, and in moral
and healthful surroundings.
62 The Chukch and Socialism
The majority of social students believe that the
worki.ignian's v/ife should not be compelled to become
a wage -ear iier, and that his children s^iould not regu-
larly engage in gainful occupations before the age of
sixteen. If these conditions are not realized, the
family is not living in reasonable comfort, and its
younger members are deprived of reasonable oppor-
tunities of education and development.
All the members of the family should have some
provision for recreation, such as an occasional trip to
the country and visits to moving pictures or concerts,
some access to books and periodical literature, in ad-
dition to schooling for the children up to the age of
sixteen; and of course the means of belonging to a
church.
The worker should have sufficient insurance against
unemployment, accidents, sickness and old age to
provide him.self and those normally dependent upon
him with all the above mxcntioned goods during those
periods when he is unable to make such provision by
his labor and wages.
Such are the requisites of reasonable comfort as
determined by man's nature and needs, and as inter-
preted by all competent authorities on the subject.
That V e wage-earner, as all other persons, ought to
have this much of the good things of life will not be
denied by anyone who appreciates tl e dignity and
intrinsic worth of personality. The man who would
assert that t-e worker and his family m.ay reasonably
be deprived of these things must logically contend that
A Living Wage 63
the worker may be killed or deprived of his liberty for
the be :eSt of others. For the right of life, liberty,
marriage and all the other f undame ital goods rests on
precisely the same basis as the claim to reasonable
comfort. That basis is the inherent sacredness of
personality. This sacredness is outraged, not only
when the person is killed, crippled, or imprisoned, but
also when he is prevented from exercising and develop-
ing his faculties to a reasonable degree.
In the next paper we shall consider the moral prin-
ciples which are at the basis of the claim to a living
wage.
II
In the first article of this series we saw the meaning
of "reasonable comfort," as determnned by man's
nature and needs, and estimated by avithoritative
social students. Pope Leo XIII declared that the
workman's claim to a wage that provides reasonable
comfort is a "dictate of natural justice." That is
to say, a living wage and reasonable comfort are not
merely desirable advantages, goods which we should
all like to see possessed by the working m.an and his
family, things necessary for reasonable life, but they
are required by the principles of justice; they belong
to him as a right. To a large proportion of em.ployers,
and to many other persons, this is still "a hard saying."
Ho.v can it be justified?
Pope Leo could not present an extended justification
in a document that dealt with the whole field of in-
64 The Church and Socialism
dustrial relations. Hence he contented himself with
laying down the general principle tiiat a living wage and
a condition of reasonable comfort are required in order
that the wage earner may fulfill his duties of life and
self-development. Obligations cannot be discharged
without the necessary means; for the laborer, wages are
the only means.
The latest ethical defence of the right to a living
wage is that presented by the Rev. Dr. Cronin, in the sec-
ond volume of his "Science of Ethics." It is, in brief,
that a wage which is not sufBcient to provide reasonable
comfort is not the just equivalent of the wage-earner's
labor. Why.'* Because the worker's energy or labor
is the one means that God has given him to provide
the essentials of reasonable life and comfort. When
the employer appropriates to his own uses this energy,
he is bound in strict justice to give in exchange for it
that amount of welfare which the laborer's energy is
the divinely given means of obtaining. Other writers
give other arguments and justifications. Among the
Catholic authorities the differences in this matter are
differences of view-point rather than of principle.
The following argument seems to be more fundamental
and thorough than some of the others.
When we consider man's position in relation to the
bounty of nature, we are led to accept three funda-
mental principles. The first may be thus stated:
Since the earth was intended by God for the support
of all persons, all have essentially equal claims upon
it, and essentially equal rights of access to its benefits.
A Living Wage 65
On the one hand, God has not declared that any of His
children have superior or exceptional claims to the
earth. On the other hand, all persons are made in the
image and likeness of God, composed of the same kind
of body and soul, affected by the same needs, and
destined for the same end. Therefore they are all
equally important in His sight. They are all equally
persons, endowed with intrinsic worth and dignity,
ends in themselves, not instruments to the welfare of
others. Hence they stand upon an essentially equal foot-
ing with regard to the animal, plant, and mineral
bounty of the earth. This bounty is a common gift,
possession, heritage. The moral claims upon it held
by these equal human persons are essentially equal.
No man can vindicate for himself a superior claim on
the basis of anything that he finds in himself, in na-
ture or in the designs of nature's God.
Nevertheless, this equal riglit of access to the earth
is not absolute. It is conditioned upon labor, upon the
expenditure of useful and fruitful energy. As a rule,
the good things of the earth are obtained in adequate
form and quantity only at the cost of considerable
exertion. And this exertion is for the most part irk-
some, of such a nature that men will not perform it
except under the compulsion of some less agreeable
alternative. The labor to which the earth yields up
her treasures is not put forth spontaneously and
automatically. Therefore, the equal and inherent
right of men to possess the earth and utilize its benefits
becomes actually valid only when they are willing to
66 The Church and Socialism
expend productive energy and labor. This is the
second fundamental principle.
Obviously we are speaking here of the original rights
of men to the earth, not of those rights which tl:ey have
acquired through tbe possession of private property.
The rights in question are those which inhere in all
men, whether or not they are private owners.
From the two principles of equal right of access to
the earth, and universal obligation to perform a reason-
able amount of useful labor, follows a third fundamental
principle. It is that men who at any time or in any way
control the resources of the earth are morally bound
to permit others to have access thereto on reasonable
terms. Men who are willing to work must be enabled
to make real and actual their original and equal right
of access to the common bounty of nature. For the
right to subsist from the earth implies the right ac-
tually to participate in its benefits on reasonable
conditions and through reasonable arrangements.
Otherwise the former right is a delusion. To refuse
any man reasonable facilities to exercise his basic right
of living from the comm.on bounty by his labor is to
treat this right as non-existent. Such conduct by the
men who are in possession implies a belief that their
rights to the gifts of God are inherently superior to
the right of the person whom they exclude. This
position is utterly untenable. It is on exactly the same
basis as would be the claim of a strong man to deprive
a weak one of liberty. The right to freedom of move-
ment is not more certain nor more indestructible than
A Living Wage 67
the right of access on reasonable terms to the bounty
of the earth. Were a community to imprison an inno-
cent man it would not violate his rights more vitally
than does the proprietor or the corporation that de-
prives him of reasonable access to the resources of
nature. In both cases the good that he seeks is a
common gift of God.
This, then, is the moral basis underlying the laborer's
right to a living wage. Like all other men, he has an
indestructible right of access to the goods of the earth
on reasonable terms. Obviously, the conditional
clause, "on reasonable terms," is of very great im-
portance. Neither the laborer nor anyone else has a
right of direct and unconditional access to those por-
tions of the earth that have rightly become the property
of others. Such a claim would be the height of un-
reason. The laborer's right to participate in the
common heritage must be actualized in such a way as
not to interfere with the equally valid rights of others.
The laborer's right must be satisfied with due regard
to existing acquired rights and the existing form of
industrial organization.
In the following paper we shall show how this right
becomes the right to a living wage from the employer.
Ill
In our first paper we found that a life of reasonable
comfort implies at least that amount of material,
intellectual, m.oral, spiritual, and other goods, which
are becoming to, worthy of, a human person. In the
68 The Church and Socialism
second paper we saw that the person's need for these
things gives him certain moral claims upon the common
bounty of nature. These claims we summed up in
the principle that every person has a right of access
to the goods of the earth on reasonable terms. Since
a right in one person implies a correlative obligation
in someone else, it follows that those who are in posses-
sion of the earth or its resources must so use these
goods that every man shall be able to enjoy his right
of access without unreasonable difficulty.
From this principle to the principle that the laborer
has a right to a living wage, the transition is logical
and certain. Pope Leo XIII declared that the laborer's
right to a living wage arises from the fact that his wage
is his only means of livelihood. Owing to the manner
in which the goods of the earth have been divided and
appropriated in the present organization of industrial
society, the wage-earner ha^ no way of exercising his
original and equal right of access to the earth except
through the sale of his labor in return for wages. An
occasional worker might get a livelihood by cultivating
a piece of land, but the cost is so great that only those
can defray it who are already receiving more than
living wages. If such an opportunity and alternative
were general, the living wage would not be a practical
question. Men would not hire themselves out for less
than that amount when they could obtain a decent
livelihood by employing themselves on a piece of land.
To assure a laborer that if he does not like to work
for less than living wages, he can fall back upon his
A Living Wage 69
right of access to the earth by taking up a piece of
land, is but to mock him. Such access as he has is
evidently not access on reasonable terms.
For the wage-earner of to-day, therefore, access to
the resources of nature can be had only through wages.
The men who have appropriated the goods and op-
portunities of the earth have shut him out from any
other way of entering upon his natural heritage.
Therefore they are morally bound to use and administer
these goods in such a way that his right shall not be
violated and his access to the resources of nature not
rendered unreasonably difficult. This means that the
industrial community in which he lives, and for which
he labors, shall provide him with the requisites of a
decent livelihood in the form of living wages. On
the one hand, the worker has performed a reasonable
amountof labor; on the other hand, the industrial com-
munity is the beneficiary of his services. In the pro-
duct which he has created the community has the
wherewith to pay him living wages. To refuse him
this amount of remuneration is surely to deprive him of
access to the earth and to a livelihood on reasonable
terms.
It is assumed here that the laborer's product is
sufficiently large to provide this much remuneration,
and that the employer would rather pay it than go
without the laborer's services. The case in which tlie
product falls short of this sufiiciency will be considered
presently. If the employer does not think the laborer
worth a living wage, he has a right to discharge him.
70 The Church and Socialism
Otherwise the employer would be treated unreasonably.
But when the employer regards the employe worth a
living wage, but refuses to pay it merely because the
laborer is economically constrained to work for less,
he is surely treating the latter unreasonably. He
is depriving the laborer of access to the goods of the
earth on reasonable terms. In the striking words of
Pope Leo XIII, he is making the laborer "the victim
of force and injustice."
The reader will have noticed that in the last para-
graph the word "employer" is substituted for the word
"community," which was used in the paragraph pre-
ceding. If the community in its corporate civil form
— that is, the state — were the direct beneficiary of the
laborer's services, if it came into direct possession of
the laborer's product, it would obviously be charged
with the duty of paying him a living wage. In our
present industrial organization, however, the state
permits the employer to obtain the product and im-
poses upon him the duty of wage paying. Therefore
he is the person who is obliged to perform this duty
adequately, that is, in the form of living wages. If
he fails to do so, he abuses his social and industrial
functions; he uses his control over the goods of the
earth in such a way as to deprive the laborer of access
thereto on reasonable terms.
What if the employer cannot pay living wages.''
Space limitations will not permit us to discuss the very
interesting ethical question whether such an employer
is morally obliged to go out of business. The employer
A Living Wage 71
has a right to take from the product the equivalent of
a decent Hvehhood for himself and his family, even
though the remainder will not provide full living wages
for all his employes. For his claim to a decent liveli-
hood is as good as theirs, and in a conflict of equal
claims a man is justified in preferring himself to his
neighbors. When, however, the employer has already
obtained a decent livelihood, he has no right to take
from the product one cent more until he has given all
his employees the full measure of living wages. In the
first place, the right to take interest in any circum-
stances on invested capital is only presumptive and
probable, not certain. In the second place, the right
of the laborers to get from the joint product the means
of satisfying their essential and fundamental needs is
morally superior to the right of the employer to the
means of indulging in luxurious living or of making new
investments. To deny this proposition is to assert that
the claims of the laborers upon the common bounty of
nature are morally inferior to those of the employer,
and that they are but instruments to his welfare, not
morally equal and independent persons.
One can easily imagine some employer exclaiming
that a right of access to the resources of nature does not
mean the right to take as much as the equivalent of a
living wage. The objection ignores the truth that the
access should be "on reasonable terms." Surely this
phrase implies that the access and the wage should
provide at least a decent livelihood. The employer
who thinks that he may rightfully pay the lowest
72 The Church and Socialism
wage that the laborer can be forced to accept forgets
that he himself is only a steward of the gifts of God.
What he calls his product is his, not to use as he pleases,
but to administer with due regard to the natural rights
of his employes.
We have made no formal defense of the proposition
that the just living wage for an adult male is one that
will support decently his wife and children as well as
himself. We have assumed that anyone who recognizes
the claim of the laborer to develop his personality to a
reasonable degree will take for granted that those
advantages are possible only when the father's wage is
adequate to decent family maintenance.
In the next and last paper we shall discuss the money
measure of a living wage and the methods of bringing
it about.
IV
Up to the present we have given no more specific
definition of a living wage than it is the equivalent of a
decent livelihood, or a sum sufiicient to maintain the
worker and his family in conditions of reasonable
comfort. The attempt to define it in terms of money
is beset with many difficulties. Some housekeepers are
much better managers than others in making purchases
and in utilizing them; the number and quantity of
concrete goods that suffice for decent living conditions,
for example, in the matters of recreation and non-
material things, do not easily submit to exact measure-
ment; the variation in the cost of commodities from
city to city and from section to section renders any
A Living Wage 73
single estimate inadequate; and, finally, the recent
extraordinary rise in prices, culminating in the present
abnormal cost of living, has made almost all previous
estimates antiquated.
Nevertheless, the difEculties are not insurmountable.
They can be overcome sufficiently to yield approximate
estimates that will be of great practical value. That
is all that we require in a matter of this kind. We
are dealing with the realm of moral approximations,
not with the province of exact science. While the cost
of living of a workingman's family varies indefinitely
on account of the varying proficiency of the housewife,
we have to consider only the average level of domestic
economy and efficiency. TJiis average is ascertainable
quite as definitely as a hundred other important social
facts. The goods that are required to provide a mini-
mum decent level of existence can be estimated with
sufficient accuracy to safeguard the welfare of the
laborer and his family. The variation of prices over
space and time can be dealt with by making the esti-
mates of a living wage apply only to specific places
and specific dates.
Within recent years we have been provided with
many such estimates. For example, the New York
Bureau of Standards concluded in 1915 that the mini-
mum cost of living for a family of five was a little less
than $850 annually. In the same year a commission
of members of the legislature gave an estimate of about
$875 for the same city and about $100 less for Buffalo.
In the summer of 1918 the experts of the National
74 The Church and Socialism
War Labor Board found that the lowest annual amount
upon which a man and wife and three children could
be maintained decently was $1,386. The cost of living
is probably as high today (September, 1919) as it was
in July, 1918.
Four methods are conceivable by which a living
wage might become universal. The first is the auto-
matic operation of economic forces. Some twenty or
twenty-five years ago this theory enjoyed considerable
favor among economists. It took substantially this
form: Capital is increasing much faster than labor;
therefore, its demand for labor is increasing relatively
to the supply; therefore, the remuneration of labor will
necessarily increase. The fatal flaw in this argument
is its neglect of the fact that a large proportion of the
new capital takes the place of labor, thereby reducing
instead of enhancing the demand for laborers. Ma-
chines are constantly made to do the work of men, and
so far as we can see, the process will go on indefinitely.
The remuneration of underpaid labor measured by its
purcha^ng capacity has decreased rather than in-
creased during the last quarter of a century. No
economic forces are discernible that are likely to cause
a contrary movement witliiri the next twenty-five
years.
The second agency that might theoretically be
expected to raise the wages of the imderpaid is the
benevolence of employers. Only visionaries put any
faith in this method. In so far as experience is a
guide, it warns us that only an insignificant minority
A Living Wage 75
of employers will ever voluntarily increase the re-
muneration of employes who are getting less than
living wages. Were the number of those disposed to
do so multiplied indefinitely, they would not be able
to carry out their lofty design. Owing to the force
and keenness of competition, the great majority of
employers must conform to the wage standards fixed
by their most selfish competitors. A benevolent
majority might, indeed, raise wage rates to the level
of decency by combining for that purpose. Our
readers would not thank us for inviting them to con-
sider seriously such a fantastic hypothesis.
The third conceivable method is that of organiza-
tion by the laborers themselves. While labor unions
have done much, very much, to increase wages within
the last forty years, their influence in this field has been
mainly restricted to the skilled trades. The propor-
tion of unskilled and underpaid labor enrolled in the
unions has always been very small, and it shows very
little tendency to increase. Effective organization
requires time, patience and considerable financial
resources, the very things which underpaid labor
lacks. Not within a generation would organization
be able to obtain living wages for more than a min-
ority of those who are below that level.
The one device that gives promise of making the
living wage universal is a minimum fixed by law. This
means that the public authorities, state or federal, or
both, should enact legislation forbidding any employer
to pay less than the equivalent of a decent livelihood.
IV
THE LEGAL MINIMUM WAGE
Previous to the rises in wages and prices which
began in 1915, the majority of laborers in the United
States were receiving less than living wages. Since
that date the increase in prices seem to have been,
on the whole, as great as the increase in wages.
Therefore it is probable that the majority of wage-
earners are still getting less than the equivalent of a
decent livelihood.
This situation is at once a grave reproach to our
Christian civilization and a grave menace to the
national welfare. It is a grave reproach to Christian
civilization because every one of tliose persons who is
forced to live below the normal standard is a human
being possessed of intrinsic worth and sacredness,
having an absolute and imperishable value, all of
which, as the German political writer Gierke tells us,
was, in opposition to the theory of antiquity, revealed
by Christianity. The most insignificant child, the
most degraded and exploited v/orker, is equal in moral
importance and in the eyes of God to the greatest
statesman or the most efiicient captain of industry.
Because of his personality the worker has an equal
right with the capitalist to at least the elementary
requisites of reasonable life and reasonable development
of personality. When, through no fault of his own,
the wage of the worker is inadequate to this end, his
76
The Legal Minimum Wage 77
personal dignity is outraged and his indestructible
rights violated. For he has an indestructible right,
either against his employer or against society, to the
minimum conditions of a decent livelihood. To deny
this is to assume that men are not equal as persons,
and that some human beings may la-w-fully be used as
mere instruments to the welfare of others; or that God
did not intend the resources and opportunities of the
earth to be available in a reasonable degree for all His
children. Against this assumption the principles of
natural morality and of democracy, no less than the
teaching of Christianity, utter an emphatic protest.
Any attempt to evade the force of this protest by ap-
pealing to considerations of industrial prosperity or
social utility will lack logical and moral validity; for
the exploitation of one section of the community for a
so-called social end means in the concrete the sub-
ordination of one groiip of persons to another, albeit
larger, group of persons. It means that men are to
be treated as essentially unequal. If it is to be de-
fended at all, the defense must be based frankly upon
force, physical and intellectual, and not upon moral
grounds.
This is the individual and the moral side of the
problem, and it would seem to be logically and funda-
mentally more important than the social side. While
society is something more than the sum of its individual
members, apart from these it is a mere abstraction;
while it is in a very real sense an organism, unlike the
physical organism, it exists for the sake of its constituent
78 The Church and Socialism
elements; while its immediate and formal end is the
common good, its ultimate and concrete object is the
good of all its component individuals. Nevertheless
the welfare of society can and ought to be considered,
in itself, as something immediately and formally dif-
ferent from the welfare of its members or any particular
group of them. In the long run, however, social and
individual welfare are interdependent, fostered by the
same means and hindered by the same obstacles.
The injury done to social welfare by insufficient wages
and subnormal planes of living is quite as certain,
though not always quite as obvious, as their evil effects
upon the individual immediately concerned.
The social injury has been strikingly presented by
Mr. and Mrs. Webb through the illustration of para-
sitism. Those industries which do not pay wages
sufficient for the physical efficiency and the repro-
duction of their workers are called parasitic trades
because they draw a part of their productive energy
from the general stock of the nation, instead of from
within themselves. We may distinguish two forms of
industrial parasitism, the mild and the extreme. In
the former the workers, or some of them, are partly
supported by their husbands, brothers, fathers, or
other relatives, and thus are enabled to live at or near
the normal standard. These are for the most part
women workers and child workers. From the view-
point of national welfare this mild parasitism is an
evil only indirectly, inasmuch as it gives to the indus-
tries in which it exists an unfair advantage over com-
The Legal Minimum Wage 79
peting industries which pay living wages, and thus
continually attracts capital and labor from the latter
to the former. The subsidizing of the workers has,
therefore, a very important influence in extending the
area of parasitism, both mild and extreme. In the
extreme form of parasitism the underpaid workers do
not receive from other sources sufficient assistance to
maintain health, industrial efficiency, and the condi-
tions of family life. The chief consequences of this
situation are: the young worker^ who might have
become more productive through training are deprived
of the opportunity; women workers are in great numbers
rendered unfit for the burdens of motherhood; the
children who are born into the families of these ex-
ploited classes are denied the conditions of healthy
moral and physical development, and grow up even
less efficient than their parents; forced to live below
the normal level, the workers are unable to turn out a
normal amount of product during the time they are
actually at work; their total working time is shortened
by an abnormal amount of sickness and premature
death. These facts represent the industrial loss to the
community. In addition, there is a direct financial
loss, owing to the large outlay for private and public
relief to these workers in times of sickness, unemploy-
ment, and old age, and a considerable increase in the
expenditure on account of crime that can be directly
traced to the subnormal conditions in which these
people are compelled to live.
Evidently the national losses that we are considering
80 The Church and Socialism
are not offset by the supposed fact that the exploited
workers turn out cheaper goods. We have heard a great
deal lately about the conservation of natural resources
and the wasteful exploitation of the soil. We easily
realize that the cost of restoring our agricultural land
to its normal productivity will be much greater than
would have been the cost of preventing its deteriora-
tion, and that the average level of prices of agricultural
products will in the long run be considerably higher
than it would have been had the farmers adopted the
method of prevention. The early saving in prices will
not compensate for the later loss arising from deteriora-
tion of the soil. Neither will the assumed saving in
the prices of the goods produced by the exploited
workers equal the loss due to lower industrial efficiency,
sickness, poverty and crime. If the underpaid workers
were able to produce a normal amount of product
annually during their shorter working lives, and if
they were then so considerate as to disappear suddenly,
leaving no burden of sickness or funeral expenses to
the community, the process of exploitation might be
socially profitable and expedient. "Might be," for
the result is by no means certain. But the workers
do not turn out a normal amount of product during
their working years, and they do create abnormal
burdens for the community. By expediency as well
as by morality the parasitic industry stands con-
demned. There may be exceptional industries that
are deserving of a temporary subsid3% but this should
come from the state in the form of a direct bonus, and
The Legal Minimum Wage 81
not in the form of human exploitation. As a general
rule, an industry that is not self-supporting, that
cannot pay living wages to all its employes, has no
valid reason for existing. If its products are not in
sufficient demand to command prices adequate to this
end, they ought not to be produced.
How, then, are the millions of American workers who
are unable to support a normal standard of living to
be brought up to that standard? Not by the autom.atic
operation of blind economic forces; for bitter experi-
ence has compelled us to reject the complacent as-
sumptions of the theory of "economic harmonies."
We have learned that competition, if left to itself,
invariably forces wages downward instead of upward.
Even the late Francis A. Walker wrote some thirty-
five years ago: "There is therefore no virtue at all, no
tendency even, in strictly industrial forces or relations
to make good that great loss" ("The Wages Ques-
tion," p. 83). This was written in reply to Professor
Perry's contention that competition among capitalists
would inevitably and soon enable an oppressed group
of laborers to recover the ground that they had lost.
About fifteen years later Walker applied the same
thought to the laboring classes generally: "Nothing,
economically speaking, can save industrial society
from progressive degradation except the spirit and the
power in the working classes to resist being crowded
down" ("Elements of Political Economy," p. 266).
In the case of the great majority of the underpaid,
however, both the spirit and the power of adequate
82 The Church and Socialism
resistance are wanting. The low-skilled workman
"cannot organize because he is so poor, so ignorant, so
weak. Because he is not organized he continues to be
poor, ignorant, weak. Here is the great dilemma, of
which whoever shall have found the key will have done
much to solve the problems of poverty" (Hobson,
"Problems of Poverty," p. 227).
There seems to be but one measure that gives any
promise of anything like general efficacy, namely, the
establishment by law of minimum rates of wages that
will equal or approximate the normal standards of
living for the different groups of workers. And the
most effective method of introducing such legislation
seems to be the minimum wage board. This is a board
or committee composed in equal numbers of the em-
ployers and employes in a trade, together with one or
more disinterested persons. No employer would be
prevented from paying more than the rates fixed by
the board, but every employer would be forbidden
under legal penalties to pay less. It would seem that
this device of minimum wage boards is not merely
the only one that offers general relief, but would
naturally fit in with and strengthen all partial measures,
such as organization, good will and enlightened selfish-
ness among the employers, restriction of immigration
and industrial education. In fact, a great part of its
efl5cacy would be derived from the cooperation of these
partial remedies. On the other hand, the latter can
never become active, vital, or effective until they are pre-
ceded by the establishment of minimum wage boards.
The Legal Minimum Wage 83
The objections to this proposal are numerous, but
not nearly so formidable as they appear to the average
person. In the first place, legal regulation of wages
probably strikes most Americans as exceedingly novel,
if not revolutionary. Our national constitution was
drawn up, our political institutions organized and our
theories of the sphere of legislation formed and de-
veloped under the influence of a philosophy which
regarded men as equal not only juridically and politi-
cally, but as approximately equal physically and
intellectually. The founders of our government be-
lieved that if all class privileges and all economic
favoritism were abolished, if the legal restraints upon
industry, which had by that time become antiquated,
were repealed, and if complete freedom of contract
and of competition were substituted, every member of
the community would be able to protect himself in
the struggle with his equals, and all would be able to
pursue and attain an ample degree of welfare. In a
word, our economic life and its relations to the state
were, from the beginning of our national existence,
dominated by the th.eory of laissez faire, the theory
that social and individual welfare would be best pro-
moted by a policy under which the state should not
interfere in the affairs of industry except to prevent
fraud, violence or theft. Before long, however, the
people found that the complacent expectations built
upon this theory were not realized; that the forces of
supply and demand did not automatically promote
either equality or humanity; that in the industrial
84 The Church and Socialism
world men were unequal not only physically, as in
the case of women and children against men, but
economically, as in the case of the individual laborer
against the individual employer, and the consumer
against the monopolist. They realized that large
sections of the population would continue to suffer
grave hardship and injustice unless protection were
olitained through legislation. Hence the enactment
of laws regulating safety and sanitation in factories,
laws fixing a minimum age for working children and a
minimum working day for both women and children,
laws in restraint of monopoly, and laws regulating the
services and charges of public utility corporations.
Why should we hesitate to prevent by legislation the
hardship, injustice and social waste due to freedom of
contract in the matter of wages.'* Instead of opposing,
historical precedent favors the method. Down to the
latter part of the eighteenth century, wages in com-
mercial and industrial employments had been in most
cases fixed either by formal statutes and edicts, by the
ordinances of quasi-legal corporations such as the
medieval guilds, or by custom, which was as effective
as law, and as little subject to the influence of free
contract. Speaking generally, we may say that it is
the present sj'stem, and not the method of regulating
wages by law, that is an innovation. Nor does the
legal determination of wages differ in principle from
the other industrial legislation that we have already
enacted. Every argument for the latter can be urged
with at least equal force in favor of the former. In
The Legal Minimum Wage 85
both instances the law is designed to protect one sec-
tion of the community against exploitation by another
section. A wage that will enable the worker to live
decently is as important and as necessary as protection
to life, limb and vitality in the factory, or the safe-
guarding of his income from the extortionate prices
of monopoly. All legislation is ultimately for the
benefit of concrete human beings, and every law is
justified which, without doing injustice to any class,
brings a wider measure of justice to some class or
classes of the community.
The second objection to be considered is that drawn
from the National Constitution. Any attempt to
regulate wages by law would seem to conflict wdth
those constitutional provisions against the taking of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
against any abridgement of the privileges or im-
munities of any class of citizens. Probably if these
provisions were interpreted in their widest and most
general comprehension, as the tendency was formerly,
they would be an effective bar to all legislation regu-
lating age, hours, and wages, and even sanitation and
safety, in so far as these measures were designed for
the benefit of the workers alone. For all such legisla-
tion interferes i\ith freedom of contract ani is in favor
of a special class. Hence Professor Adams observes
that the labor laws that have been sustained by the
American courts are "easiest explained and understood
as a collection of exceptions to these general rules"
("Labor Problems," p. 464). The fundamental and
86 TUK ClILRCH AXD SOCIALISM
far-rcacliiiif; prin?ii)Ie upon which the courts have
pennitted most of these exceptions to and contraven-
tions of the constitutional provisions above mentioned
is the right and duty of the state to exercise its pohce
power in the interest of the puhHc licalth, csjiecially of
the weaker classes. Two observations by tlie U. S.
Supreme Court are worth citing here, as indicating a
dc()arturc from tlie earher tcn<lenry, and a more cn-
hghtfiied and encourauing attitude. In its decision
uj)holding the I'tah eiglit-hour hiw for adult males in
mines (the case of Iloldcn r.f. Hardy) the court de-
clared that in dangerous or unhealthfid employments,
employer and employe "do not stand upon an equality";
that the laborers "are practically constrained to obey
the rules lai<i down by the i)roprietors," and that in
such cases "the legislature may properly interpose its
authority" in the interest of the workers. This is a
frank recognition of the fact that unlimited freedom of
contract is not the unmixed good that it is assumed to
be by the constitution and by our earlier political
philosophy. Neither the public health nor the welfare
of women or children was involve J in this case, but the
welfare and health of a class of male adults, yet the
ccfurt decided that this species of class legislation, and
this restriction of the right of free contract, were con-
stitutional. In its opinion sustaining the ten-hour law
for women in laundries (Muller v.t. Oregon) the same
court declared that "woman is projjerly placed in a
class by herself, and legislation destined for her pro-
tection may be sustained, even when like legislation is
The Legal Minimum Wage 87
not necessary for men and coiiKi not be sustained."
Here is an implicit acceptance of an elementary but
far-reaching principle of reason and common sense:
while Ie,i,'isIation should treat all indivduals and classes
equally in so far as they are equal, it ought just as
surely to treat them unequally in those respects in
which they are unequal. Xevertlieless this elementary
priiK'ij)le of j)roportional justice is at least verbally
contradicted by the provision about class legislation in
the natioruil constitution. Under the infhience of
public oj)inion and a larger judicial outlook, this
principle, and the principles noticed above in the
Utah case, could very well be made to sustain minimum
wage legislation. For the latter is as certainly, though
not as obviously, required to secure genuine freedom of
contract, and to protect the health and vitality of a
class that is otherwise unable to protect itsrlf, as an
eight-hour law for men in mines and a ten-liour law for
women in laundries. At any rate, the amendment of
the constitution is not a physical impossibility, and is
apparently ino\ ital)le if we are to obtain all the legis-
lation demanded by our changed social and industrial
conditions*.
It is asserted, in the third place, that minimum wage
laws could not be enforced. Undoubtedly they could
not be enforced perfectly, l)ut there is no sufficient
reason to think that thev would not be obeved as fullv
'Since this parain"aph was written the Supreme Court of the
United States has upheld the minimum wage law of Oregon. This
1.1W applies, however, only to women and minors.
88 The Church axd Socialism
as the great majority of legal enactments. On tlie
contrary, the proportion of the population desiring the
enforcement of such legislation would be perhaps
larger tlian in the case of most laws that are fairly well
observed. The appeal to the failure of the old wage
legislation in the eighteenth century is not valid; for,
as Professor Adams points out, those regulations were
established by an autocratic minority against the
interests of the great majority for the maintenance of
maximum instea<l of minimum rates of wages; and
yet many of them were consistently enforced for cen-
turies, until the landed gentry began to lose control of
the government ("Labor Problems," p. 499). Tmlay
minimum wage legislation Mould be in favor of the
majority, inaugurated and supported by the majority,
and enforced l)y a symi)athctic administration.
Finally we come to the most important objection,
the one drawn from economic considerations. Those
who urge this olijection do not, as a rule, deny that the
natural and technical resources of the country are
sufficient to provide decent wages for the vast majority,
and considerably more than this for the remainder of
the population. All they contend is that the economic
processes of prodiiction, exchange, distribution and
consumption could not be so modified by the proposed
legislation as to bring about this happy result. Spe-
cifically and in brief their argument is this : An increase
in the wages of the underpaid in any given industry
would cause an increase in the cost of production;
increased cost of production would necessitate a rise
The Legal Minimum Wage 89
in the price of the product; the latter would be followed
by a lessened demand, at least on the part of those con-
sumers who were not also producers of the goods in
question; and the diminished demand would either be
balanced by an increased demand on the part of the
laborers whose wages had been increased, or it would not
thus be balanced. In the former hypothesis the
workers would lose as consumers all that they had
gained as producers; in the latter contingency, some
of them would be thrown out of employment.
The objection looks formidable, but only because of
its bold and easy assumptions and its evasion of the
task of sj>ecific 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 pro<lucts, they would gain
in wages much more tlian tliey would lose on
account of the higher prices that tbey would be
obliged to pay as consumers. In most industries,
however, tl'.e workers would consume only a small
fraction of tl'.e goods of which tlicy are the producers.
By far the greater part wouKl be, as now, consumed by
persons not connected with the industry. \ow, it is
morally certain that the latter would not buy as much
as they formerly did of the goods upon which the price
was raised. On the other hand, it is no less certain
that they would not reduce their demand in exact
proportion to the rise in the price. In other words,
they would as a body pay out a larger sum total for the
purchase of these goods than they had paid formerly.
Some of them, indeed, would take just as much of th.e
goods as before; others would take somewhat less, but
would still expend a larger sum total; while others
would reduce their purchases by an amount fully
equivalent to the increased price. The net result,
therefore, is twofold; first, a part of the increased wage
The Legal Minimum Wage 93
cost would be defrayed by consumers not engaged in
the industry, but w hose remuneration was not affected
by the operation of the minimum wage law; and, second,
there would be some falling off in the combined demand
for goods by these two classes of consumers. Con-
sequently, it would seem that this decrease in demand
must lead to a smaller amount of emplojTnent in some of
the industries afTected by the minimum wage legislation.
This inference, however, is fallacious, inasmuch as it
leaves out of account the increased purchasing power
of th.e workers whose wages would be raised. The
latter would create a new demand for the products of
the afTected industries in two ways; directly, because
the benefited workers would exjjcnd i)art of their in-
creased remuneration for these products, and indirectly,
since their increased demand for the products of other
industries would increase the purchasing power of those
emj)loyed in the latter, part of which would be ex-
clianged for the products of the workers in the industries
afTected by the minimum wage regulation. So many
factors and so many elements of prophecy are involved
in the [)roblem that the net result as to employment
cannot be foretold with any degree of confidence.
Nevertheless, experience, analogy and all the available
indications would seem to justify the assertion that the
sum total of employment, both within and without the
afTected industries, would not necessarily be diminished,
and would not improbably be increased.
Even if some of the workers should be thrown out of
employment the general social effect would be good.
94 The Church and Socialism
Tlie number of workers who would be able to fit their
children for and to raise themselves into higher occupa-
tions would be increased, while the social cost of
lessened vitality and of various forms of dependence
anionf; those actually employed would be greatly
dininished. Most imi)ortant of all, an increase in
unemployment arising out of a lepal regulation of
^^agcs would force the state to face squarely and in a
(•()mi)rchcnsivc way the whole problem of the unem-
ployed and the unemployable. To this we shall have
to come sooner or later, and the sooner the better.
We need public labor exchanges for an adeqiuite ad-
justment of supply to demand in [)lace and time,
labor colonics for those who can but will not work
effectively, and employment in public enterprises for
those who cannot be taken care of by the other two
metho<ls. If all these measures combined should f;ill
short of complete cfTcclivcness, both individual and
social welfare would suggest that the state should
support some of the laboring class in idleness rather
than permit anyone of average efficiency to work for
less than living wages.
In this, as in all other cases where there is question
of the solution of a social problem, an ounce of fact is
worth a pound of theory. Unfortunately we have as
yet no sufficient amount of facts, in the sense of ex-
perience, to afTord as much guidance. What we have,
however, is distinctly favorable. The compulsory
arbitration laws of New Zealand and of some of the
Australian states embody the principle of a legal
The Legal Minimum Wage 95
minimum wage, inasmuch as the rates fixed by the
arbitration courts are the lowest that any employer is
permitted to pay throughout the trade involved in the
dispute and the award. Despite their limitations,
these laws have been successful not only in securing
industrial peace, but in maintaining decent wages in all
the trades afTected. This is the verdict of all impartial
observers. \ ictoria, Australia, has had minimum
wage boards since 189G. They consist of two groups,
numerically equal, chosen from among the employers
and employes in an industry, together with a charimati
elected by l)oth these groups or ai)pointed by the gover-
nor. At the beginning there were only six Ijoards, but
the number has increascti steadily until it has reached
thirty-eight or more. Eleven of these have l^een
established at the request of emi)loyers. Since 1904
the boards are forbidden to fix higher rates than those
paid by the reputable employers in a trade. Workers
who fall below the average in sj)eed or efficiency can
obtain permits to work for less than the legal minimum,
but the number of these must never be greater than one
in five in any establishment. There is a court of
appeals to which the decisions of the boards may be
taken for revision.
This Victorian scheme was inaugurated during a
period of business depression, and has since been tested
by good times and moderately good times. Through
an oversight of the legislature in 1902 the boards were
deprived of legal authority, but so great was the dis-
satisfaction ensuing that the law was quickly re-
96 The Church axd Socialism
enacted. Among the beneficial effects of tlie hoards
enmnerated hy Mr. Macrosty, an impartial witness,
are: A hetter or<,'anization of indnstrial factors and
processes, no rise of prices to the consnmer, and an
increase of both uaj^es and emj)loyment in dull times,
as compared with the trades in which no wage boards
existed ("Trade Unions and Labor Problems," pp.
^213-216). Another competent and fair observer, Dr
Victor S. Clark, declares that "the wajres of all female
workers and of all adult nuile workers are hipher in the
trades aflected by the boards; but the wages of boys and
youths are higher in occuf^ations free from government
control" ("The Labor Movement in Australia," p.
148). Boys get higher pay in the unregulated trades
because they do men's work there, while in the regu-
lated trades the employment of juvenile labor is dis-
couraged. The obvious and urgent remedy for this
condition is to extend the oj)eration of the boards to
all trades, compel employers to pay boys and women
men's wages for men's work, and provide some com-
prehensive plan of industrial training and apprentice-
ship. If, as is probable, the minimum wage legislation
forces the state to take up the latter problem sooner
than it would otherwise have acted, the legislation
will have still another achievement to its credit. Dr.
Clark's general conclusion is that no final judgment as
to the value of the boards is now possible, that while
the law has not eradicated the evils it was designed to
meet, "nevertheless it appears to have mitigated them,"
and that "tlie workers themselves, who ought to be
The Legal Minhmum Wage 97
the best judges, commend the effect of the act."
Indeed, the minimum wage legislation is, according
to the Report of the Select Committee on Home Work
appointed by tlie British Parliament, "very largely and
generally, if not universally, approved by the people of
Australia." The tendency seems to be toward ex-
tending the law to all trades, and this is well; for its
best effects cannot be obtained until it is api)lied
universally, and systematic provision is made for the
uneinj)loyed and unemi)loyable. Dr. Clark declares
that state resi)onsil)ility for a living wage, which is
implied in the Victorian legislation, "logically leads to
the responsibility of the state for employment at that
wage." So much is not necessarily included in the
theory. On its face a law of this kind merely lays
down the principle that all workers of average efficiency
who are employed must be paid sufficient to maintain
them in conditions of decent living, although this
principle undoubtedly suggests that the state has an
equivalent duty toward those of its citizens who cannot
find employment. It is not, indeed, obliged to provide
a livelihood for all its members directly, but it fails
in one of its primary functions if it does not assure to
them the conditions in which they can obtain a decent
livelihood. If some of the population cannot obtain
such conditions in private industry, they ought to be
provided with public employment. For the right to
live decently by one's labor is as important as the right to
life and more important than the general righ t of property.
The Report of the Select Committee referred to
98 The Church and Socialism
above, reconiniended the establishment of minimum
wage boards for the jirotection of the home workers in
Great Britain. In accordance with this rcconmienda-
tion Parliament passed an act which went into efTect
at the beiiinninp of the present year. The constitu-
tion of the liritish boards is substantially the same as
tliat of the boards in \'ictoria. Inasmuch as they are
to apply (jnly to home workers, who are the most
I'.elpless and the poorest paid of En^dish laborers, the
new experiment will have a distinct value. If it
proves successful in even a moderate decree it will, in
conjunction with the experience of \ ictoria, create an
exceediufily strong presumption in favor of the universal
value of mininuim wage legislation.
Some who admit that minimum wage boards would
effect considerable improvement in the conditions of the
underpaid deny that they would i)rove an adequate
remedy. Since the radical cause of insufficient w ages is
an excessive supply of unskilled labor, no measure will
afTord i)ermancnt relief that does not reduce this over-
sujiply. Xot even state employment of all who could
not find work otherwise would be efTective, for the
latter would be unskilled laborers, and their product
must, therefore, be thrown upon a market that is
already overstocked with tliat class of goods. Iience,
the only adequate remedies are limitation of ofl"spring
among the families of the unskilled, restriction of
immigration, and universal industrial education. There
is considerable force in these observations. Un-
doubtedly the fundamental e\ il is an excessive supply
The Legal Minimum Wage 99
of unskilled labor. Nevertheless, deliberate limitation
of the size of families is delusive, immoral and socially
demoralizinf^. Some restriction of immigration would
no doubt be helpful and wise, and a comprehensive
scheme of industrial education, which will not only
increase the efficiency of the unskilled, but reduce their
luunbersby a levelinR-up i)rocess, is a crying necessity.
No advocate of minimum wage legislation contend^'
that it wouhl be all-sufficient. It must be supi)le-
niented by the measures advocated, by far-reaching
[irovision for the unemployed ami the unemployable,
and by legislation that will prevent the exploitation of
the consumer, and the liTuitatioii of o()portunity,
through monoi)oly and special privilege. Moreover,
the adoption of most of these supi)lementary measures
would be considerably hastened by the establishment
and operation of mininuim wage boards. The number
and the grievances of the underjjaid would be forced
upon j)ul)lic attention, and the problem of devising
adequate remedies would become a vital and urgent
{)ublic question.
Since the foregoing was written, thirteen states of
our country and the District of Columbia have enacted
minimum wage laws. The legislation has become
universal in Australia and New Zealand and has been
extended to a very large proportion of the industries of
Great Britain. A considerable beginning has also
been made in Canada. This rapid development and
application of the movement and measure have been
mainl}' due to the favorable results of the law wherever
it has been tried. It is no longer an experiment.
V
MORAL ASPECTS OF TIIK LABOR UNION
Tlie purposes of the lahor union are, briefly, two:
to pive i)ccuniary aid to nieinhcrs in time of sickness,
accident or unemployment, and to secure better con-
ditions of emi)loymoMt than wouhl be possible if the
men acted as individuals. The first of these aims is
much the less important, and tends year by year to
occuj^y an ever smaller i)lace in labor union coiscious-
ness. Indeed, the mutual insjirance feature nuist, as
Sidney and Beatrice Webb observe, be regarded, "not
as the end or object, but as oi;e of the methods of
Trade Unionism" ("Industrial Democracy," p. 10.3).
The common funds of the as>ociation 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 goo<ls that men buy and
.sell. The world is returning to the concei)t of "ju.st
price," which the economist, as I'rofessor Ashley tells
us, "has been accustomed to regard as quite out of
place in political economy," but wliich in the ages of
faith was elaborated with scientific precision and carried
fairly well into practice throughout the Christian m orid.
Interwoven with all the criticisms of labor unions is
the assumption and frequently the explicit assertion
that they are asking not merely what is unwise, but
what is unjust.
Now it is the general belief of all classes of men, a
small section of employers excepted, that the laborer
of today receives less than his just share of wealth
and opportunity. The organized struggle of the labor-
ing classes, says John Graham Brooks, "assumes that
the present competitive wage system does not bring
justice to labor," and he adds that "our society is
Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 103
full of extremely influential persons who say point
blank that labor's protest is in the main a righteous
one and should prevail" ("The Social Unrest," p. 154).
In proof of the latter statement he quotes a large list
of these "influential persons," beginning with Wagner,
the composer, and ending with Leo XIIL Although
the determination of the lal)orer's just share of economic
and social goods is neither so simple nor so easy as is
frequently assumed, the general conviction just men-
tioned is undoiii>tedIy 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 <lei)ends entirely on the point
at which the limit is placed. Indiscriminate condem-
nation of this method is just as unreasonable as in-
discriminate condemnation of the strike, the boj'cott or
the "closed shop." The unionist is charged with
preventing the more efficient workmen from producing
a greater amount than those of medium ability and
with refusing to allow machinery to l)e oj>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
to<iay hut for all future a^'es. Tlie i)ur])ose of ma-
chinery is to improve life, not to destroy it. and the
unionist is ri^ht in so far as he insists tliat it shall not he
perverted from its proi)er function. In one word, re-
striction of output is rii,'ht when it strives to protect the
worker against being comjwilcd to perform more than
a normal day's work; when it goes beyond this point
it is unjustifiable and dishonest.
5. lite Limitation of Apprentices. — Emj)loyers of
skilled labor often complain that the unions will not
allow them to train as many apprentices as the trade
requires. The unionist rei>lies: "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-skilIc<l
labor market" ("The Prol)!cin of tic rneinployed,"
p. 20), This glut vould he relieved to sone extent if
the ctitranco to tlie skilled trades vere iinrestrictr<l.
For those remaining in the ranks of the unskilled \\ould
not l)c ohiiped to eompcte quite so sharply with one
another. And those wl;o uerc allo\\ed to move up
\\oidd receive a c"onsideral)lc hcncfit. In the skilled
o(ciij>ations 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 in<hiccd hihor leaders to su|)plant with
cheai)er workers the men whom the leaders were sworn
to serve, and to foment strikes against coin|)ctifors.
Mr. Baker iiuikes the latter char^'e apainst the Fuller
Construction Company, "the trust of tlie New York
huildin^ tra<ies," whose huildinps somehow went up
without interruption durintj the hi^ IcK'kout a few
years ago. ^^'alkinp delegates of the tyj)e of Parks and
Murj)hy deserve all the denunciation that they
have received, but it must be remembered that
not all their offenses were acts of brutal extortion.
They made other dislionest contracts with em-
ployers — contracts which required a willing bribe-
giver as well as a bribe-taker. If the case of these men
stood on a bad eminence of complete isolation, it could
be dismissed as unwoithy of much attention, but un-
fortuiuilcly it seems to be merely one in a system tliat
will not easily or quickly disap[>ear. 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 hin<Iran<c from "pater-
luilistic" legislation or from the "interference" of
labor organizations. Trade unions were under the ban
of the law, for they restrained freedom of contract.
When philanthropic men tried to secure the passage of
factory laws limiting the working hours of women and
children and fixing an age below which the latter could
not be employed, they had to meet the same arguments
for individual rights and lil^rty that are used today
against the efforts of unionists to restrict the self-
destructive and class-destructive activity of the selfish,
the weak and the ignorant individual laborer. Not all
the crimes that have been committed in the name of
liberty are political.
144 The Church and Socialism
What, after all, is liberty? Negatively, it is absence
of restraint; positively, and more adequately, it is
presence of oi)i)ortunity. \Ve sjieak here only of the
liberty that is called physical. Now, j)hysical restraints
are not all imposed by the stron<: arm of the civil law
or by the muscular force of one's fellows. There is,
besides, the restraint exercised by hunger, and cold, and
the various other forms of Iiclj)lcssness due to the forces
known as economic. Political arui legal liberty are
not the whole of social liberty, for a num may be free
from subjection to a political dcsi)ot and be legally
empowered to enter every contract that is within the
limits of reason, and yet be liindereii by economic con-
ditions — restraints — from making a contract that will
safeguard his welfare and his rights. Since the only
rational end of liberty is the good of the iiuiividual,
such a i)erson is not completely free; he is without that
opportunity wliich is the positive and vital side of all
true freedom. The man, for exami)le, who must work
today or go to bed — if he can find a bed — hungry is not
free in the .same .sense as the employer who, if he fail
to come to terms with this particular laborer, can afford
to wait until next week. There can be no genuine
freedom of contract between men whose economic
position is so unequal that the alternative is for one
grave physical suffering, and for tlie other a monetary
loss or an unsecured gain. AVhenever this condition
is realized, the liberty of contract possessed by the
isolated laborer becomes the liberty to injure himself
and his fellows by heli:)ing to establish an iniquitous
Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 145
rate of wages. Such an extreme of liberty is, despite
the eloquent sophistry of the defenders of individualism*
not worth preserving. It is a curse both to the in-
dividr.al who makes use of it and to society. Neither
the liberty nor the right to do unreasonable things is a
desirable possession. And when the labor union, by
means of the collective bargain, the "closed shop" or
any other legitimate method, makes this suicidal and
anti-social exercise of freedom impossible, it deserves
the approval of every intelligent lover of liberty, since
it makes possible the only real freedom, which is
opportunity. '
Catholics esj)ccially should not allow themselves to
be misled into oj)position to tlie labor union by this
specious pica of freedom for the individual "to work
when, where and under what conditions he likes."
This unreasonable extreme of liberty is no part of
either Catholic theory or practice. According to
Catholic doctrine, liberty is merely a means to right
and reasonable sclf-develoi)ment, and the liberty tliat
does not tend toward this goal is baneful and false.
In the Middle Ages — especially toward the close of
tliat i^eriod — when Catholic principles dominated the
political and industrial institutions of the greater part
of Europe, the two opposite evils of tyrannical ab-
solutism and anarchical individualism were equallj'
unknown. "The doctrine of the unconditioned duty
of obedience was wholly foreign to the Middle Age,"
says Gierke in his "Political Theories of the Middle
Age;" and Mr. W. S. Lilly justly observes: "The
IIG The CinRrn Axn Socialism
monarch vas everywhere houn<l hy j>act.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 recognize<l; hence the
individual was primarily regarded, not as one of a
multitude of ccpially powerful atoms, but as a member
of a certain class. Accordingly the difl"erent clas.ses
received from the civil authority recognition and
privileges — as in the case already cited of the craft
guiUls — which were more or less adapted to safeg\iard
their peculiar welfare. The result was a truer and
fuller, because more positive, liberty for the individual.
Here in America legislation does not formally recog-
nize the existence of classes or class interests. It
ignores the fact that for the great majority of individuals
their class interests arc their primary interests; that
where they have one interest in conmion with all the
other citizens of the countrj^ they have ten that are
vital only to their particular class. The constitution
Moral Aspects of the Labor Uxion 147
seems to assume that laws can be framed which will be
equally favorable to all individuals, while, as a matter
of fact, the balance of effect of almost every lej^'al
enactment of an economic nature is to benefit one class
at the expense of another. As a consequenc-e of this
solicitude for an abstract individual citizen that never
existed and never will exist, so long as men are born
with unequal powers and perform different social
functions, just and beneficial legislation is constantly
j)revented, or when enacted is declared unconstitutional.
For example, the law jiroviding for a progressive income
tax was aiuiullc<l by the Supreme Court as class legisla-
tion l>ecause 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 <lcstructive competition of the helpless, the ignorant
and t!ie selfish individuals of its own.
Criticism — constant and vigilant criticism — of the
excesses of the labor union is, of course, demanded in
the interests of justice and social order; but if it is to
be efTectivc it nuist not only be free from the prejudice
begotten of self-interest or erroneous theories, as just
described, but itnuist be, moreover, based on adequate
knowledge. This imi)lics that some attention be
given to the presentation of the case of the union by
its own members. What is true of every social class
must be fully and frankly recognized as true of work-
ingmen, namely, that certain features and needs of
the group can be understood by no one, no matter how
good his intentions, so well as by the men who compose
it. The failure of the older school of English economists
to take into account this very obvious fact brought
upon their science the hatred and contemi)t of the
laborer. From their high and serene a priori ground
the economists had proved to the benighted English
workingmen that tlie whole principle of unionism, and
especially the contention that wages could be raised
by combination or by any other form of "artificial
Moral Aspects of the Labor Uxiox 149
effort" that ran counter of the "wage fund th.eory,"
was ruinous and false. But the workinpmen would
not listen, and they had the satisfaction of seeing their
position justified both by the logic of events and by
the revised verdict of the economists. "Thus economic
authority today, looking back on the confident asser-
tions against Trade Unionism made by McCulloch
and Mill, Nassau Senior and Harriet Martincau,
Fawcctt and Cairncs, has luunbly to admit, in the
words of the present occupant of the chair once filled
by Nassau Senior himself (Professor Edgcworth, of
O.xford) that 'in the matter of unionism, as well as in
that of the predeterminate wage fund, the untutored
mind of the workman had gone more straight to the
point than economic intelligence misled by a bad
method'" ("Industrial Democracy," p. 653). Herein
is contained a lesson for those well-meaning writers
and speakers of today who feel con.petent to pro-
nounce a final appreciation and criticism of unionism
without having read the principles of a single trade
union or made a serious attempt to understand the
unionist's j)oint of view. If criticism is to be intelligent
and effective, it nuist proceed from a study of facts and
conditions at first hand — or as nearly so as possible —
and from a due consideration of the aims, and knowl-
edge, and beliefs of all the classes concerned.
The conclusion that seems justified by this lengthy
and yet summarj- study of th.e labor union is that the
aims of the union are substantially right, and that of
its methods, only violence, tjTanny and the tendency
150 The CnuRcn axd Socialism
to make excessive demands are in all circnmstances
unjustifiable. When confined within reasonable limits
all the other methods are lawful, both legally and
morally. It is freely admitted that the unions have
sometimes — j)erhai)S correct language would authorize
the term "frequently" — been too hasty in making use of
their extreme, though legitimate, metho<ls, and too
willing to push them to their furthest limits. And
it is always assumed that no one of the methods is
justifiable unless the concrete tlemand on behalf of
which it is employed is reasonable. It must, however,
be noted here that the verification of this condition is
not always as easy as the imionists seem to imagine.
Certainly the determination of the equities of any
dispute between employer and employes can no more
be entrusted exclusively to the latter than to the
former. The maxim that no one is a comi)ctent judge
of his own cause does not admit the laborer as its
unique exception. The tributes sometimes paid to
the working class by union speakers and writers imply
that the members of this class are the peo})le, and that
wisdom and fairness will die with them. As a matter
of fact, some of the worst of the "labor-crushers,"
whether among overseers or employers, are men who
were formerly wage-earners; and some of the most
exclusive and selfish social groups in existence are the
unions that control certain trades — "the aristocracy
of unionism." An abundance of facts of this kind —
to say nothing of the unchangeable limitations of
human nature — forbids the calm observer to take
Moral Aspects of the Labor Union 151
seriously the promises of socialism concerning the reign
of justice and equality that \\'\\\ arrive when the
j)roletariat gets control of the political and industrial
power of the nation. Laborers are no more immune
from error or the liability to abuse power than any other
class of human beings. Ilappily, one is not constrained
by any rule of logic or common-sense to make an act
(jf faith in the moral perfection of the laborer as a pre-
liminary to belief in the principle of unionism. For
the man who is interested in the welfare of the toiler
and who wishes to see our present social order pre-
served, it is sufficient to realize that the aims and
methods of the union are substantially just; that, as
long as religion has such small influence on industrial
relations, the union is the only social force that can
afford adequate i)rotection to the great mass of laborers;
and, finally, that the existing unions constitute the"only
power that can prevent a wholesale going over of the
workers to socialism.
VI
THE CIIURCII AND THE WORKINC.MAN
"Even though it be only n dream, I like to indulge the thought
that some day the Church of the poor will lead them out of bond-
age, and prove to the unbelieving world its divine mission."
The vie^^'point indicated in this sentence is sufTiciently
frequent among Catholics to justify a brief reconsider-
ation of a somewhat liackneyed tojiic. Among the
Protestant churches that display any considerable
amount of vitality, the tendency is rapidly prowinp
toward a conception that identifies religion with
humanitarianism, while the majority of non-church-
goers who admit that religion has any useful function
probably share the same concejjtion. In such an
environment it is not a matter of surprise that many
Catholics should exaggerate the social mission of the
Church.
The Church is not merely nor nuiinly a social reform
organization, nor is it her primary mission to reorganize
society, or to realize the Kingdom of God ui)on earth.
Her primary sphere is the individual soul, her primary
object to save souls, that is, to fit them for the Kingdom
of God in heaven. Man's true life, the life of the soul,
consists in supernatural union with God, which has its
beginning during the brief period of his earthly life,
but which is to be completed in the eternal existence
to come afterward. Compared with this inmiortal life,
such temporary goods as wealth, liberty, education, or
fame, are utterly insignificant. To make these or any
152
The Church and the Workingman 153
other earthly considerations the supreme aim would be
as foolish as to continue the activities and amuse-
ments of childhood after one had reached maturity. It
would be to cling to the accidental and disregard the
essential. Scoffers and sceptics may contemn this view
as "other-worldly," but they cannot deny that it is the
only logical and .sane position for men who accept the
Christian teaching on life, death, and immortality.
Were the Church to treat the present life as anything
more than a means to the end, which is immortal life, it
would be false to its mission. It might deserve great
praise as a philanthropic association, but it would have
forfeited all right to the name of Christian Church.
Having thus reasserted the obvious truth that the
Church's function is the regeneration and improvement
of the individual soul with a view to the life beyond,
let us inquire how far this includes social teaching or
social activity. Since the soul cannot live righteously
e.xcept through right conduct, the Church must teach
and enforce the principles of right conduct. Now a
very large and very important i)art of conduct falls
under the heads of charity and justice. Hence we find
that from the beginning the Church propagated these
virtues both by word and by action. As regards char-
ity, she taught the brotherhood of man and strove to
make it real through organizations and institutions. In
the early centuries of the Christian era, the bishops and
priests maintained a parochial system of poor relief, to
which they gave as much active direction and care as
to any of their purely religious functions. In the
154 The Church and Socialism
Middle Ages the Church promoted and supported
the nioiiastic system with its iimumcrahle institutions
for tlic relief of all forms of distress. I'ndcr her direction
and active support today, religious communities main-
tain liosi)ita!s for the sick and homes for all kinds of
dc|)endents. To take hut one instance, the Church in
America collects money for ori)han asylums as regularly
as for many of her purely rcli^'ious ohjects. As regards
justice, the Church has ah\ays taught the doctrine of
individual dignity, rights, and sacredness, and pro-
claimed that all men are essentially equal. Through
this teaching the lot of the slave was humanized, and
the institution itself gradually di.sapi>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 mo<lern cai)italism, when
the iiu)tiey-leiidor was the greatest oppressor of the j)oor,
she forbade the taking of interest. Among her irorhs
in the interest of social justice and social welfare, two
only will Im? mentioned here: the achievements of her
monks in promoting agriculture and settled life in the
midst of the anarchic conditions that followed the
downfall of the Roman Empire, and her encourage-
ment of the guilds, those splendid organizations which
secured for their members a greater measure of welfare
relatively to the possibilities of the time than any other
industrial system that has ever existed.
To the general proposition that the Church is
obliged to inculcate the principles of charity and justice
both by i>recept 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 pro<luctive business. Both he and the miller are
producers of utility, while th.e speculative buyer of
stocks and the speculative buyer of wheat add nothing
to the utility of any j)ro[)erty — make no contribution
to production.
Pure speculation on the exchanges difi'ers, therefore,
from ordinary trade a!id investment in its efTect upon
the production of utility and in the source of its gains.
These are in reality t^\o aspects of the same economic
fact. It is also unicpie in the manner in which its
contracts are completed, or "settled." I have sj)oken
of the si)eculator as oslen.sibly buying and selling.
In purely speculative purchases and sales there is no
genuine transfer of goods. The stocks bought are not,
in any adequate sense, brought into the possession and
control of the purchaser, but are usually "carried"
by his broker until they are sold. The excej^tions to
this rule are not of great importar.ce and need not con-
cern us here. The produce bought — wheat, cotton,
petroleum, etc. — is not moved an inch in any direction.
When the buyer completes one of these transactions
Moral Aspects of Specul.\tiox 165
he merely receives or pays out a sum based on the
extent to which the price of the goods in question lias
risen or fallen. The mechanism of these settlen:ents
falls outside the scope of this paper. It sufhces to
point out that speculative contracts are settled by a
payn^.ent of price difTerences instead of by a genuine
delivery of goods. In effect and intention they are
substantially wagers on the course of prices.
Indiscriminate apologists for si)eculation and the
exchanges are fond of insisting on the productive
services of so-called si)eculators who gather and store
up goods during a period of plenty and dispose of them
during a i)eriod of scarcity, or who carry goods from a
place where they are abundant to a place where they
are in greater demand. Hence they conclude that
speculation, i. e., all speculation, is useful. Such
reasoning betrays confusion of thought. ^^ ith specu-
lators in the sense just mentioned we have nothing to
do in this place. Besides, their social worth is obvious.
Nor are we concerned with the exchanges, as such.
Their original function was a very necessary one,
namely, to serve as meeting places for those who wished
to buy and sell real goods. They still retain that
function in so far as they constitute a market i)lace for
permanent investors and for manufacturers and pro-
ductive traders. These productive transactions, how-
ever, have become subordinated to purely speculative
operations, so that, according to consci-vative estimates,
fully 90 per cent of the business done on the exchanges
is of the latter character.
166 The Church and Socialism
Now this kind of speculation, as already pointed out.
is non-i)roductive. It creates no utility, either of
time, place, or form; that is to say, it neither distributes
goods over intervals of time or space nor puts them
through any process of manufacture. Does it perform
a social service of any kind? If it tloes, there will arise
a presumption that it is morally good.
Prof. Henry C. Emery (*'Sj)e(ulation on the Stock
and Produce Excham^es of the I'nited States," Mac-
millan) strongly maintains that organized specula-
tion, of the kind that we are di.scussing, is of great
service to legitimate trade. Since the market for
great staples, like grain and cotton, so runs his argu-
ment, has l)ecome a world-market, the large dealers
in these goods must not only buy, store, and move
them, but also take extraordinary risks of chang-
ing prices. These risks are extraordinary because they
extend over a long period of time and arc subject to
world-wide trade conditions. What the dealers need,
then, is "a distinct body of men to relieve them of the
speculative element of their business." The profes-
sional oi)erators on the produce exchanges constitute
just such a class. The wheat merchant buys a
quantity of wheat in the northwest for shipment to
Liverpool, where he intends to sell it some time later.
But the price of wheat may fall before that time
arrives. Here arises the element of risk. To avoid
it, he immediately sells to a speculator, for future
delivery, an equal quantity of "paper" wheat. The
delivery of this "paper" wheat, or, rather, the settle-
MoR.\L Aspects of Speculation 167
ment of this speculative contract, is to take place
about the same time that his cargo of actual wheat is
to be delivered and sold in Liverpool. If in the mean-
time the i)rice of wheat falls he will lose on his actual
wheat, but he will pain on his "paper" wheat. For
when a man sells any commodity in the si)eculative
market for future delivery, his interest is to have the
price of that commodity fall. Thus he gains the
difference between the i)rice of the article when he
sold it and its jjrice at the time of delivery, or settle-
ment. Hence, by means of this " hedge " sale the wheat
merchant is secured against loss on his cargo of actual
wheat. Sales of this kind are a sort of insurance that
lessen both the possibilities of great profit and the risks
of groat loss. It is said that nine-tenths of the wheat
stored in the elevators of the nortliw est is "sold against "
in this way ("Proceedings of Twelfth Annual Meet-
ing of American Economic Association," p. 110).
So much for speculation in produce: s{)eculation in
stocks, it is maintained, enables the small investor to
have within reach a class of men "ready to assimie all
the risk of buying and selling his security, and a market
that fixes prices by which he can intelligently invest."
The army of professional speculators stand prej)ared
at any time to buy or sell any kind of stocks that are
at all marketable, while their incessant buying and
selling keeps the market active and the quotations of
the different securities at their proper level. The
whole function of organized sj^eculation is summed up
to be: taking the great risks of fluctuating values,
168 Thk Cni i{rn and Socialism
reducing these fluctuations to a minimum, and pro-
viding an active market for produce and securities.
Tlic obvious ails^ver to tlie above argument is that
traders in produce should take tlie risks of fluctuating
prices themselves. At j)resent, indeed, tiiey socm un-
willing to do so, because the si)cculators stand ready
to do it for them. But it is dilHcult to see how the
public would sufTor if traders, importers, and manu-
facturers were compelled to take all the risks incident
to their business, instead of handing them over to a
special class. I'nder such an arrangement many of
them wouUl doubtless go to the wall, but the com-
munity would be tiie gainer through the elimination
of the unfit, nesidcs, there is rea.son to believe that
the superior knowledge of market conditions possessed
by the professional speculators, and their work in
reducing the range of price fluctuations, is very nuich
overestimated. At any rate, there .seems to be no
good reason why the capable dealer or manufacturer
could not acquire a sufficient amount of this same
knowledge and foresight. To set aj)art a body of men
for the sole i)uri)ose of dealing in ri^ks seems to be
carrying the princij)le of division of labor unnecessarily
far, especially when these men manage to charge the
iiigh price for their services that is obtained by the j>ro-
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 pro<luce<l
gains for one man mean, in the long run, artificially
produced los.ses for another. But suppo.se that
an advance in the price of a certain property
is due to the natural laws and conditions of trade.
In that case a man who foresees the advance, by reason
of excej)tional skill and diligence in studying tlie con-
ditions of the market, may rightfully invest in the
property and reap a profit that will be in .some sense
the reward of ability. Again, if a man without exer-
cising labor or skill obtains special information that
is not entirely trust\\ orthy, his gains from a speculation
made on this basis might be regarded as the reward of
risk-taking. But if the information is practically
certain, and got without any personal expenditure of
any kind, the morality of gains coming even from a
natural movement in prices will usually be very ques-
tionable. Obtained as they are from differences in
Moral Aspects of Speculation 175
price, their source will in most cases be the pocket of
some one who is not possessed of this special knowledge.
The transaction is substantially a wager in which one
party takes the other at a disadvantage. These are
the principles: in practice it would seem that most of
the profits arising from secret information on tlic
exchanges are unlawful.
To what extent do nianij>ulation 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 <lej;ree in realizing their
aim, or those who utterly fail. Although the latter
do not attain to that excessive satisfaction of material
wants which is demoralizing, their incessant striving for
it prevents them from adf)j)ting reasonahle views of life,
and their failure leaves tliem discontented and pessi-
nu'stic. In the second place, ninety-nine out of every
hundred j)ersons are morally certain to lead healthier,
cleaner, nohler, more intellectual, and more useful
lives if they neither pass nor attempt to pass l)eyond the
line of moderate comfort in the matter of material
satisfactions. Lest this statement he accounted too
vague, let us hazard the assertion that the n)ajoril.\ of
families that expend more than J^IO.OOO per year for the
malcriul yoods of life would he hctter off in mind and
character if they had kept helow that figure. Because
of this general fact, reflecting and discriminating f»er-
sons have hut scant sympathy with the amiiitions of
the mass of comfortably situated country people who
come to the city to "better their position," or with the
desire of the highest j)aid sections of the laboring classes
to increase their remuneration. Today, as of old, the
prayer of the Wise ^lan rej)rescnts the highest practical
wisdom: "Give me neither poverty nor riches; give
me only the necessaries of life." In this connection
the hope may be expressed that the foregoing pages
will have shown the "indefinite-satisfaction-of-indefi-
nite-wants" theory to be directly at variance with the
False asd True Welfare 107
Christian conception of wealth and of life. Even the
majority of Catholics seem to hold to the Christian
<-onception only theoretically and vaijiiely, not clearly
and practically. In a .subsequent paper an attempt
will he made to aj)i)Iy this concef)tion to the actual life
of today, and to indicate more precisely the content of
a rea.sonable standard of life.'
II
We si)eak much about the duty of avoiding excessive
attachment to and misu.se of wealth, but our utterances
are mostly of the nature of platitudes, ^^'e tio not
often think into them any concrete meaning as to
what i>recisely constitutes excessive attachment or
misuse in the nuitter of f()o<l, clothing, houses, anuise-
ments, and "social " activities. Or, wiien our concei)ts
are more specific, they are generally so liberal and lax
as to fit oidy the very few whose ofTences under these
heads are striking, notorious, and universally con-
<lemne<l. .Vs a contribution toward more definite
views and estimates, the present i)ai)er will attem{jt
"to ajiply the Christian conception to tiie actual
life of today and to indicate more precisely the content
of a reasonable standard of life."
• In order to make more concnte the ar;:u merit set forth
above, let us sugpest that if the most costly one-fourth of the
bouses in any large city were to disappear, to be replaced by
dweHinu's costing on the average one-third as much, and if the
general standard of li\ini: of the occupants were reduced accord-
ingly, practically all of them would be Letter oflF. and their
example of sane living would have a very beneficial effect on
the rest of the community.
198 The Church and Socialism
According to tie Christian teaching, man's chief
business on earth is to fit h.iir.self for tl e Life Beyond.
This task he fulfils liy living up to tl e con mardn'ents
of (-hrist and the moral law of nature. As a] plying
to the use of material goods and the satisfaction of
material wants, the moral law n^ay he summarized in
the following sentences. The soul, its life, and its
needs are intrinsicallj' superior to the life and needs of
the l)o<ly. The intcllort and the disinterested will are
essentially higher faculties than the sen.ses and the
.selfish will. Hence right human life consists, not in
the indefinite satisfaction of niaterial wants, but in
striving to know more and more, and to love more
and more, the best that is to be known and loved,
namol', God and, in pro})ortion to tlieir resemblance
to Hi) , His creatures. It demands that man shall
sati.sfy the cravings of his animal and lower nature
only to the extent that is compatible with a reasonable
attention to the things of the mind and spirit. The
senses and their demands are not on the same moral
level as the reason; they are of subordinate worth and
importance; they perform tlie function of instruments.
Whenever they are made coordinate with, or superior
to, the reason, whenever they are indulged so far as
to interfere with the normal life and activity of the
reason, there occur moral disorder, perversion of
function, and unrighteous conduct. Similarly, when-
ever the selfish encroaches upon the disinterested will
— as when we satisfy our senses with goods that ought
to go to the neighbor, when we indulge such passions
as envy and hatred, or when we expend upon our
False axd True Welfare 199
minds tbe time and energy that ought to be given to
family, neighbor, or country — the moral order is
inverted and vio'ated.
Thus far tl e moral law of reason and nature. The
supernatural, tl e Christian, moral law is frankly
ascetic; not in tl e serse tl at it imjjoscs upon all persons
the Evangelical Counsels of poverty, chastity, and
obedience, but inasmuch as it requires men to wage a
continuous struggle against many of the cravings of
appetite, and to deny many desires and ambitions which
are dear to self. Unless the child subordinate his
will to that of his parents, his love of play to the
demands of school, his desire of possession to reasonable
self-discipline, his selfishness and cruelty to the just
claims of his playmates, he will grow into a self-willed,
passionate, and unlovable youth. He will be the
antithesis of the Christian tj'pe. The Christian young
man or young woman enters into a series of relations
in which the need of self-denial is intensified and
widened. Purity demands rigid control of the desires
of the flesh; temi)crance requires careful self-restraint
in eating and drinking; justice enjoins respect for the
rights and goods of others, notwithstanding the power-
ful, manifold, and insidious impulses that make for the
violation of this precept; the law of labor forbids in-
dulging the tende:.cy to idleness and slothfulness;
charity commands the denial of that self-satisfaction,
self-comfort, and self-assertion which are incomj>atible
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 .sclectc<l com-
mittee would probalily show a fairly dose agreement.
The tests of simplicity, moderation, and comjiarative
incxpensivencss mark off the reasonable from the
inneasorial»le in the matter of amusement and recrea-
tion. When these conditions are i)resent all the
legitimate demands of these wants are abunilantly
sui)plied. The spirits are refreshed, the energies are
relaxed, the faculties are recreated. When these
boimds are exceeded, when amusements and recrea-
tion become elaborate, manifold, and costly, or when
they are elevated to a place among the important aims
of life, there occurs a perversion which is injurious both
physically and morally. Time and money are wasted,
energy is expended in the feverish pursuit of new forms
of amusement, satiety and disappointment increase,
and the temptations to unrighteous conduct are
multiplied. Even the practice of making extensive
False and True Welfare 207
and frequent sojourns in foreign countries, while
possessing some educational advantages, consumes
time and money out of all proportion to the resulting
benefits. In many cases its chief effect is to satisfy
jaded curiosity, fill up hea\y-hanging time, or feed the
passions of vanity and conscious superiority.
The activities that are denominated "social" afford
perhaps the most striking indication of the distinction
between th.e reasonable and the meretricious in the
satisfaction of material wants. There is a certain
moderate scale of social activity and entertainment in
which the exercises, the dress, the refreshments, and
all the other accessories, are distinguished by a certain
naturalness and simi)licity. Where these conditions
(which are more easily recognized than described)
are verified, the usual result is a maximum of enjoy-
ment and right human feeling. When these limits are
passed; when the chief concern is about the accessories
of the entertainment rather than the i)romotion of
kindly human intercourse and enjoyment; when the
main object is to emulate the elaborateness, costliness,
or magnificence of some other "function" — genuine
enjoyment and kindly feeling are generally less than
in the simpler conditions, while the damage to purse,
health, nerves, and character is almost invariably
greater.
The foregoing paragraphs may be concretely stmi-
marized in the statement that the annual expenditure
for material goods in the case of the overwhelming ma-
jority of moderately sized families, ought not to exceed
208 The Church and Socialism
$10,000. Probal)ly tlic ran^'c of expenditure wliicb
would afford the best condilions of Christian life for
a coiisideraMo majority of all American families lies
Ix'twceii $;5.00() and $.i.00() per annum.
The attem|)t to state so precisely and to define so
narrowly the cost of livinti according; to the Christian
rule of life will probably strike many as presumj)tuous,
preposterous, artificial, arbitrary. Nevertheless, if
one is sincere, if one wishes to write to any serious
purpose, if one intends to f;et beyond empty platitudes,
one must make .some such attempt and in some such
terms. And the writer is perfectly willing to have his
estimate subjected to criticism, to criticism as definite
and concrete as the estimate itself. He is quite con-
fi<lent that, with very rare exceptions, $10,000 will
scvnx ample to cover all reasonable family ex-
penditures for juaterial goo<ls. When families go l>e-
yond this figure they are satisfying wants which in
the interests of the best Christian life ought to be
denie<l. In so far as the adde<i amount is spent on a
house, its principal effect is to increa.se not legitimate
comfort, but pritle, vanity, waste of time, and unso-
cial feelings of superiority. In .so far as it is exi)ended
for dress it produces the same results, and makes
persons unduly attendant to and dej)endent upon
wants that are unnecessary, artificial, and fundamen-
ally ignoble. In so far as it goes for food, it does not
mean more nourishment, but some injury to health and
an undue attachment to the lower or animal self. In
so far as it is exchanged for amusements, recrea-
False and True Welfare 209
tion, or social activities, the same and other vices are
fostered without any counterbalancing good result.
^Where the family expends more than $10000 for
material goods, the results, except in a few cases,
will be harmful to Christian life, inasmuch as the
senses will l)e exalted to the detriment of the higher
will and thr; reason, the altruistic qualities will be un-
ble to obtain reasonable development in the midst
of so many influences making for selfishness, and the
character will grow soft, while the power to do with-
out will grow v.cak.
The belief that men can live noble, religious, and
intellectual lives in the presence of abundant material
satisfaction, is well called by tlie economist, Charles
Perin, "the most terrible seduction of our time." It
counts among its adherents even the majority of
Catholics. Whether they have little or much of this
satisfaction, they long for more, and are willing to
run the risk of the resulting demoralization. Nay,
there are Catholics, both clerical and lay, who realize
that the majority of their co-religionists whose ex-
penditures are above the level described in these pages
would be "better off" in the true, the Catholic, sense
of these words, below that level; yet these same Catho-
lics rejoice when their friends reach that scale of ex-
penditure. So great is the power of a dominant
popular fallacy!
Perhaps the strongest objection against the maximum
set down here will be made on behalf of "social posi-
tion." Larger, much larger expenditures seem to
210 The Church and Socialism
many persons to he justified and necessary in order to
maintain that rank in society, that place among their
feUows, that standard of living to which they have
hecome accustomed. To sink heloAv this scale wouM
he a hardship and a departure from w hat tliey and their
friends have come to regard as decent living. Now
the requirements of social rank are among the legiti-
mate needs tliat ought to he regularly met, for, as St.
Thomas expre.s.ses it, "no one ought to live unhecom-
inuly." In their discussions concerning the duties of
almsgiving and of restitution, the theologians have
always made definite an<l liheral allow ance for this class
of nee<ls. Let us remcmher, however, that their
estimates and conclusions reflect the social conditions
of the Middle Ages, when the higher conveniences and
the luxuries which ahsorh tl.e greater part of tl.e ex-
j)enditures of the well-to-do clas.ses today were prac-
tically all unknown; when most of the exceptional
outlay was for servants, attendance, and the other
accompaniments of j)uhlic jjower; and when high
social ratd< had its hasis le.ss in wealth than in puhlic
or quasi-public authority and functions. Reference
was for the most part to rulers, memhers of the nobility,
and public officials. Large concessions were made to
their demands on behalf of social position, in order to
safe-guard their functions and influence among the
people. In other words, the chief reason was a social
one; the people demanded a certain magnificence in
the lives of their rulers and of the other wielders of
social authority.
False and True Welfare 211
No such considerations can be urged in favor of the
rich in a country like ours. Neither popular welfare,
nor poi)uIar sentiment, nor any sane interj)retation of
decent or becoming living will justify expenditures in
excess of $10,000 j)cr year. If any serious defense of
them is to be attemj)ted, it nnist be based u[)on the
assumption that any reduction of them would injure
the morals or the self-respect of persons who had long
been accustomed to this scale of living. That any
permanent deterioration in conduct or character would
overtake any considerable fraction of those who would
descend to the .$10,()()() level, is a supposition that maybe
summarily dismis.sed. It is overwhelmingly probable
that after a short time of a 'justment to the new con-
ditions, the "descenders," with rare exceptions, would
be stronger morally than before. The hj7>othetical
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)orhoo<l, there to live
on a scale of simple and moderate comfort. Does
anyone think that he would sulfer any real loss of self-
respect, lienor, reputation, jiuhlic appreciation, or
influence for ^'oo<l? On the contrary, he would ^'ain
in all these rej,'ards. Not the least of his piins would
be his eidiance<l credit for seriousness and sincerity.
And his experience would be duplicated by every rich
man and rich woman who wouhl make the experiment.
Those who would take this stej) would be better off,
not only in character and public esteem, but even as
regards contentment and hai>pine.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 \vor<l on the social aspects of excessive
living expenditures. Beyond doubt, a scale of living
in excess of the maxinunu limit defined in these
pages ren<lcrs the overwhelming majority of those
who adopt it less able and less willing to make sacrifices
for the public gowl, whether on the field of battle, in
public life, or through any other form of social service.
It makes great achievements in art, .scienc-e, or litera-
ture morally impossible, for the simple reason that it
reduces to a minimum the power to abstain, to endure,
to wait patiently for large results. Nor is this all.
For every person who lives according to this pernicious
.standard, there are thousands who are unable to do
.so, yet who a 'opt it as their ideal and strive to imitate
it so far as they are able. Hence these, too, suffer
immeasurable hurt in their capacity for self-.sacrifice,
generosity, and disinterested social .service. All the
le.ssons of history point unhesitatingly to the conclu-
sion that social no less than individual welfare, is best
promoted by moderate living. Colonel Roosevelt
stated this truth in terms that ouglit to be com-
mitted to memory and constantly pondered by every
one of his countrj-men: "In the last analysis a healthy
state can exist only when the men and women who make
it lead clean, vigorous, healthy lives; when the children
214 The Ciiircii and SoriAi.isM
are so trained tliat tlicy sliall endeavor, not to sliirk
difficulties, hut to overcome tl.eni, not to seek ease,
but to know how to wrest triumph from toil and risk.
The man must he plad to do a man's A\ork. to dare
and endure, and to lahor; to keep himself, and to keep
those dependent upon Inm. The woman must he the
housewife, the l!el[)meet of the liomemaker, the wise
and fearless mother of many children " ("The Strenuous
Life,", p. 5). In the opinion of the writer, there are
five hundre<l chances to one that a family will realize
these conditions much more fully helow than ahove
the $10.0()() level.
A stock objection to the doctrine here defended rests
on the assertion that every community needs some
examples of life on a scale of nuiterial majmificence, in
ordor to prexcnt the dullinp and deadeninp effect of
monotonous mediocrity. Precisely why all the real
and solid elTects of var ety could not he had within the
limits set in this paper is not easily seen. The satis-
faction and the ui)liftinf: influence that are derived hy
the masses from the contemplation of palatial resi-
dences, splendid raiment and equipages, and the other
public manifestations of excessive ex] enditure, would be
vastly overtopped by the benefits that would follow
the investment of this money in decent habitations
for the poor, schools, hospitals, parks, play-grounds,
art galleries, and public concerts. There would also
be a decrease of social hatred, envy, and discontent.
At any rate a reduction of 90 per cent in the number of
the existing instances of magnificent living would, ow-
False and True Welfare 215
ing to the comparative rarity of the phenomenon,
increase the impression made upon the minds and
imaginations of the masses.
The argument on behalf of lavish expenditures for
works of art in private residences is likewise of little
value. The assistance and encouragement given
to artists would be equally great if these purchases
were made for the benefit of public galleries.
It must be admitted tliat luxurious living benefits
industry in so far as it prevents an excessive accumula-
tion of caj)ital and increases the demand for the pro-
ducts of capital and industry, but the money thus
spent would be doubly beneficial if it were employed
in works of public and private benevolence.
No direct reference has been made in the i)rcsent
paper to the question of great i)rivate fortunes. AVhile
the.se are a necessary condition of excessive standards of
living, they are .sei)arable, at least in theory, from the
latter, and j)resent a distinct j>roblem. 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 justifie<i v hen it
is reasonably certain tliat the ofTspring will be feeble-
minded, or when ad<iitional children will mean dire
and degrading destitution; for these evils are surely of
as great magnitude as those forms of sickness men-
tioned by the moral theologians. But it must be
understofHl that the rcme<ly that we are now discussing
is abstinence from intcrcour.se, not the perverted
intercourse advocated by the birth controlists. The
latter practice is as certainly and invariably immoral
as murder.
Dr. Knoj>f: 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 appeiidc<l to an "Endorsement of Birth
Control," which appeared as a full page advertisement
in the AVjr Republic, March 3, 1917. About half of
these are the names of women. The majority of the
women might be classified as social reformers. The
majority of the men whose names appear are either
physicians, college profes.sors or clergymen. Most of
the physicians and professors are fairly prominent,
while the few clergj'men are of the ultra-radical and
unorthodo.x variety.
What is the significance of these endorsements.'
What amount of weight may properly be attributed to
them.'
In the first place we note that it would be very easy
to bring forward a much larger number of persons, of
230 The Church and Socialism
at least equal prominence as physicians, professors,
clergj'nien and reformers of l)oth sexes, who are op-
posed to hirth control. The balance of authority in all
the i)ertinent fields of activity is prohahly very de-
cidedly against the views and the i)ro;L:ram of the
contraceptionists. Apainst the authority of the phy-
sicians whose names appear in Dr. Knopf's and the
AVjr liepuhlic lists may he set the action of the Medical
Society of the County of New York. By a large
majority, this association, a few months ago, refused to
endorse an amendment to the Penal Code A\hich would
permit physicians to prescribe for their patients methods
of preventing concci)tion.
The main significance of tl;c "autliorities" that we
are discussing is to show how far wrong well-meaning
persons can go when they arc without sound moral
principles, and when they look at only one side of a
complex social question. Almost all these persons are
greatly interested in the welfare of the weak and op-
pressed, ^lany of them are actually engaged in works
for the relief of sufi'ering and the betterment of social
conditions. Experience and observation have shown
them tliat the greatest amount of physical and economic
distress is to be found in the large families of the poor.
Therefore, th.ey hasten to conclude, the obvious remedy
is small families among the poor, and the obvious
method is deliberate prevention of conception.
This conclusion ignores entirely a consideration
that ought to be primary; that is, the morality, the
right and WTong, of contraceptive methods. The
Birth Control 231
average Catholic husband or wife who is advised or
tempted to liave recourse to these practices will im-
mediately ask himself whether they are morally la\\'ful.
Instinctively the answer will come that they are not,
for they are against nature. They are not, as the
birth control advocates flippantly tell us, merely acts
regulating or directing nature; they are perversions of
nature, acts which thwart the course of nature, which
prevent the ends of nature and of nature's faculties
from being attained. Hence these birth control devices
are all morally wrong. They are quite as immoral,
and for the .'^ame reason, as suicide, self-nmtilation,
solitary unchastity, or solitary drunkenness. This is
the answer that the Catholic makes to the recom-
mendation that the burdens of a large family be avoided
by the practice of contraception.
Now this principle that the perversion and thwarting
of nature is morally wrong, has either become obscured
in the minds of the "authorities" above mentioned, or
has been deliberately rejected by them in favor of a
contrary theory of morality. I'robably the majority
of them hold that there is no such thing as intrinsic
right and wrong, they believe that ripht and wrong,
good and bad, are only names for the socially useful
and the socially harmful. They think that only those
actions are bad which are injurious to society. Believ-
ing that contraceptive practices are beneficial to the
community, they consequently hold such practices
to be morally good.
We have not the space here to show that this social-
232 The CiirRCH and Socialisn!
utility theory of morality is illo^'ical atul false. We
merely point out that the i>ersoii 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', an<l tho.se married persons who have no
children. Of course this argument assumes that the
children will follow the deadly example set by the
parents, an assumption which is abundantly verified
by experience.
If the laboring classes should adopt birth cniitrol,
their numl)ers wouhl inevitably be reduced in the third
generation, just as in the case of the comfortable
classes who have already become addicted to the prac-
tice. Let the farming classes and all other classes
'281 TllK ClIlRCH AND SCX^IAUSM
hccoinc birth c-ontroli.sLs, uiid u decline in the country's
population (except as offset by immigration) would
l)ecome as certain as any soc-ial fact that has l)ecn
estahli.shed by experience and statistics.
This outcome seems never to be frankly face<i by
the birth control "authorities." They prefer to
i^'nore it. hoping that a sufficient numl)er of couples
will sonle^vhc^e be fouiui to i)ro<luce large families and
prevent a decline in the total i)opulati<)n. We believe
that their hoi)es will be fulfille<l, but not in the way
that they expect. Those groups iti the conununity
which will continue to have large families will not be
the comfortable classes or any other classes that sub-
scribe to the doctrine of birth control. They will be
those persons who reject entirely birth control on the
groujids of morality. In other wonls, they will be
mainly the Catholic element of the population. Thus
the fittest will survive; that is, the fittest morally.
This will be a good thing both for the survivors and
for the nation, even though it is not at all the outcome
desired by the birth control "authorities."
Another indication of the one-sided and superficial
view taken by our "authorities" is found in their utter
inability to perceive the disastrous effects of birth con-
trol upon character and efficiency. Men and women
who deliberately shirk the duties of child bearing and
rearing for the sake of ease and enjoyment sooner or
later become incapable of the highest effort. And this
effect naturally becomes more pronounced in the suc-
ceeding generations that grow up in this enervating
Birth Control 235
atmosphere. It is a law of life that nothing worth
while is accomplished without struggle, sacrifice, and a
considerable capacity to endure the things that are
unpleasant and to do witliout the things that are
pleasant. In the great majority of instances the
practice of avoiding large families reduces the capacity
to endure and to do without to such a degree that the
devotees of the practice, and especially their children,
are woefully handicapped in the struggle for achieve-
ment. They hcconie weak of heart, flahhy of intellect,
and inconstant of purpose. To those who take the
trouble to study birth control families, this condition
is as clear as any general fact of social experience.
But it has not yet penetrated the consciousness of the
birth control "authorities."
X
WOMAN SUFFRAGE
In two years the voters of New York State changed
a majority of 190,000 against woman sufTrape to a
majority of 05,000 for it. No sucli reversal of senti-
ment, or victory for female enfranchisement, has
occurred before in the I'nitod States. While it is not
within the j)nrj)Ose of this article to attempt an e,\-
planation of this remarkahle conversion of a state's
electorate, it is worth while to point out that the
majority for suffrage in the Em[)ire State came entirely
from the cities and almost entirely from the city of
New York. At the same election, the socialist can-
didate for mayor increased the vote of his party by
some 115,000 ballots. Undoubtedly the great majority
of these voters were moved by more or less radical
considerations, by discontent with the existing political
and economic conditions, and by a strong but unde-
fined hope that Mr. Ilillquit would be able to reduce
the cost of living and remove other economic hard-
ships. In such a discontented and radical mood men
would be quite likely to support woman suffrage,
especially since it has always been largely identified
with radical movements in politics and industry.
Probably the greater part of the suflFrage majority in
the recent New York election was provided by those
who voted the socialist ticket.
Nevertheless, there is very little danger that radical
movements will attract the majority of the women
2S6
Woman Suffrage €37
voters. In the first place, no such outcome is visible
in states wliere uonien already exercise tlie franchise.
In the second place, women are, on the whole, more
conservative than men, more fearful of sudden and
great chan<:cs, more inclined to cling to the existing
order, whether of the family, the state, or industry.
In the third place, the extremist leaders in the suffrage
movement are not rej)resentative. While a very large
proj)ortion of the women agitators for suffrage have
been and are of the radical type, or the advanced
feminist type, their theories and performances do not
reflect the ideas and temi>er 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<J deficiencies of Catholic cl arities who still
think that all the work can he done hy volunteers.
There is no intention here of belittling or under-
estimating the volume or the quality of service ren-
dered by those noble Catholic men and women who
have given and are giving their time, energies, and
talents gratuitiously to the relief of the manifold forms
of distress which characterize modern life. Neverthe-
less, the persons who have had most experience, and
who are most efficient in these gratuitous activities
are the first to realize and confess that voliuiteer
effort is subject to three insuperable obstacles; it is
Inadequate, owing to the lack of a suflPicient number of
workers; it is uncertain because a considerable projjor-
tion of the workers cannot be relied upon to i)erform
their allotted tasks regularly, at the appointed time,
and in a systematic way; and it is relatively inefficient
because most of the volunteers are without adequate
training.
The need of trained workers who will give all their
time to charity and social service is, therefore, primary,
fundamental, and exigent. We need a much greater
supply tl an we laveof j ersons who adopt social service
as a profession, and who get from it their living. Oc-
casionally the objection is raised that the employment
of salaried and professional workers is a perversion, a
degradation, of the blessed function of charity. Giving
one's time and energy in the service of the poor ought
246
Social Service as a Profession 247
to be as gratuitous as giving one's money to relieve their
material needs. Very true; but the vital question is,
can a sufficient amount of gratuitous and competent
service be obtained? And the answer of abundant
experience is in the negative. Therefore, we must
either have paid and professional service or carry on our
charities inadequately and to some extent injuriously.
Between these two alternatives there should be no
hesitation in choosing the former.
Moreover, it is difficult to appreciate the logic of
those who find, or affect to find, in the services of the
paid worker something unworthy and even mercenary.
It is assumed that the paid worker is restricted to a
single motive. But the fact that one's occupation or
vocation is also one's source of livelihood, does not shut
out the higher motives of action. The salaried worker
can still see in the poor, the distressed and the helpless
God's unfortunate and needy children, can still feel
that in serving them he is .serving Christ, can still
sanctify all his charitable duties by the motive of super-
natural love. Even those who serve the altar live by
the altar, and no one thinks of calling them mercenary
because of that circumstance. Nay, even the members
of religious orders who observe the vow of poverty and
whose time is devoted to the care of the helpless, say,
in an orphan asylum, obtain their living through this
service. Assuredly the degree of unselfish and super-
natural love that is to be expected and that is obtained
from the members of the religious community is greater
than that of which the paid worker is ordinarily capable;
but this circumstance does not justify the assumption
248 The Church and Socialism
that the higher motive must be utterly wanting in the
paid worker. The fact that it is combined with and
qualified by the motive of getting a secular livelihood
does not prove that it is non-existent. Obviously
the paid worker would be able to cherish the higher and
supernatural motives to a greater degree if he were to
give his services gratuitously, but practically none of
those who adopt social service as a profession have the
financial ability to follow this course, any more than
have the members of religious orders. On the other
hand, those persons who have the means of independent
maintenance do not in considerable numbers adopt the
profession of social service.
The paid charitable worker is engaged upon tasks
that are peculiarly helpful to his fellows, and he has
the constant incentive to perform them from the highest
of all motives, supernatural love of God. Few secular
careers afford as much opportunity for human service,
and none presents duties that are more varied, funda-
mental, or interesting. The profession of social service
ought to be very attractive to generous-minded Catholic
young women, particularly to those who have obtained
or are in the course of obtaining a college education.
While the teacher and the nurse are peculiarly effective
benefactors of mankind, neither of them is given as
wide and as diversified opportimities for service as the
social worker. The latter deals not merely with a
single subject, such as the formation of the expanding
intellect and will, or the recovery of health, but with
the manifold forms of distress, with its various social
and individual causes, with the ways and rheans of
Social Service as a Profession 249
moral and economic rehabilitation of individuals and
families, and with a great number of social problems
and remedies. Says Dr. E. T. Devine:
"This calling, from the very nature of the work to
be done in it and from the character of its leaders,
makes an extraordinary appeal to the missionary spirit
of the young men and women in and out of the uni-
versities who have seen the vision of a new social order
in which poverty, crime and disease, if not wholly
abolished, will certainly be vastly diminished, and will
not exist, at any rate, as a result of social neglect, as
the result of bad traditions which enlightenment can
end, or of obsolete institutions which the law can
change."
While we may regard this "vision" as rather highly
colored and remote, we cannot deny that something
approaching it is sooner or later cherished by every
thoughtful social worker. For the latter does cometo
realize that the problem of relieving distress need not
always be as great as it is today, and that very much
of the misery of our time can be abolished. The well
equipped social worker has not only the satisfaction
that comes to every person who alleviates human
suffering, but the consciousness of attempting to make
some contribution toward the abolition of the removable
causes of misery. He can feel that he is doing God's
work in a larger and farther-reaching way than is
open to the great majority of persons outside the
religious life.
It may be objected that the field of opportunity
for trained workers in Catholic charities is very small
since the majority of these cannot, or at any rate do
250 The CiiuRcn axd Socialism
not, emplo}' salaried workers. To this objection there
are two ansveis: first, that if tie supply of traired
Catholic workers were greater their usefulness and
indispensableness could be more efTectively brought
home to tliose organizat ons tliat have not yet come to
realize the necessity of expert service. In the second
place, it is not necessary that the Catholic trained
workers should all be in the service of Catholic organi-
zations. The majority of our Catholic teachers are
not in Catholic schools, nor do our Catholic nurses
take care of only Catholic patients. In several of the
largest cities fully one half of the relief work of the
secular organizations is done among Catholic families.
The desirability of Catl.olic workers to administer aid
to and visit these families is obvious. And it is only
exceptionally that secular organizations would refuse
to employ a trained worker because she was a Catholic.
Indeed, the difficulty is more frequently in finding the
qualified Catholic worker than in finding the position
for such a worker. Recently we were asked by a pastor
in a manufacturing town to recommend a Catholic
young man qualified to take charge of the welfare
work in a large factory. The manufacturing company
had given the pastor full authority to select the person,
and was ready to pay a liberal salarj'. We were
unable to find anyone, and the position has pre-
sumably gone to a non-Catholic. At about the same
time we were asked to recommend a Catholic woman
to take charge of the organized charity work in a large
city. Here, too, our quest was unsuccessful. The
Social SER\^CE as a Profession '251
Catholic workers that we happen to know in secular
charities assure us that there is plenty of opportunity
for Catholics who are really qualified.
Some idea of the size of the field of social service
may be obtained from a consideration of the fact that
in 1915 there were more than 4,000 workers employed
by the unofiicial and private social-service organiza-
tions of New York City. This estimate leaves out of
account not only the social workers in public service,
but all those in religious institutions, Catholic and non-
Catholic. The workers were engaged in a great variety
of activities:
Institutions for children; institutions for the aged;
working girls' boarding houses; homes for immigrants;
other institutions for temporary relief; fresh air and
convalescent homes; institutions for the defective;
correctional institutions; settlements and clubs; educa-
tional agencies; relief and rehabilitation societies;
agencies for immigrants; day nurseries and kinder-
gartens; other agencies for children; correctional agen-
cies ; agencies for the defective; agencies for the sick;
employment agencies; recreational agencies; research
and educational propaganda; general social conditions;
health; industry; education; child welfare; correction;
race betterment; recreation; civic affairs.
Girls in our Catholic colleges are sometimes advised
that if they wish to engage in social work they should
enter a religious community. With quite as much
reason, and quite as little, they should be urged to seek
the cloister if they desire to become school teachers.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIKRARY
Los Aiii;fU'.
This hook is DLL on the l.isi d.ilr s(aiii|H'<i Im'Io>«.
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