The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-02-09

many OF our mercantile establishments
Christian men and women, serving as
book-keepers and salaried clerks, whose
wages have been cut down and cut
down, until there is not one of them who
does not certainly Judge" that he or she
deserves more than the salary received
They are prudent, conscientious, and
fit to Judge rightly" Now teach them
that under these circumstances, to which
they are compelled to submit by the ne
cessity of keeping the wolf from TIE door
they may help themselves secretly to
enough to make up what in their honest
and prayerful judgment their labor is
worth, and, as | said in my letter on
morals, what state of things we shall
have The whole principle is utterly
wrong-rotten to the core-viz, that a
man may use unlawful means 70 possess
himself of what is lawfully his. And
Bishop Keane has Internationally, let
us hope) committed himself to this prin-
ciple when he speaks of it as "having
been proved that what a servant has
lawfully earned, lawfully belongs to
him; and that, if he is defrauded of it,
and has no other way to obtain it, he
can take it without theft" For admitting
for the present that compensation above
that which he has distinctly agreed upo,a
is lawfully his, "a principle which cannot
possibly stand), yet the means-taking
secretly and deceitfully without his mas
ter knowledge or consents unlawful
both In the eyes of God and man. The
money which a man has borrowed from
me and refuses to return, may be law
fully mine, but l have no right to steal
his pocF book, or rob his money drawer
in order to get it back. And still less
right has servant to put his own es-
innate on his services and then secretly
rob his employer of enough to make that
estimate good. Liguori may not call it
stealing, and Bishop Keane may not but
do, and so all my readers, 1 think.
And here L must take occasion to say
that the Bishops treatment of this whole
points (unlntentionally, let us hope J very
partizan. He leaves the impression that
the proposition of Innocent XT, was con.
demned because of the principle involved
which would "open the door to thiev-
ing. But what does Liguori say? He
says it twas Justly prescribed, because it
was expressed IN too general terms" mi
mas ge,,eraliter Oquebatar.) Not lat the
principle was wrong, but the language
was not guarded enough And to show
how these Jesuits maintain the principle of
the condemned proposition, while dis
carding its technical language, ask leave
to quote the proposition with its context
as given by Liguori:
Note here the 37th proposition of In
nocent XI, which said, Servant men and
women may steal (occulta su7v5pere) from
their own masters for the purpose of
compensating themselves for their own
labor which they judge to be greater than
the salary they receive Salmo and
others speaking of this condemned pro-
position, say (l) that if the servant,
freely without any necessity agrees with
his lord for inferior wages, he cannot
afterwards make himself any compensa-
ton. 1t is otherwise however, if neces-
sarily, for the purpose of alternating his
too great distress, he agrees for a salary
notably less than just, the reason being
that they do not understand the pontif
cial DEGREES to bind the servant uniustlv.
So Saline, Viva, Lessius, Suarez, Moliva.
etc, Croix (alone) opposes, saying that
the servant can steal (Surrlpere) nothing
at all after the agreement is made, be-
cause he then gives up his own right.
But 1T is answered that when the servant
is forced by his poverty to make the con-
tract, then he does not give up his. right
willingly, but of compulsion, and SO his
poverty cannot excuse the master from
paying him at Least the lowest (custom
ary) wages: and when the servant un-
der stress of necessity has made an agree
ment at low price, he may compensate
himself up to the lowest Customary price
(lntfnaa1na pretium)"
Here, notwithstanding all Bishop
Keanes beautiful patchwork to cover Ii
guori's deformity, the rottenness of his
system still appears. The principle is
the same. A man may unlawfully and
covertly take what in his Judgment his
labor is worth. 1t is limited to cases in
which servant or employee has been
forced to make what he considers hard
bargain by the stringency of his circum-
stances. How few of our domestic SER
wants would be servants at all, but for
the pinching of necessity How few who
have not agreed to wages which they
consider too low under the same neces-
sity. Practically, Liquors. teaching
opens the door to thieving, as truly as
the proposition condemned by Innocent
Xl. The only way to close the door +o