Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1888-04-13
less misunderstood. The following are

less misunderstood. The following are
extracts from the article;
1.-The Atlantic cable has so fully ex-
planned the circumstances under which
I appealed to the law of nature
that / hardly like to weary
the reader with q repetition. Neyerthe-
less, ! may SO far return upon the past as
to say that my words were spoken in a
conference-noJ a mere public meeting
and written for use in one of our most
literary, ] may say esoteric reviews. n
y = 1t a hardly be necessary to justi-
fly what l nave said among Catholics, |
might say among Christians; but both
Catholics and Christians arc often not
fully aware of the broad and solid
ground on which they habitually rest.
= = > by the law of nature all men
have a common right to the use of things
which were created for them and their
sustenance. But this common rightdoes
not exclude the possession of anything
which becomes proper to each. The com
mon right is by natural law, and the
positive law of property is expedient, for
three reasons: What is our own is more
carefully used than what is commons;
human affairs Z better ordered by
recognized private rights; human society
is more peaceful when each has his own
protected by the law Of justice-suum
cuique. Theft, theref e, is always a
sin, for two reasons-viz.: 1t is
contrary to justice, it is committed either
by stealth or by violence. But the hui
man and positive law cannot derogate
from the natural and divine law. Ac-
cording to the divine law all things are
ordained to sustain the life of man, and,
fharafnra tho 1iutcinr onl nprnnrintin
of things connot hinder the sustenance
of man in case of necessity. Therefore,
the possessions of those who have food
superabundantly are due by the natural
law for the s~ustenance of the poor. \ y
Y This doctrine lies at the foundation of
the positive law of property in all chris
tendon. 1t exists as an unwritten law
in all Catholic countries. In France
it is the deroit au travail. In England
it is clothed in a legal statute in our poor
law, under which every one has ga right
either to work, or to bread without work.
In the old Scotch lawit was recognized
a starving man had a right to carry away
as much meat as he could on his back.
AL these authorities | give, not by tx
ample OF exhortatien of larceny, but in
proof of the natural right from which
they flow. y y = 1t must be borne in
mind that my purpose was to
justify and elevate the poor law
of England by showing that it was
founded upon the natural right of man to
live and to the sustenance OF life. In
proving this / was compelled to show
that this natural law is supreme over all
positive law. The opponents of the poor
law to evade the main question promptly
seized on the latter to escape the former.
The obligation to feed the hungry springs
from the natural right of every man to
life and to the food necessary for the sus-
tenance of life So strict is this natural
right that itprevails overall positive laws
of property. Necessity has no law, aud q
starving man has q natural right to his
neighbours bread. / am afraid that thos)
who speak SO confidently about rights,
obligations and laws have not studied, or
have forgotten, the first principles of all
human positive law. If the law of prop
erty did not rest upon a natural right it
could not long exist. They who deny it
justify the dictum proprieties-before
the natural right to live all human laws
must give Wny,n