Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1888-04-12
WHEN YOU MAY STEAL.
CARDINAL MANNING EXPLAINS THE
LAW OF NATURE.

The Right to Bread OAe of the InaIienable
Privileges of Mankind, which the Law
Of Property Can Not Invaiidate--A starry
ing Man Can Appropriate His Neighbours
Bread-The Argument.
BALTIMORE, Nd, April l2-The April
number of the American Catholic Quarterly
Review, OF Philadelphia, viii contain a paper
from the pen Of Cardinal Manning entitled;
'SFhe Law Of Nature Divine and Supreme"
| The article was written for the purpose of
making more clear the doctrine of the Roman
| Catholic church regarding the rights Of the
poor as stated by the cardinal last January,
and which has been more or less misunder-
stood. The following are extracts from the
articles
at can hardly DO necessary to justify
what have said among Catholics, l might
even say among Christians; but both Catho-
lies and Christians are often not fully aware
of the broad and solid ground on which they
habitually rest | will, therefore, draw out
in full what the other day | gave only in
reference do this not out of pedantry, but
out Of prudence, for some good men may for
want of knowledge, he misled.
/. "By the law of nature all men have com
! mon right to the use of things which were
| created for them and their sustenance
~. But this common right does not exclude
the possession of anything which becorrS's
proper to each. The common right is by
natural law and the positive law Of property
is expediont for three reasons: (a) What il
our own is more carefully used than what is
common. (b) Human affairs are better or
dered by recognized private rights. (c) HUI
man society is more peaceful when each has
his own, protected by tho Jaw OF Justice;
Sum cuique
20. Theft, therefore, is always "a sin, for
two reasons: ta) 1t is contrary to justice
o. 1t is committed either by stealth or by
violence,
But the human and positive law cannot de-
rogate from the natural and divine law Ac'
cording to the divine law all things are or
dained to sustain the life of man, and there
fore the division and appropriation of things
cannot hinder the sustenance of man in case
of necessity, Therefore the possessions of
those who have food superabunAantly are
due by the natural law for the sustenance of
the poor.
"1his doctrine lies at the foundation of the
positive law Of property in ill Christendom.
1t exists as unwritten law in all Catholic
countries; in France it is the droit au trav-
all; in England it is clothed in legal statute
in our poor law, under which every one has
IA right either to work or to bread without
WOTh. Ill lue Olu StOlCn law IL was TCcOR-
nized under the title of burdcnsech: A
starving man had right to carry away as
much meal as he could on his back.
Gan these authorities give, not by way of
example or exhortation to larceny, but in |
proof of the natural right from which they |
flow - 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 life and TO the sustenance of life. prov
ing 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 lat
ter 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 sustenance
of life. So strict is this natural right that it
prevails over all positive laws of property
Necessity has no law and starving man has
n natural right to his neighbours bread. l am
afraid that those who speak so confidently
about rights obligations. and laws have not
studied, Or have forgotten, the first principles
of all human positive law. II the law of
did not rest upon a natural right it
could not long exist They who deny it
justify the dctum: La propriete c'est le vol
Before the natural right to live all human
laws must give way"