The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1888-04-26
THE POOR AND THE RIGHTS OF PRO
PERRY.

Cardinal Manning's statement several
months ago. as to the rights of the poor
and the rights of property, attracted
considerable attention, and was inter-
preted and criticised in some quarters
as giving color to the theory that in cir
cumstances of need, the poor have a
right to help themselves. In the Amer
lean Catholic LQuarterly Review for
April, the Cardinal has paper entitled
The law of Nature, Divine and Su-
preme" in which he seeks TO make more
clear the doctrine of the Catholic church
on this important subject. He lays
down the following general principles:
|. By, the law. of nature all men
have a common right to the use of
things. whichlw created for them and
their sustenance.
III. But this common right does not
eXcludeIthe'possessioni of anything which
becomes proper to each. The common
right is by natural law, and the positive
law OF property is eXpedient for three
reasons:
l.. What is our own is more carefully
used than what is common.
2. Human affairs. are better ordered
by recognized private rights.
3. Human society is more peaceful
when each has his own. protected by
the law of justice, sum cuiqste.
LII. Theft, therefore, is always a sin,
for two reasons:
|. 1t is contrary to justice.
2. 1t is committed either by stealth
or by violence.
He proceeds to argue that the human
and positive laws cannot derogate from
the natural and Divine law; and that,
according to the latter, all things are or
dained to sustain the life of man, and
therefore the division and appropriation
of things connOt hinder the sustenance
OF man in case of necessity. He states
this principle still more plainly in the
declaration that the possessions of those
who have food superabundantly ARE
due by the natural law for the susie
nance of the poor Quoting the faith
ers of the church upon this point, he
goes on to say:
This doctrine lies at the foundation of
the positive law of property in all
Christendom. 1t exists as an unwritten
law in all Catholic countries; in France
it is the drOH IN trdUdH in England it is
clothed in legal statute in our Poor
Law, under which every one has a right
either to work or ito bread without
work. In the old Scotch law, it was
recognized under the title of Burden
sech: A starving man had right to
carry away as much meal as he could
on his back. All these authorities |
give, not by way of example or exhor-
tation TO larceny, but in proof of the
natural right from which they flow.
1t is not surprising, perhaps, that the
view. thus expounded when given more
concisely on the former occasion, was
misunderstood. Rightly interpreted
and restricted, the Cardinals doctrine
is not harmful. It's simply statement
of the principle which gives organized
society, through the government, which
is its expression and its agent, the right
to tax the rich to relieve the extreme
necessities of the poor-that is to say, to
levy poor rates" and provide for the
support of the helpless. The right of
the individual poor man to be Judge of
his own necessities, and to attempt, by
larceny, and perhaps by violence, to
collect dues" from the superabundance
of the individual rich man is quite an
other thing; and neither the Cardinal
nor the church for which he speaks can
be fairly quoted in defense oft. Yet,
when there is a case Of starvation or a
close approach to it, and there is lar
ceny of food merely to sustain life, the
sentiment of average humanity, what
ever our theories or statutes may be,
will not bear heavily upon the offender.