, 1891-07-15
THE LABOR ENCYCLICAL.
A BRIEF REVIEW OF POPE LEo's
MOST IMPORTANT LETTER.

A Message to the Catholic World While
Is Sure to Result In Benefit to Mar
kind-some Points on Which the Pop
L. Said to BE in Error.
The ~encyclical letter of Pope Leo MI
on The Condition of Labor, which wa
30 long expected has appeared at last
1t has been read by this time pretty gen
orally by those who are particularly in
terested in the discussion of the labo.
question and most of the leading jour
nails ave commented upon it, though
few Of the latter have shown that thei.
editors We're familiar with the lettel
further THAI that it is opposed to whaI
the pope calls socialism. OF course these
editors have applauded, without reading
the encyclical, because they have be.
come assured in some way that it is OPP
posed TO every sort of attempt to ma
terially alter present conditions, and
thai II condemns the efforts Of working
men TO wrest their rights from capital
ism through organization. That tHcy
have made something Of a mistake all
who have carefully read the pope's
letter n testify; for while 1t
does not, in my opinion, deal with the
subject in a way TO show that the writer
was fully informed concerning it, the
present order is roundly denounced and
the necessity for radical reforms is
strongly advocated. While recognizing
the great learning and pure motives of
the pope, l wish, in a most respectful
manner, to point ont what seems to me
to be some of the mistakes in his letter.
i fully understand that the ~encyclical is
addressed 10 Roman Catholics, and |
recognize the right of the pontiff to lay
down rules for the guidance of Catholic,
but the encyclical deals with secular
natter as well ms religion, and 1 feel
that 1t is not improper nor impossible to
discuss its economic phases without
showing disrespect for the religion Of the
pope.
First Of all, let me say That The Stand
ard, the organ of single tax, did just
what / knew, after / had read the EN-
cyclical, it would do. 1t applauded the
pope's arguments on the land question.
This may sound like n joke 10 those who
believe that, according to Archbishop
Corrigan, the encyclical was largely in
spired by the church difficulties which
followed Edward McGlynn's adoption of
Henry Georges doctrines, but those who
are thoroughly familiar with the argu-
ments of the single takers and have
closely perused the encyclical will admit
hat The Standard is not far wrong when
it says that 1.-THE only disagreement be-
tween the pope and the single takers
arises from his own misconception of our
objects and methods" But it is not nee
essary that i should attempt TO cover
this part of the subject. The editor of
The Standard has thoroughly done that
He also echoes the pope's condemnation
of socialism.
There are many, the editor of The
Standard among the number, who think
the encyclical was inspired almost
wholly by the situation of what is
known as the labor movement in this
country. This cannot DO so, rs the thing
chiefly denounced is socialism, and that
has moi only n greater foothuld in Eu-
rope, but there is its root. In fact, the
pope seems to know only of the extreme
socialism, which is almost the satnc rs
communism, in some parts Of Europe.
he certainly has not argued from Web
ster's definition of socialism, nor has he
familiarized himself with the doctrines
of American socialists. The pope says:
Tho socialists, working on the poor men.
envy Of the rich, endeavor To destroy private
property, and maintain that individual posses
sions should become the common property Of
all, to be administered by the state or by munich
pal bodies. They hold that by thus transfer
ring property from private persons to the som
munity the present evil state Of things would
DO set to rights, because each citizen would
then have his equal share Of whatever there IS
10 eayoy. nut their proposals are 30 clearly
futile for all practical purposes that II they
wero carried out the workingmuu hiHIs,4f
would be among tho first to suffer. Moreover.
they are emphatically unjust, because they
would rob tho lawful possessor, bring the state
into a sphere that is not Its own aud cause
complete confusion la the community
Now i believe in perfect fairness to
everybody, and the foregoing, though it
is just what the capitalistic writers of
our own country say of socialists, is not
fair. The Standard, which is socialistic
TO the extent that it advocates govern
ment control CHATS the world of land,
applauds the Misrepresentation There
are several schools of socialists. They
differ sometimes slightly, sometimes
widely. This is not strange when YOU
AtLACAAlbtl WV ullltltllNt III IltHtll NNN
tens of government, the widely differ
ing schools in which the peoples of the
civilized world have been trained. |
know what are the aims Of the Amcri-
can socialists, and l know that they are
not such as are charged by the pope,
They do not wish "to destroy private
property, I" and they donot maintain that
individual possessions should become
common property" They maintain tina
to the producer belongs the product
and that he should be its sole possessor
or the possessor Of the full equivalent
thereof, TO dispose of as he sees fit, that
every human creature has an equal
right, no more, no less, 10 the gifts of
nature. These beliefs the pope indorses.
Now to those upon which the extract
from the ~encyclical is based: The so
cialists say that those things which in
their nature are public should be con.
Quoted by the public, i. e, the NATION.
state or municipality; that those indus.
tries which can be best carried on 10y
the state should be 50 carried on. But
in neither case do they advocate the nh
sorption by the state of the labor of tia,
individual. II n man is an employee o
the state his wage is as much his priyut,
property as it is now, and the things tina
he may purchase for his own use o
pleasure are absolutely his,
L once asked a socialist what he mean
by public" and private" property
For example" he replaed, "a railroad
functions are of a public c%haracteI. an