Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-02-01
BISHOP NEWMAN ON WEALTH.

BISHOP NEWMAN ON WEALTH.
The Rev. John P. Newman contributes to
our list of special articles disquisltion on
the divinity of riches. Though enumerating
some general and important truths, this AZ
ticle fails to recognize the real causes of dis
content at the accumulation of vast fortunes.
This is not inconsistent with Bishop New
mans character; but it is hardly possible to
pass such an exploitation of the nobility of
wealth without pointing out what is the
foundation of truth in it.
1t may be presumptuous to dispute with
divine of Bishop Newman's standing the ac-
curacy of his assertion that wealth is OBJ
tanned by a God-given faculty, and the
acquisition and management of it ''the
noblest of missions" But the Bishop does
not number among the articles of his de-
nominational theology the right to render
ez cdthedrd judgments on social topics. 1t
is therefore possible to compare his asser-
tions with the utterances of the Founder
of the religion which he processes.
When we find there such commands
to the disciples of Christianity as LAY not
up treasure for yourselves on earth," and
"Sell all thou hast, and give unto the poor"
it is possible to conclude that the clerical
statement of the divinity of wealth is over
drawn. 1t is true, that in one sense wealth
is the divinity worship by too great por-
ton of our civilization. But it is in ex-
actly that sense that the Teacher whom the
Bishop processes to follow, spoke of it when
hedeclared the impossibility of serving both
God and Mammon.
On the other hand the right of the person,
who, by industry and foresight has obtained
property, to enjoy and control it, is, as the
Bishop says, one of the fundamental feat
ures of society. Without it industry and
frugaliry would have no reward. But it
should be noted, first, that the exercise of
the right, simply to gain wealth by such
qualities, without infringing upon the rights
of others, or obtaining any special privileges
above the masses, would not create many
immense fortunes, such as mark the present
social era; and second, that the real COM
plant against wealth to-day is against that
class of it that is created and exalts itself
by violating the right of the common peo-
pie to enjoy the fruits of their own industry.
Thus it is easy to see that the as
sociation of capital in the incorporated
form leads thousand or ten thousand peo-
pie to unite their savings to the average
amount of thousand dollars apiece, which
may be benefcially used in some incor-
porated enterprise. If some person, by the
well-known processes of stock manipula-
tion, inside rings, railway Determinations,
or the alienation of pools and cut-throat
wars, succeeds in freezing them out until
they sell their stock at one-half or one-tenth
its honest value, it is plain that the natural
right of property, whether il is divine or
not, has been wantonly violated, and that a
great fortune has been built up by such a
violation.
Bishop Newman is quite right in saying
that the complaint is against the aristocracy
of wealth, and that a great deal of the COM
plant is irrational and unreasoning. But
he fails to perceive that the real aristocracy
of wealth consists in its use of unjust and
illegal privileges for its creation and
aggrandisement; and, next, that the COM
founded on the dimly comprehended truth,
that wealth created by such means takes
away from the masses the right to enjoy the
full reward of their own industry. 1t is
true also that the exercise of the faculties
which create wealth, if governed by the
well-established principles of law. con.
fer as great benefit on the public al
large as on the person who makes
fortune by his enterprise or invention
The man who makes two blades of grass
grow where one grew before on a scale mul.
tiplied by millions is a public beneiactor
He deserves the wealth he can gain by thai
process. But suppose that instead of thai
he finds means of gaining riches by max
ing only one blade of grass grow where two
might grow. what is he? Or to illustrate
the same principle, let US take an invention
to facilitate the cheap inter-communicatior
of the public like long distance telephony
The wealth gained by putting that invention
into operation would be legitimate and :
public benefit; but it is not too much to say
that the wealth gained by suppressing it, il
the interest of great monopoly, is publi
injury and wrong.
| The great fact that should be fully under
stood, in this connection, is that whel
wealth. th.represents no such illegitimate gain
at the cost of the masses it will have NJ
reason to fear the attacks of socialism or th
discomfort of the masses. But as the major
ity of our notably great fortunes represen
exactly such methods, it may occur to other
beside Bishop Newman that the complaint
of the masses, though blind and irrational
are not altogether without foundation.