Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-08-22

the right of private ownership, Dy acquiring and permanently possess
 ing as his own, what is necessary for
 immediate consumption, but also what may be over and above present
 necessities. Indeed, without this lat ter right of laying aside something of
 the fruits of his labor, it is not easy
 to understand how the individual as| such can fulfill his natural obligation,
 And his obligation comes to him in this respect as an individual and not simply as a member of society.
 The natural right of proprietor
 ship is perhaps more forcibly eyi- dent when we consider man as the
 father, the natural guardian and pro- wider of the family. By his own nat
 ural inclination as we'll as by divine
 ordination he keeps up the preserva- tion of the human race by procrea-
 tion. If this were not so, soon there
 would be no need of socialism nor
 any other ism. It is his natural duty
 to provide for those whom he brings
 into existence. Even the most pro
 nounces socialist recognizes this nat
 ural obligation. And the obligation
 is primary with him, that is it is
 first his before anybody's else. But
 this natural obligation he cannot full
 fill without the right of acquiring
 and possessing in order that the fam fly needs may be looked for in the
 contingency of sickness or accident
 which would leave him incapacitated
 for labor. When such cases do hap
 pen to the prodigal and the unthrifty
 we see the sad result in the suffering
 and privation to which children are
 subjected and the socialist would de- spoil the father of this natural right
 to fulfil a natural obligation. Nor
 can the force of this reasoning be
 weakened by the socialistic conten-
 tion that the state would provide in these circumstances? As has been said, the obligation comes primarily to the parent, for the man and the : family are logically and chronologi- cally anterior to the state. AS Leo XIII said in his encyclical "Rerum Novarum" the man is older than the commonwealth; wherefore he should have the right to life and the suste- nance of the body before any com monwealth was formed" Since the obligation comes primarily to the man and is anterior to that of the state, so also the right belongs first to the man as an individual as a nat. ural right, and cannot in justice bt taken away by the state save wher circumstances demand it.
 Moreover, it is an open question i l intervention on the part of the stat would not be detrimental to man. l : would certainly restrict his indi I vidual activity for but few men vii : be found to labor if the profits o | their labor are to be confiscated. No U Is it in human nature for man to la bor if the state is going to provide fo Il his necessities. State socialism tend to restrict individual liberty. AS d.
 Tourville intimates in his "L Science Sociale" it is certain from ex s perience that the citizens of thos II countries enjoy a greater measure o T. liberty who place their reliance. upol ls their own force than upon depend II ence on the state. And no better ex e ample have we of the fact than ou ID own United States that the best pro s' tector of individual liberty is tn ;. right of private proprietorship. Fui U thermore an undue intervention o ss the part of the state leads easily sl state tyranny and we have an el ;. ample of that right in our own cit IT of Waterbury in our dealings wit ~ railroads and trolleys. Unnecessar ,n state intervention leaves the dot ID wide open to disputes and contel ss ss tions that do not make for the con " mon welfare and that fact is abunt H antly evidenced in the various con oi munities founded by Owen and Cab, II |, which f1ourished for time but SOC ,uo ,o died out. He who would gain a clea ,n U CT knowledge on the subject would
 we'll to consult w. H. Mallock's s ,u cial Equality.
 -, It would therefore seem that n S only the individual good but also u ~ good of society as whole deman v, the right of private proprietorsh " a and that, not only because of t =, greater measure of liberty allow ,, and the greater incentive to indivi ., r ual activity. but also because of h, more just distribution of gooC s which calls for distribution propC ta donate to the measure of causal. IsI fiuence of whatsoever kind each O ,,a may bestow. It is not here deni
 ts that there are some injustices in t os matter of proportioning gains. s,n ever has and ever will be so. But ,h- is held that ordinarily in the theo nIs of private ownership there is { lnt least unjust distribution of goo ,a, The capitalist indeed receives mo ,bs because he contributes more; | ri- means by which riches are increas rs the danger of chance that Is
 alone, the intellectual labor nee tbe sary to make his business increa bv The workman receives less because he contributes less and ordinarily nal ceives a salary In proportion to tbe social worth and. exceptional ca lso apart, where he is thrifty and ind
 of trious and temperate he is able to ms by something. In many cases his 3ut ability to profit by the wages p hal him Is due to his own prodigality,
 of his sporting procliyities. to his ga md bling instincts, to his intemperai hat and in too many instances to his c ich suming desire to initiate the rich { tur. live in a manner far beyond
 we means at his disposal.
 ain In any case the existing unequal pri- cannot be taken away by social yell without lowering the dignity of m
 of hood. There are but three ways fin distributing goods in the econo
 svsfem The first Is accnrdinR