The Irish standard., 1911-02-04

to get larger and more complete
| idea of the vital questions of the day.
WHAT is YOUR OPINION?
An interesting ethical question is
being discussed in the columns Of the
Irish Ecclesiastical Review and the
London Tablet. The circumstances
which lead up to it was briefly this:
Two sisters, members of the same or
der bought return tickets at a rail-
way station. They found when they
had reached their destination they
were not to return. They forthwith
gave their tickets which were marked
mot transferable" to two other sisters
who used them. The sisters then be.
came disturbed in conscience about
the morality of their act and they con.
suited the Irish Ecclesiastical Record
of Dublin to know whether or not the
order was bound to make restitution to
the railroad company.
Rev. J. M. Hartz, professor in May
MONTH College, where the Irish Eccle-
astical Record is published, took the
question under consideration and gave
a reply in which he maintained that
the order was bound in justice to pay
the railroad company the difference
in the cost of two return tickets and
four single passage tickets. Father
Hartz reasoned that in contracts such
as are made between the purchaser
OF ticket and a railway company
members of a religious order must be
considered the same as ordinary i'll
dividuals, that it matters not whether
one person bought all the tickets and
distributed them or each bought his
own, the contract existed between the
holder Of the ticket and the company
From these considerations Father
Hartz concluded that the order was
bound to pay the railway company a
balance equal to the difference be-
tween four single passage tickets and
two return tickets.
A writer in the London Tablet takes
exception to Father Hartz's answer,
contending that when the sisters
Bought the tickets they intended to
use them for the return journey and
the fact that they were prevented from
returning did not mean that they should
throw away the return portion. This
writer states further that although the
tickets were marked mot transfer
rible" the sisters did not enter into a
contract with the railway company
not to transfer them.
The question hinges on the reason
ableness of the contract which exists
between a purchaser of a ticket and
the company from whom the ticket
is bought. In order for the contract
to be reasonable the railroad company
should be willing, in case purchaser
Of a return ticket found he could not
return, Gas happened with the sisters
in question: to refund to the purchaser
the balance above the cost of one
way ticket. If the railway company
refused to do this, then the person who
purchased return ticket in good
faith ought to be justified in ignoring
the mot transferable" clause.
However, there is question of more
practical importance which does not
seem to receive the consideration that
is it's due. We refer to the practice Of
those people who when they know
they can "work conductor" as they
say, hand him a dollar or two and the
entire distance of his division which
ride would have cost them several
dollars had they paid at the regular
rate. There is no question about the
morality of this act. The only ques-
ton is the degree of the offense. Yet
there are many upright, honest men
who do not hesitate to ride in this
way, justifying themselves on the plea
that the corporation against which
they are offending is itself not scrupul-
GUS about wronging the people. There
may be truth in this but while it may
have weight in determining the gravity
of the offense, it does not justify the
offender. The way to deal with an
offender is not to descend to his meth
DDS but to proceed according to the
law which you would like to have him
observe.
Justin Mccarthy, the historian and
author of "A History Of Our Own
Times" THE Four Georges" and