The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1913-01-18
THE TITLE TO WEALTH.
Fundamental FaIIacy in Program Of
Religion Elaborated by Joseph FeIs
in Reply to Request for a Donation
to q Theological School.

Some time ago the Dean of a
to Mr.. Joseph Fels, the millionaire
soap manufacturer of Philadelphia, re-
questing a donation for the institution
to enable it to carry on it's work of
training young men to preach the gos-
pei to the heathens The letter was
prompted by the fact that the writer
had heard of Mr.. Fels' many acts of
charity and philanthrophy.'
In reply Mr.. Fels declared that he
was not philanthropist and gave
nothing to charity He then proceeded
to elaborate his religious creed and
stated that if the dean would accept
the principles set forth in his letter
and agree to teach them in his theo-
logical school he would make a con-
tribution to enable it to carry on it's
work.
The religion of Mr.. Fels is nothing
more than social service, convenient,
if somewhat vague, expression for
whatever may be included. under the
head of humanitarian endeavor. The
devotees of the social service cult
pride themselves on the fact that their
creed, if it may be so called, is devoid
of all definite belief in revealed re-
ligion and, in fact, of religion of any
kind. 1t is purely philanthropic
movement. Mr.. Fels goes into details
in setting forth his religion" The
majority of his statements on this
point do not call for any particular
notice. His principles are vague and
indefinite; but, if properly understood
and explained, they Ieed not be ex-
cluded from the social activities of
any religious man.
The fundamental fallacy in his pro-
gram of religion" is contained in the
following sentence: II believe the
community-made value of land belongs
to the community just as the wealth
produced by you belongs to you.''
In order to show how untenable is
this proposition we quote from a
pamphlet entitled, Henry George and
Private Property" written by the Rev.
John A. Ryan,~S. T. D., st. Paul Sem
: mary, St. Paul, and published by the
y Columbus Press, New York
Z DR.. Ryan says: 1--WE deny that So
cially produced land values necessarily
belong to society either as civil body
or as a collection of individuals and
groups. We deny the validity of this
species of social production as a canon
: of distribution, or title of ownership.
: It's apparent sanctity rests upon the
: confusion, misconceptions, and fal-
lacies which attach to the idea of pro-
duction or productivity. This brings
up the question concerning the precise
sense in which society produces land
values.
Scarcity as a Cause Of Value.
"The value of land, like the value
of anything else, may be affected from
the side of scarcity or from the side of
utility. Increase the scarcity or the
utility of an article, and you increase
it's value; you create value. When
man gets a monopoly of the existing
supply of wheat or cotton he can i'm
crease it's scarcity, either by destroy
ing part of the supply, or by with
holding part of it from the market
In both cases he increases the value
of cotton, and produces value Yet no
one will say that the monopolist has
, moral right to this artificially or sated
: value; on the contrary, he will be uni
versally condemned as a practicer of
extortion. Similarly, if a man, or a
body of men, get control of all the land
? of certain quality in a community,
and thereby increase it's scarcity and
. it's value, very few persons will admit
that this action constitutes just title
to the land value that is thus pro-
duced.
Utility as a Cause Of Value.
} Consider now the problem from the
/ side of utility. The man who converts
i leather and other appropriate raw ma
! terials into pair of shoes, increases
: the utility of the former, and, if the
l market is normal, increases their
3 value. He has created value, and all
men admit that he has a strict right
i thereto. The precise basis of this
right we shall examine presently. Like
: wise, when men improve the quality Of
land by changing it's form, thus in
creasing it's utility and value, they are
/ universally acknowledged to have a
1 right to the newly created value.
4 Finally, there is that increase in
. land value with which we are directly
! concerned, and which is due to social
: action. Sometimes this social action
. is spoken of as If it meant merely an
. increase in the social demand for land;
: but mere increase in demand is not
r usually the true cause of the increase
r in value, nor do men usually regard IL
Y as creating right to the new value.
Increased Demand Not Increased
a Value.
IF increased demand were to be in
) terpreted in this way, and il to it were
! given this moral significance, the In
creases In the value of hats, -four, or
labor which follow change Of fashion
: or an addition to the number of pur-
chasers, ought to go, not to the own
ers of these commodities, but to the
buyers Increased demand is not, as a
rule, the true cause Of the increased
: value of land. In most cases it is a
2 purely subjective factor which is
itself occasioned by change
- -