The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1917-09-08
EMPLOYER is BOUND IN CON.
SCIENCE TO AFFORD A LIVING
WAGE TO HIS WORkERS-ENG.
LlsH WRITER DISCUSSES CUES
TIoN FROM ECONOMIC AND RE-
LIGlOUS ANGLES.

| TON FROM ECONOMIC AND RE
| LIGlous ANGLES.
/ Writing in the Liverpool, England
Catholic Times, Very Rev. Prior Nc
Nabb discusses the question of a liv.
| ing wage.
| "(The employer's) great and pri-
mary duty is to give everyone a fair
wage" Pope Leo XIII. ('Rerum No
varum")
The Living Wage should be the first
charge upon industry!
This is a revolutionary principle;
| revolutionary, not because it is a wild,
| anarchical overthrow of a just state
of things, but because the state of
| things in an overthrow of justice, be-
| ing "a yoke little better than that of
| slavery ITSELF
Yet in enunciating this principle,
which is as revolutionary as Thou
shalt not steal or Remember thou
keep holy the Sabbath day." the Pope
seems to be resting on the authority
OF st. Paul, who wrote to ST. Timo-
thy: "The husbandman that laboreth
must first partake of the fruits" Q1
Tim. ii, g..
The words of the Pope are trumpet
clear. Great and principal duty"
The first duty of those who control
industry is to see that the wage-earn-
er has a living wage.
Too off on ic ba nj
pal duty Of wealth % to bring in as
much interest as possible, (2) or to in
crease itself, or CD to continue to
yield it's accustomed interest. Some
times it happens that clergymen are
expected to sympathize with people
whose investments have not yielded
their normal revenue. All these con-
cepts of the function of wealth are far
from the decision of Pope Leo XIII,
that the principal duty is to give
everyone a living wage.
An Emancpating Doctrine.
We have only to apply this to any
of the great industries to realize what
q revolution it would work. AS we
have already suggested, the greatest
revolution would be wrought, not by
abolishing the Decalogue, but by
keeping it. The world is not grow
ing old through having been too loyal
/ to Horeb, but through disregarding it.
So, too,- this doctrine of the Living
Wage being the first charge of reve-
nue. has only to be undertaken seri-
ously and a revolution will be accom-
plished. We shall then see something
as stupendous in the industrial world
tical world.
The Railway Companies.
To take an example from the rail-
ways, whether state-oWned or COM
pany owned. There is an enormous
revenue from these arteries of distri-
button. A great deal of this revenue
in company owned railways has been
fictitiously earmarked for interest"
Railways are often over-capitaliZed to
such an extent that the revenue which
should be distributed as hard-earned
wage to the workers is distributed as
unearned interest to unnecessary capt.
tai. But if the Pope's principle were
put in force, then the first charge on
revenue would be Living Wage for
all the employees. | take figures for
the year 1912 (Whitacker's Almanack,
1910: Railways in the United King
dom. Net Traffic Receipts latter de-
Quoting wages), G47,329,074. 482,905
servants ii. e., over 5000 receive each
e71 3s. Cd year-total G53 ,603,350
To bring their income up to G10O a
year would need G14,6S7, $50. Hence,
| if income was G100 the total would
be e48,290,5O0. Total available for
revenue: G32,641, 1924. These figures
are sufficietly accurate to show that
at the present time, whether capital
| is or is not getting more out of the
railways than is labor, yet living
wage is not an impossibility. To give
the railway servants an average of
| G100 a year, which would be quite
moderate, would still leave e32,000,-
900 free for the few people whose
capital controls the railways. This is
almost exactly the sum at present
handed over to the half-million of rail-
way servants for their hard and anx-
ious work.
| The Capitalists Argument.
| 1t may be answered that if private
capital drew not forty-seven millions,
but only thirty-two millions, private
capital would not be found to finance
the railways. | own the force of this
argument. But do not see how, after
the clear words of Pope Leo XIII, a
Catholic can use the argument with
out finding it to be strong indict-
ment of private capital. 1t is not argu-
/ ing as a Socialist, but as logician, to
maintain that ID if a Living Wage
must be the first charge on revenue
and (2) if private capital will not un,
dertake to make the Living Wage
the first charge on revenue, then (3)
private capital must be deprived of its
power, since it is neglecting its duty