Question IX: On the mutual obligation of servants and masters

First indeed masters are bound out of charity and justice to take care that slaves do not live wickedly, that they keep the commandments of God, as also of the Church. Out of charity indeed, because they are their neighbors; out of justice, however, because as the slave is bound to serve the master out of justice, so the master is bound out of the same justice to give him wages, feed him, and teach him.

They are bound, if they see them incorrigible, to rebuke and cast them out. So Navarr. Man. cap. 14. num. 21. Fagund. lib. 4. cap. 14.

They are bound also not to impede the marriages of slaves; they may, however, refuse their consent; the slaves, however, may contract marriage against the will of their masters, as St. Bonaventure teaches 4 d. 36. question 1. St. Thomas there, in the single question, art. 2. and all the Thomists, Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. d. 21. Fagundez lib. 4. cap. 14. The rest I shall say in the Tract. de matrimonio. In the meantime I shall indicate that doubt: whether a slave ordered by his master to accomplish something, and called by his wife to render the debt, being involved in both, is bound rather to the master.

It is answered that if he entered marriage with the master's consent, he is bound rather to his wife, because whoever grants something necessarily grants also what is connected with it. So St. Bonaventure loc. cit. St. Thomas ad 3. and commonly, as cited by Fagundez lib. 4. cap. 14.

But Sanchez lib. 7. d. 21. says the service of the master is always to be preferred; but of this in part 3, loc. cit.

I say also that if a master has hired a servant for a fixed time, say for a year, and dismisses him without cause after a month, or even before, the master is to be compelled to pay the whole wage. So commonly the Doctors, as cited by Fagundez cap. 15. num. 20. The reason is that it did not lie with him. And say the same of a slave, if he is dismissed for his own fault; or if he runs away before the prescribed time, he is worthy of no wage.

A servant hired for wages is bound also for damage done to the master himself through his own fault, at least light. So commonly the Doctors, as cited by Fagundez num. 22.

Likewise he is bound for damage inflicted on the master himself by another in a thing that was under his custody, and this out of justice, and so he ought to make restitution; but if the thing was not under his custody, he was bound only out of charity, and therefore he is not compelled to restitution. So Azor. 3. part. lib. 8. cap. 13. question 8. Molin. tom. 2. de Iust. d. 506. Fagund. loc. cit. num. 23.

There occurs the case of slaves committing petty thefts under the appearance of just compensation from the master.

NOTE that if they are so ill treated that not even the lowest usual price is given for their servitude, or if, hired for food alone, they do not have necessaries, they can usurp something. See Fagundez from num. 31. and Molina loc. cit.