The Wage of Workers

158. The things which have been said of masters and servants must be understood, with due proportion, of patrons and workers, as we have already said, whether these are craftsmen or tenants, who for some definite time, or for some determined work, labor for the utility of others. Moreover, the first duty of all is that they enter a just pact, with due equality preserved between labor and stipend. Then the contract entered must be faithfully observed. Accordingly, the worker ought to furnish the promised work; the patron is bound to pay the promised wage. Patrons and workers can indeed enter a contract of hiring of work or labor for a fitting wage. They can also enter between themselves a contract of partnership, so that the patrons confer capital into the partnership, the workers labor, and then receive proportionate fruit. Each contract is lawful; but neither can patrons compel workers, nor workers patrons, to one rather than to the other; the matter must be determined by free convention of patrons and workers.

159. Masters and patrons are bound per se not to burden workers with longer and graver labors, nor to expose them to dangerous labors, unless the reason of the common good requires otherwise and due precautions are employed.

They are bound to treat workers well, with urbanity and Christian charity. Besides, they must leave them liberty of fulfilling the offices of religion, and therefore by no means ought to compel them to work on Sundays and feast days, unless grave necessity urges; and then at least they must grant them time, as far as can be done, for hearing Mass.

They are bound to pay a just wage, according to the pacts entered, and at its time. They are bound not unjustly to impede them from laboring, and from being able suitably to sustain themselves by their labor. Likewise, from charity they ought to succor them when they are placed in necessity, before other outside poor persons, since the workers are more joined to them and are of no small utility; for the profit which they receive is owed in great part to the labor of workers.

Masters and patrons, as superiors, are bound to avert dangers of body and soul from workshops in which many workers labor. Of body, by providing for their health with suitable safeguards; of soul, by prohibiting blasphemies, shameful conversations, perverse journals, obscene images, and that men and women, especially the younger, not be together promiscuously.

160. Workers in turn are bound with due skill and diligence to furnish the promised work, with the conditions of the freely entered convention observed. Conditions, that is, lawful and just. Therefore, if they do not labor during the time established by the contract, or if in labor they do not employ at least ordinary and moderate diligence, they are bound to restitution, and must also repair the damage that followed. Nor indeed in any way can they, against the aforesaid just contract, cease from labor, with damage to the master, and much less induce other workers to the same cessation, in order to obtain a diminution of the time of labor and an increase of salary. This is manifest injustice. When the time of the contract has elapsed, and the promised work has been furnished, if they wish to renew the contract under better conditions, lawful and just, and cannot obtain this otherwise by lawful and just means, then they surely can, if they wish, cease from work, yet without impeding by threats and force others willing to labor, and without disturbing public order.

And here it must be noted that the better conditions which workers can demand in entering a new contract can be unjust and just. Patrons are not bound to accept unjust ones; but they are not always bound to accept just ones; for if they also offer just conditions, they are evidently not then bound to accept the just conditions which the workers propose; and those same workers cannot impede other workers willing to labor under those just conditions of the patrons.

161. Therefore workers act unjustly if, contrary to the pacts entered, they cease from labor; and much more if by threats and force they compel other workers also to desist from labor; but most of all if they disturb the peace of the city; so that by these means they themselves may furnish the smallest work with the recompense of the greatest wage. - Patrons likewise would act unjustly if, contrary to the pacts entered, they dismissed workers; and much more if they also compelled others by threats and force to dismiss them, so that workers may furnish the greatest work for the recompense of the smallest wage. - To impede this struggle between patrons and workers, it is necessary that patrons embrace workers with Christian charity, and that workers tolerate labor with Christian patience and revere patrons.

162. In this matter the civil prince can furnish many things rightly and usefully by his authority: "If it ever should happen that some disturbance threatens because of a withdrawal of craftsmen, or works interrupted by agreement; that the natural bonds of the family are relaxed among proletarians; that religion is violated in the workers, by not sufficiently granting convenience for the offices of piety; if danger threatens integrity of morals in workshops from sex mixed together or other pernicious enticements of sin; or if the masterly order presses the order of workers with unjust burdens, or afflicts them with conditions foreign to the person and to human dignity; if health is harmed by immoderate work, and not accommodated to sex and age: in these causes the force and authority of the laws must plainly be employed within definite limits. These limits are determined by the same cause which demands the help of the laws: namely, no more is to be undertaken by laws, nor is progress to be made farther, than the healing of inconveniences or the repulsion of danger requires." Leo XIII, encyclical letter de Conditione Opificum.

163. For determining the just quantity of salary, attention must be paid not only to free convention, but also to the nature of labor. Now indeed "to labor is to exercise oneself for the sake of obtaining things which are for the various uses of life, and especially necessary for the protection of oneself. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread. Therefore labor in man has two notes, as it were, implanted by nature: namely that it be personal, because the active force inheres in the person and is entirely proper to him by whom it is exercised and for whose utility it is born; then that it be necessary for this reason, that the fruit of labors is needed by man for protecting life; but nature itself of things, which must especially be obeyed, commands that life be protected. Now, if it is considered only from that part by which it is personal, there is no doubt that it is free to the craftsman to define more narrowly the measure of the stipulated wage; for as he gives his works by will, so also by will he can be content with a small wage for the works, or plainly with none. But one must judge far otherwise if with the reason of personality there is joined the reason of necessity, separable from it in thought, indeed, but not in reality. In fact, to remain in life is the common duty of individuals, which it is a crime to fail. Hence there necessarily arises the right of finding things by which life is sustained: but the faculty of these things is supplied to every lowest man only by the wage acquired by labor. Therefore let it be that the worker and the master freely consent to the same agreement, and by name to the measure of salary; nevertheless there is always underlying something from natural justice, and this greater and older than the free will of those making the pact, namely, that the wage ought not to be unequal to nourishing the worker, frugal indeed and well behaved. But if the worker, compelled by necessity or moved by fear of a worse evil, accepts a harsher condition, which, even though he does not wish it, must be accepted, because it is imposed by the master or by the contractor of works, that indeed is to undergo force, against which justice cries out."

164. But since the price of things which are necessary for life is various, it is clear that the just wage to be paid to the worker is to be attended not only from the labor furnished, according to common estimation, but also from this varying price of things. Therefore the just wage of workers depends on various causes.

The work which is furnished by workers for the convenience and utility of others is the work of a human person, proceeding from human liberty; hence, although it is considered as a certain quasi-thing, it is something nobler than merchandise, and it assumes the nature of merit and of right to reward. Therefore the wage which is rendered to them, and which is usually called salary and stipend, although it is considered as a certain price, exceeds the price of things, and takes to itself the nature of reward and remuneration. But that work, from the provident disposition itself of nature, must be furnished by the worker so that by that work he may procure for himself the things necessary for life. Therefore the salary which is given to the worker for his work furnished is not as it were an exchange of thing with thing, of merchandise with price; nor consequently is it given only for the work itself furnished for the utility of another, but it is also given for the person himself, for the necessity of the person, for the merit of the person.

165. Therefore the wage of works ought to suffice for the worker to be nourished, from the intention itself of nature, which supplies industry and labor to man for seeking those things which are necessary to himself for life. Hence primarily the justice of the wage is to be estimated which consequently, since it ought to suffice for daily sustenance, supposes a daily office on the part of the worker. Daily sustenance is certainly not to be taken strictly, as for an animal, but more broadly and suitably, as for a man, so that in it there is comprehended, with due proportion, with the whole time of human life inspected, and the condition of workers in civil society, both food and dwelling and clothing and other things, in the various necessities occurring in human life from sickness, from old age, etc., altogether indispensable for life itself. And these things besides are to be estimated with due moderation; for the worker is supposed not to be vicious and a squanderer, but well behaved and frugal. But the daily office is to be understood only morally, and likewise suitably to the labor itself to be exercised, harder or lighter. Hence, as it certainly does not comprehend the twenty-four hours of the day, so neither is it confined to one or another hour. But since those things which are necessary for life have varying price according to varying time and place, hence also the just salary of workers will be various according to the various circumstances of times and places.

And from this again it is clear that the work of man is not properly merchandise, nor properly is its wage a price. Nevertheless there is no doubt that that work is also as it were merchandise, considered in itself and not in relation to the person whose act it is, and consequently its wage is taken as a quasi-price. Hence the wage of works is estimated variously also under this head, according to the various customs of regions, from the works themselves, that is, from their intrinsic excellence, general necessity, utility, labor, and danger. Hence it is estimated differently in physicians, schoolmasters, painters; differently in architects, masons, diggers. But by no means is it estimated from their peculiar necessity and utility; for this pertains to the hirer, for example, if the boy to be instructed is endowed with great talent.

166. Therefore, as prices of things, so again wages of works can be increased and diminished. But they are increased and diminished from those same causes by which prices of things increase and decrease: from the fact that there are many who furnish works, few who hire them; from their daily duration, longer or shorter; from the labor expended in them; from the danger which is incurred in them; from the required skill; from the spontaneous offering of them. Consequently the wage of works will be just if it at least reaches the lowest wage which, in such a place and time, is customarily given to such workers. - And if one furnishing his works furnishes them to another or to others as a quasi-partner, it is equitable that he also receive something from the profits.

But the wage of works can by no means be increased or diminished from the various conditions either of the person to whom they are furnished, or of the person who furnishes them. For justice inspects the equality of thing to thing, not the various circumstances of persons. And thus a greater wage is not to be paid because a less skilled locator furnishes them with greater labor, time, and danger than others; or because he is in want, has a wife, and also has children; whence that absurd family salary is exploded. This is besides exploded also from the very established breadth of the just wage of workers, if these, namely, are well behaved and frugal, and live with due parsimony, which at the beginning is indeed necessary, and then ends in a small patrimony to be acquired.

Note: The wage must be just. Hiring and leasing is a certain sale and purchase, and as in the latter so also in the former the price can be increased and diminished according to various circumstances. And this also is to be attended to, that in leasing, especially of rural estates, the thing is subject to chance, and therefore account must be taken, in establishing the wage, of the dangers which the lessor or lessee undergoes. Since the object of this contract is the use of the thing, not the thing itself, but this is presupposed, if the thing leased perishes before delivery, or is evicted from the lessor, the contract is dissolved and the lessee is freed. The same must be said if, during the lease, apart from the fault of the lessee, the whole thing perishes. If the thing perishes only in part, the pension will at least have to be diminished; and if that part is notable, the lessee will be able either to seek a diminution of the pension, or even to dissolve the contract. C. I. 1580, 1595; C. G. 1741. Cf. C. L. 1612, 1613.

If the thing itself does not perish, yet the lessee is impeded from the use or cultivation of the thing, apart from his fault, e.g., if a field is overwhelmed by a lasting inundation, occupied by a hostile army, etc., the lessee is freed from paying the pension. L. Si fundus, L. Perinde, L. Et haec, L. Habitatores § 1, Dig. Locati etc. - The contract of lease of itself is dissolved neither by the death of the lessor nor by that of the lessee, C. I. 1596; C. G. 1742, but by the lapse of the time defined in the contract. C. A. 1190 ff.; C. H. 1565 ff. Otherwise C. B. 569. Cf. C. L. 1619 ff. - L. 857. The lease and hiring of immovables, as to time, cannot be constituted beyond thirty years. The dwelling of a house can be leased for the whole life of the tenant and for a full two years after his death. Uncultivated estates can be leased up to one hundred years for their cultivation. C. I. 1571. The goods of those who are under tutelage or care may not be leased beyond nine years. C. I. 1572; C. G. 1748. The lease of dotal and usufructuary goods cannot endure beyond the current five-year period from the cessation of the usufruct and dowry, C. I. 493, 1408; beyond nine years C. G. 595, 1429. Finally, ecclesiastical goods cannot be leased beyond three years without the beneplacitum of the Holy See. If no time has been defined in the lease with regard to rural and urban estates, with regard to furnished apartments, appartamento mobiliato, the time is determined by the law itself. And the owner cannot expel the tenant without having first warned him according to the custom of places. C. I. 1607, 1609, 1622; C. G. 1736, 1757, 1758, 1774. If the lease was made for an indefinite time, or according to C. G. and C. B. without writings, it can end at the judgment either of the lessor or of the lessee, provided nevertheless the end of the lease has first been declared, according to the custom or laws of the place, C. I. 1609.

But if it was made for a definite time, or in writings according to C. G. and C. B., once this has been fulfilled, it ends, without there being need to declare the end of the lease, dare la licenza, C. I. 1591; C. G. 1737; C. A. 1113; C. B. 566. Nevertheless it is necessary to declare the end of the lease at the opportune time whenever it is in the power of the owner whether he wishes or does not wish to dismiss the lessee, C. I. 1597 ff., 1613.

And if the lessor allows the lessee, after the time has elapsed, to remain in the lease, he is understood to lease again, but indefinitely. C. I. 1592; C. G. 1738; C. B. 564 ff., 595 ff., 620 ff.; C. L. 1618, 1623 ff., 1628, 1629. A sharecropping tenancy, defined by no certain time, is understood to last for a year. However entered into, it never ceases by law itself, but its cessation must be announced at an opportune time. C. I. 1651, 1664. A lease of animals, with no defined time, ends after three years, whether it was a simple lease or in equal shares, a metà, C. I. 1681, 1686; C. G. 1815, 1820. - C. B. 595 ff.

What can be leased and hired; what in particular concerning wages for services? - Resp. To the 1st: all things can be leased which come into commerce, provided they are not consumable by use, and can and are accustomed to be estimated by a wage. Wherefore both immovables and movables can be leased; likewise service and work, as to carry someone elsewhere, paint a picture, etc.; and incorporeal rights, as usufruct, habitation, tolls, etc. C. A.

1092, 1093; C. B. 535, 581, 611, 631, 652. A work differs from service. A work is that which is made by working; service is the action by which the work is made, the action of the worker, the office, industry, ministry of the one doing something. He who furnishes services is the lessor; he to whom they are furnished is the lessee. As regards work, material and craftsmanship must be distinguished in it. If the lessor furnishes the material and the lessee the craftsmanship, it is hiring-leasing. But if he furnishes both, it is disputed whether it is a lease or a sale. A work, however, must be furnished by one's own labor if it requires one's own expertise. C. B. 613. Moreover the service of a surveyor is regarded as a benefit; and therefore, according to the older authors, hiring and leasing is not entered into with such a person, and consequently there is not a wage, but remuneration and honorarium. The same must be said concerning the service of an advocate, physician, and others who furnish us labor by intelligence, speech, trustworthiness, etc. But remuneration owed to servants and workers is commonly called salary and stipend. Remuneration; for service proceeding from human liberty is something nobler than merchandise, and puts on the character of merit, and of a right to a reward. Cf. Encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum novarum; S. O. Cas. Consc., ed. 6, num. 77, 5. Therefore the salary which is given to workers for their service furnished is not, as it were, an exchange of thing with thing, nor consequently is it given only for the service itself furnished for another's utility; but it is given also for the person himself, for the necessity of the person, for the merit of the person. According to C. I. 1571-1696, as regards the things which can be leased, special mention is made only of a rural estate, a house for dwelling, and animals. As regards services, three principal species of the hiring of works and industry are said to exist. The first, by which someone obliges his services into another's service; the second, by which carriers both by land and by water oblige themselves to transfer persons or things; the third, by which contractors of works oblige themselves to make works. Cf. C. H. 1575 ff.; C. A. 1151 ff.

Resp. To the 2nd: Therefore the wage for services must suffice to support the worker, from the very intention of nature, which supplies industry and labor to man for seeking those things which are necessary to him for life. From this, the justice of the wage is principally to be estimated; and consequently, since it must suffice for daily sustenance, it supposes a daily office on the part of the worker. Daily sustenance is certainly not to be taken strictly, as for an animal, but more broadly and suitably, as for a man, so that there be included in it, in due proportion, with regard to the whole time of human life and to the condition of workers in civil society, both food, and dwelling, and clothing, and other things entirely indispensable for life itself in the various necessities occurring in human life, from illness, from old age, etc. And these, moreover, are to be estimated with due moderation; for the worker is supposed not to be vicious and wasteful, but of good conduct and frugal. But the daily office is to be understood only morally, and likewise suitably to the very labor to be exercised, harder or lighter. Hence, as it certainly does not comprehend the 24 hours of the day, so neither is it restricted to one or another hour. But since those things which are necessary for life have a varying price according to varying time and place, hence the just salary of workers will also vary according to the various circumstances of times and places. But from this again it is clear that the service of man is not properly merchandise, nor is the wage of that service properly a price. Nevertheless there is no doubt that that service is also as it were merchandise, considered in itself, and not in relation to the person whose act it is; and consequently its wage is accepted as though a price. Hence the wage for services is also estimated in various ways from this head, according to the various customs of regions, from the works themselves, that is, from their intrinsic excellence, general necessity, utility, labor, danger. Hence it is estimated in one way in physicians, teachers, painters; in another in architects, masons, diggers. But it is by no means estimated from their peculiar necessity and utility; for this pertains to the lessee, e.g., if a boy to be instructed is endowed with great talent. Therefore, as the prices of things, so again the wages of services can be increased and diminished. They are increased and diminished from those same causes by which the prices of things grow and decrease: from the fact that there are many who furnish services and few who hire them; from their daily duration, longer or shorter; from the labor spent in them; from the danger which is incurred in them; from the required expertise; from their voluntary offering. Consequently the wage for services will be just if it at least reaches the lowest wage which is accustomed to be given to such workers in such a place and time. - And if one furnishing his services furnishes them to another or to others as though as a partner, it is equitable that he himself also receive something from the profits. But the wage for services can by no means be increased or diminished from the various conditions either of the person to whom they are furnished, or of the person who furnishes them. For justice regards equality of thing to thing, not the various circumstances of persons. And thus a greater wage is not to be paid because a less skilled lessor furnishes them with greater labor, time, danger, than others; or because he is in want, has a wife, and also has children. Hence that absurd family wage is rejected. Moreover it is also rejected from the very established breadth of the just wage of workers, if namely they are of good conduct and frugal, and live with due economy, which indeed is necessary at the beginning, and afterward ends in a small patrimony to be acquired, entirely sufficient for the ordinary necessities of life. If, on the contrary, someone furnishes the same entire service to several at the same time, by right he can, for the opposite reason, demand an entire wage from all; for it is not worth less to each one because it is also equally useful to others. And therefore he who demands one hundred gold pieces to bring the son of Titius to Rome will be able to demand another hundred gold pieces from Caius so that he may also bring his son to Rome. The same is consequently to be said of the surveyor, of the advocate, of the physician, who go somewhere to measure the fields of several, plead the causes of several, assist several sick persons with salutary care. C. B. 612, 614, 632, 653; E. M.

As regards the work which someone undertakes to be made, e.g., to build a house, to sculpt a statue, once the price has been fixed at the beginning, it is thereafter neither increased nor diminished, although the prices of things and of services have increased or decreased. But if the expenses to be made are notably increased from an unforeseen case, e.g., an inundation of a river, earthquake, etc., equitable compensation is to be made; for contracts of this kind are commonly made in such a way that the architect or contractor of works takes upon himself ordinary dangers, not those that are wholly unforeseen and extraordinary. A work leased by contract for a fixed price, or for one price, is not understood to have been delivered until it has been approved. A work leased for a price established according to its individual parts or measures is not judged to have been delivered until it has been measured or the part approved. Consequently it is at the risk of the lessee, not of the lessor. L. 36, 37, Locati conducti ff.; C. I. 1638, 1640; C. G. 1791, 1793. The lessor of a work can withdraw from the lease, reimbursing to the lessee the expenses made and the profit ceasing. For he who is obliged to some deed toward another is freed by furnishing the amount which is of interest to him. C. I. 1641; C. G. 1794.

813. (A) The system of the liberals. According to the liberal school, the wage is defined, like the price of merchandise, by the sole and free agreement between worker and master, and therefore the stipend which the master offers and the worker accepts must be held as just; in practice, therefore, it is regulated by the law of competition, by force of which wages are increased or diminished according as owners more or less need the labor of workers. For, on the one hand, the master will weigh the utility which accrues to him from the use of the operative faculty of workers, and its scarcity or frequency; but on the other, the proletarian will weigh those things which are required for honorable support; and, if he is truly free, he does not promise to furnish his work except to him who pays back those things which are necessary for honorable support. Moreover, in almost all places, there exists for each kind of work a current price, to which workers and masters adhere, unless special circumstances occur.³

³ "In fact, the debate is not long, because there exists on each worksite, in each workshop, one can say in each locality, a current price applicable to each profession or specialty and from which one scarcely departs, unless there are special circumstances, or exceptional ability of the worker, if he is noticeably above the ordinary." (Hubert-Valleroux, op. cit., p. 176.)

814. Nevertheless this norm cannot always, nor necessarily, determine what the just wage ought to be. For (a) it not rarely happens that workers who accept such and such a stipend are not truly free; for since they cannot labor fruitfully without machines, which are in the hands of owners, and besides need daily labor for earning daily bread, they are often compelled to accept conditions imposed on them, unless they wish to waste away with hunger.¹ Today, indeed, associated workers, by joining their powers together, can more easily obtain a fair wage; but those associated are fewer than the others; indeed, in certain arts, especially where workers are compelled to labor separately in their own rooms (which is especially true of women), any association is morally impossible: in which case solitary and defenseless persons are handed over to the unbridled competition of competitors.² - Now in these circumstances, the price which the master offers and the worker accepts cannot be held as just; Leo XIII declares this thus: "But if the worker, compelled by necessity, or moved by fear of a worse evil, accepts a harder condition, which, even if he does not wish it, must be accepted, because it is imposed by the master or contractor of works, this indeed is to undergo force, against which justice cries out."

¹ For generally there are so many workers that certain persons hired by no one are ready to labor for a lower price: "In ordinary times, the mass of offers of labor sensibly exceeds the mass of demands, and the statistics of all industrial countries attest that the number of workers in forced unemployment ordinarily exceeds 5 percent, which means that, out of twenty workers, only nineteen succeed in finding employment." (P. Bureau, op. cit., p. 122.)

² From this has arisen the system which they call the sweating system, which is described in the works cited above, n. 811.

(b) Even if workers freely yielded from their right, and accepted a wage which does not suffice for honorable support, a pact of this kind would not be fair, because they cannot validly renounce those things which are necessary for living honorably; concerning this let the same Pontiff be heard: "Let it be, therefore, that the worker and the master freely consent to the same agreement, and specifically to the measure of the wage: nevertheless there is always something underlying from natural justice, and this greater and older than the free will of those making the pact, namely that the wage ought not be unequal for nourishing a worker, frugal indeed and well behaved."

815. (B) The system of the socialists. Socialists on the contrary contend that from justice the whole fruit of labor is owed to workers, with only those expenses deducted which arise from the price of materials, the use of instruments, and the intellectual labor of those who preside over the production of things; but this, they say, must not be esteemed more highly than manual work. But that the matter is not so, they say, is established by daily experience; for masters retain for themselves the greater part of the profit, under the pretext of receiving interest for money, or a reward for the peril of the lot; and thus workers are unjustly deprived of the greater part of the fruits, and, by force of the iron law (loi d'airain), slip into misery, scarcely having foods necessary for their own support. They wish, therefore, that workers be held as cooperators, and obtain a part of the profit proportionate to their labor.¹

¹ Vandervelde sets forth their doctrine and arguments, Le Collectivisme, p. 123-140; 192-205.

816. This system indeed is nothing other than a conclusion inferred from the principles of Marx set forth above, n. 61-62; for, if all capital is stolen, certainly nothing is owed to it in the partition of profit. - But if capital has been legitimately acquired, a part of the profit must be assigned to it. For (a) capital, which furnishes machines and materials to the worker, and pays him a wage before the thing made is sold, certainly contributes much to the production of goods, and therefore cannot, without injustice, be deprived of a proportionate part of the advantage. Besides, if the rich man obtains nothing from his wealth employed in industry and commerce, who will ever build workshops, and give labor to producing new things? Will it not be safer and more pleasant to enjoy acquired goods quietly, than to take upon oneself all the cares and labors which the management of an industrial matter requires, without any hope of profit? In business, advantage is sought, and if none or almost none is expected, no one will build workshops, and workers will lack instruments and wealth necessary for laboring.

(b) Moreover capitalists take upon themselves the peril of the lot, and in reality not a few obtain an unhappy outcome in business, and not rarely lose the greatest part of the money committed to undertakings.² Now where the peril of the lot is present, it is necessary that greater profit be received; for who will expose himself to this danger unless he expects great advantage from it?

² "Experience proves that out of ten entrepreneurs of industry or commerce, there are two or three who fall into bankruptcy or insolvency, five to six who find only the means of living by having a modest remuneration for their labor and by preserving their possessions or increasing them only very slightly, and at most one or two who make a fortune of some importance." (P. Leroy-Beaulieu, Traite, t. II, p. 207.)

(c) Nor is it permitted to esteem lightly the intellectual work furnished by capitalists, nor the skill acquired by assiduous labor and many expenses; for experience establishes that the happy or unhappy outcome of undertakings depends chiefly on the skill and activity of those who preside over industrial matters: for in the same region, with the same wealth, and the same wage paid to workers, some prosperously succeed, others slip into ruin, according as they manage their affairs well or badly;¹ - and this is also confirmed by the example of cooperative societies: for not a few, notwithstanding the subsidies which they received, had an unhappy outcome, because the workers who presided over them lacked skill and activity.²

¹ "These figures demonstrate that the profit of the entrepreneur cannot have an automatic origin, like that which the socialists attribute to it, that it has a purely personal cause, holding to the very faculties of the person." (P. Leroy-Beaulieu, l. c., p. 208.) - The same author shows how much utility inventors bring to workers and society, t. I, pp. 569, 685, t. II, p. 198-199.

² On these societies see P. Leroy-Beaulieu, t. II, p. 623-643; Schloss, Methods of Industrial Remuneration, London, 1898; rendered in French by C. Riss, Les Modes de Remuneration du Travail, Paris, 1902, p. 279-315.

From these things it is permitted to infer that not an equal, but a proportionate, part of the profit belongs to masters and workers.

817. (C) Catholic doctrine. Between these two extremes the Catholic doctrine which Leo XIII set forth in the Encyclical Rerum Novarum proceeds by a middle way. There he especially declares two things: (a) "that the wage ought not be unequal for nourishing a worker, frugal indeed and well behaved," and indeed from justice, as we explained above, n. 814; (b) that it is to be desired that the wage be sufficiently ample for the honorable support not only of the worker himself, but also of wife and children: "If the worker receives a wage sufficiently ample that by it he can conveniently protect himself, his wife, and his children, he will easily study thrift, if he is wise, and will bring it about, as nature herself seems to admonish, that, expenses having been deducted, something also remains, by which it may be permitted to him to arrive at a modest property... Wherefore laws must favor this right, and, insofar as possible, provide that as many as possible from the multitude prefer to have property." He afterward describes the utility of this manner of acting, namely a more equitable partition of goods, greater eagerness for laboring, and also the diminution of emigration to foreign nations.

818. From this, however, controversies arose among Catholics, some saying that from this declaration of the Pontiff a family wage is owed from justice, but others asserting that it is fittingly given only from charity, as often as the condition of industrial affairs permits this. Wherefore three doubts were proposed to the Holy See by Cardinal Goossens, to which Card. Zigliara, by order of the Holy Pontiff, responded. Now from this response three things are likewise established: (a) that from commutative justice there is owed to a worker, otherwise capable and laboring well, of itself, a wage which suffices for suitable food and clothing, not indeed to be determined punctually and mathematically, but from common estimation, with attention to the quality, quantity, and duration of the work, and also to the price of things which must be bought by the worker for suitable food and clothing in such and such a region;¹ (b) that a master who pays a wage sufficient for the support of the worker, but unequal to the feeding of his family, indeed does not sin against justice, whose demands are fully satisfied when equality of wage and work is observed; - but sometimes can sin against charity, which demands that the master prefer his workers in lavishing alms; or against natural honesty, insofar as the master, who receives great benefit and advantage from the work of the worker, is in some way held from a certain natural equity to recompense this by supererogation; (c) that, speaking of itself, masters sin against commutative justice who, "using no force or fraud, give less wage than the work furnished deserves and than suffices for honorable support, for this reason that several workers offer themselves, who are content with that small stipend, or freely consent to it"; he says, speaking of itself; for "accidentally particular cases can be given in which masters can hire workers content with an inadequate wage: for example, if the master would draw either no advantage, or one altogether insufficient for the suitable support of his own life, if he lavished an adequate wage, indeed, if he would even suffer damage thereby"; this indeed can happen when, because of an industrial crisis, manufacturers are compelled to sell merchandise at the lowest price.

¹ "Therefore as often as the work is such that the worker through himself satisfies the aforesaid natural office of obtaining the immediate end of his labor, and the wage is unequal for obtaining this end, namely suitable food and clothing, speaking of itself and considering the nature of things, there is an objective inequality between work and wage, and therefore a wound of commutative justice. - Yet two things are generally to be considered in this matter: one is that, just as the price of saleable things is not punctually determined by the law of nature, but rather consists in common estimation, so also this must generally be said concerning wage;... the other is that in assigning the equality of justice between wage and manual work, common estimation attends not only to the quality and quantity of the work, but also to the time of its duration, likewise to the prices of things which must be bought by the worker for suitable food and clothing; which prices are not the same everywhere." (Card. Zigliara, Letter to Card. Goossens, 1891.)

Yet this letter did not impose an end to the dispute; for Father Eschbach, superior of the French seminary in Rome, contended that, according to the style of the school and of the Roman Rota, under the name of sustenance come all foods, clothing, habitation, medicines, etc., with attention to the quality of the one to be sustained; wherefore, if the one to be sustained is married, he has a right to honorable support for himself, wife, and children.¹ - But on the contrary Bishop Turinaz, bishop of Nancy, responded that the labor of the worker is a personal work, and not of the family, nor does it have anything except a secondary and accidental relation with the family, and therefore from justice merits nothing except personal support.²

¹ Eschbach, letter of Aug. 19, 1893 and Jan. 24, 1895.

² Turinaz, Le salaire familial et le Card. Zigliara, Nancy, 1895, where the two letters of Father Eschbach are also found.

819. (D) Practical conclusions. (a) In every case, masters are held from justice to pay a wage which corresponds to the economic value of the work furnished, according to the common estimation of prudent persons, that is, of masters and workers who can bring a fair judgment concerning this matter.

This rule indeed flows from the general principle admitted for all contracts, namely that equality is required between the work furnished and the price paid, according to the common estimation of skilled and honest persons.

But we said that account must be had of the estimation of masters and workers, and not only of one order; for since the matter concerns a thing which pertains to each order, and besides each naturally seeks its own proper good, it is not fair to stand by the judgment of one rather than the other; but skilled and honest persons of each order must come together so that, all things carefully weighed, the just price can be determined. This in practice is done through mixed councils composed of masters and workers (Conseils des prud'hommes, Conseils d'usine).

820. Corollaries. 1. Accordingly it is permitted to stand by the current price which is in force in a region, unless there is moral certainty that it has been determined by an unjust conspiracy.

2. That price cannot be the same in all regions or times, but must be increased or diminished according to the greater or lesser prosperity of industrial affairs: thus, if from various circumstances profit is increased, that increase must be divided between masters and workers in fair proportion, and not accrue to masters alone, especially since it can rightly be attributed to the efforts of each; but on the contrary, if profit is diminished, it is fair that the wage be proportionately less, lest otherwise masters slip into ruin, not without detriment to workers.

3. Masters would act unjustly who, abusing the ignorance or necessity of some worker, furnished to him a wage below the current price, e.g., gave only three coins for work which, according to common estimation, is worth four coins.

821. (b) In the normal state of industry and commerce, from justice there is owed at least that wage which is necessary to the worker himself for his honorable support, provided he labors with common and ordinary skill and activity.

Leo XIII expressly declared this, above, n. 817; and rightly. For the right and office of protecting their own life is incumbent upon workers; but, from things commonly happening, they have nothing else from which they may live except the wage received for labor; therefore they have the right and office of demanding the payment necessary for decent support; otherwise it would have to be said that a worker fit for laboring, and besides laboring with common diligence, cannot provide for himself even in ordinary circumstances without asking alms; this indeed no one of sound mind will say; for if it pertains to charity to relieve the poor and to furnish help to workers in certain extraordinary cases, it certainly pertains to justice to provide for the ordinary necessities of workers, by furnishing to them a sufficient wage; otherwise, it is all over with their dignity, and they must be numbered among beggars.

Now under the name of honorable support are rightly enumerated: foods necessary for repairing strength, clothing suitable to one's state, a healthy dwelling, - those things which are required for observing feast days and indulging some honorable and necessary recreation, and for meeting the customary cases of sicknesses and dangers, and also for preparing for oneself a tranquil old age; for all these things, according to common estimation, must be called morally necessary. - But if extraordinary misfortunes occur, long-lasting diseases, strength broken before the customary time, etc., it is not necessary that the wage suffice for relieving all these things, but recourse must be had to charity, unless the worker has provided for fortuitous cases by insurance.

822. It was said "in the normal state of industry," because if the conditions of things are such that, for some time, owners cannot pay so great a wage unless they fall from their own state, the stipend can be diminished, and it is fair that workers and masters suffer something until the abundance of fruits permits a return to the former wage; nevertheless, it is expedient that this be done by common counsel, by which lawsuits and dissensions may more easily be removed.

Likewise, if some worker, because of old age or weak health, or lack of common skill, cannot furnish integral labor, the master is held from justice only to compensate the work furnished. The same can be said if out of mercy alone he has hired a worker whose work he did not need.

823. (c) In the normal state of industry, the wage furnished to a suitable worker ought to be such that, increased by the wage which wife and children gain by labor proportionate to their powers, it suffices for the honorable support of the family; and this indeed from commutative justice according to many, from legal and distributive justice according to several, but from charity and equity according to others.

It is declared. So that this may be better understood, it must be declared in a few words. Here the matter does not concern a relative family wage, by which namely the wage ought to be increased proportionately to the number of children; nor is it contended that more is owed to married men and fathers of families than to those who remain celibate; for if the matter were so, married men would scarcely find masters who wished to hire them, and thus they would often be compelled to be free from all work, with great detriment to themselves and their family.

But the matter concerns a collective family wage; namely, such a stipend must be furnished to any worker that, when he marries and is made the head of a family, he can support his family, provided however that the wife takes up that kind of work which can stand with her offices, and likewise the children, at an opportune time, begin to labor in a manner proportionate to their powers. It is likewise supposed that the number of children is ordinary; but if the offspring is very numerous, the social good demands that either the Republic or private societies furnish some help to this family; for since numerous offspring well educated contributes greatly to the good of the whole society, it is fair that society itself contribute something to the education of this offspring; nor from justice is the master held to increase the wage of those who have many children, although from charity he can be held to give something, according to the things said above, n. 803-805.

We also suppose that the condition of industry is prosperous, so that the owner, by paying such a wage, not only does not incur danger of ruin, but he himself can make a proportionate profit; for he is not held to suffer some damage so that he may provide for the necessities of workers; but he satisfies justice by furnishing payment equal to the value of the work furnished.

824. It is proved. These things being posited, one can argue thus. The common law of nature is that workers, like other men, enter marriage, and, insofar as they are fathers of families, perform their offices toward wife and children; but one of these primary offices is to provide for the necessities of the wife, when she, because of the duties of mother which are incumbent upon her, cannot provide for herself, and also to feed and educate the offspring whom he has begotten: "It is a most holy law of nature," says Leo XIII, "that the father of a family protect with sustenance and every cultivation those whom he himself has begotten: and this likewise is deduced from nature itself, that he wishes to acquire and prepare for his children, who refer back and in some way produce the paternal person, that by which they may honestly defend themselves from miserable fortune in the uncertain course of life."

Whence thus: in the normal state of industry, a suitable worker ought to have an efficacious means of providing for an ordinary family. But such a means cannot be except labor in which there is a value equivalent to an absolute and collective family wage. - Therefore there is in the labor of the worker a value equivalent to an absolute and collective family wage.

825. From this it follows, according to many, that this wage is owed from justice, as often as the condition of industry permits it;¹ for otherwise the right which workers have of furnishing necessities to their family would be violated. Nor does this opinion, understood thus, contradict the opinion of Cardinal Zigliara; for he was speaking of a father of a family who alone was working for the support of the whole family, while in our case it is supposed that other members of the family contribute something to the domestic matter by some labor proportionate to their powers. In other words, the family itself can be regarded as a moral body, which has a right to honorable support when it labors according to its powers.

¹ Thus Card. Manning, La Question ouvriere et sociale, Paris, 1892; Liberatore, Econ. Polit., p. 246-252; Nicotra, Le minimum de salaire, art. 2; Verhaegen, Le minimum de salaire, Ghent, 1892; C. Perin, Note sur le juste salaire, Mons, 1892; Pottier, op. cit., n. 195; Gayraud, Questions du jour, Paris, 1897, p. 171-176; Waffelaert, in Collationes Brugenses, VI, Jan. 1901; Vermeersch, op. cit., n. 430-440; Lehmk., n. 1127a; Noldin, n. 600-601.

826. Yet we do not deny that there are certain persons, among modern Catholics, who still contend that from justice only the payment necessary for personal support is owed; for, they say, the work furnished is something personal, and has no relation to the family; whence the family wage, in whatever way it is understood, is not owed except from a certain charity or equity; if the wife labors, she indeed will receive from justice payment proportionate to her labor; the same must be said concerning children; but if the collective wage does not suffice for the support of the whole family, this cannot be turned into a fault for masters, who furnished a stipend corresponding to the value of the work. - To these it is responded that there is in the labor of workers, although merely personal, an intrinsic value sufficient that from it provision can be made for the family in ordinary circumstances.

Several, on the contrary, have recourse only to legal and distributive justice. For the common good demands that workers be able to marry and provide for a family, and it cannot be admitted that the support of families is to be expected from charity alone. Hence patrons are held from legal justice to furnish an absolute family wage, and presidents of the state from distributive justice to favor families, especially numerous ones.

Whatever may be the case concerning the speculative question, now a few things must be said concerning practical means by which, gradually and without harm to anyone, the wages of workers can be increased.

2. On The Means By Which The Wage Can Be Increased.

827. (A) Preliminary notions. (a) Most socialists and defenders of seditious syndicalism contend that the wage system is in itself and essentially unjust, and therefore must be abolished rather than amended.

We indeed do not deny that there have been several abuses in this regime, and before the great war wages in many regions were altogether insufficient, especially in those regions in which there were few workers' associations, but chiefly as regards women who labored at home by making clothing for great workshops,¹ so that it was necessary for laws to be made for determining the minimum wage to be paid to them. But from this it by no means follows that the regime itself of patronage, as intrinsically evil, must be abolished, but that means must be sought by which, by a wise and progressive evolution rather than by a violent overturning of things, the wages of workers can reasonably be increased.

¹ Enquete sur la petite industrie (Office du Travail) t. II, Le vetement a Paris; Ch. Benoist, Les ouvrieres de l'aiguille a Paris, 1895; d'Haussonville, Salaires et miseres des femmes; Bonnevay, Les ouvrieres lyonnaises travaillant a domicile, 1896; for England: Final Report of the Committee of the House of the Lords on the Sweating System, 1890; for America: Report of the Committee on the Sweating System, 1893, and more briefly in Levasseur, L'Ouvrier Americain, t. I, p. 422-451.

(b) In any region, other things being equal, the wage is greater for men than for women, especially because the stipend paid to women is held as a complement of the wage furnished to the husband; in great cities than in small ones, where expenses are less.

828. (c) In reality, from the common counsel of masters and workers, wages gradually increase; thus, in the second part of the recently elapsed century, they were increased by about fifty percent, while the expenses necessary for honorable support grew only twenty-five percent.¹ Today, after the war has ended, they have indeed increased much, so that they suffice for the honorable support of workers who are either celibate, or have children already capable of earning something. Nevertheless, because of the diminished value of money and the increased price of things, parents who have numerous offspring still incapable of laboring can support them only with difficulty. Wherefore, in some regions, owners have instituted a common fund from which they pay an additional wage (sursalaire) to workers according to the proportional number of children; this is certainly altogether consonant with equity.²

¹ Souchon, La situation des ouvriers en France au XIXe s., in the periodical Le Musee social, August 1899; E. Cauderlier, L'Evolution economique du XIXe siecle, Brussels and Paris, 1903, p. 73-201.

² Max Turmann, Problemes sociaux du travail industriel, Paris, Gabalda, 1921, ch. III; P. Bureau, La Caisse de compensation du Syndicat des metallurgistes dauphinois, 1919; Antoine du Passage, Economie Sociale, p. 685, where it is read: "Additional wages are becoming... more and more habitual. In Dauphine, in the North, in Normandy... they already constitute true institutions. At first some Dauphine patrons (it is in this region that the first trials were attempted) gave to a family comprising one or several children an additional payment. Then, to establish the measure on a broader base and proscribe every inclination to favor celibates to the detriment of fathers of families more burdensome for the enterprise, the associated patrons founded a regional Compensation Fund. Each enterprise pays into this fund a fixed sum per worker employed (married or not), and it is then the fund which distributes the additional wages among all the families, in the factories thus associated, proportionately to the number of children. - At the Social Week of Caen (August 1920), M. Deslandres noted that the existing compensation funds were already paying additional wages for several million francs each year, and showed that the institution, whose importance grows each day, has a true social scope."

829. (B) The principal means which have been devised for increasing wages. Here the matter concerns only those means which refer more directly to the wage itself, since later we shall speak of others which can render the general condition of workers better. The principal means are five: -

(a) Certain premiums granted to those workers who labor better, namely who diligently begin the work at the appointed time, or remain longer in the same workshop, or within the same space of time make more things, or make them more perfectly, or also use materials more sparingly; for in these cases a greater profit accrues to the master, who therefore is able to pay a greater stipend without any loss. - To this manner of acting many Socialists are indeed opposed, because it is opposed to perfect equality, and besides exhausts the strength of the workers, and chiefly favors the masters, who usually do not grant a premium proportioned to the more intense labor. Yet that system, notwithstanding certain inconveniences, greatly profits both masters and workers, provided it is brought into practice wisely and honestly, namely by taking care that workers not be drawn out too long in excessively arduous labors, and at the same time by seeing to it that they receive a premium equal to their efforts, according to the estimation of prudent persons.¹

¹ On the various ways of paying premiums (primes a la production, a l'assiduite, a l'economie, a l'anciennete, etc.), Schloss, op. cit., p. 11-134; Vantaer, La Participation aux benefices, Paris, 1898, p. 25-46; P. Bureau, L'Association de l'ouvrier au profit du patron et la Participation aux benefices, Paris, 1898; Gilman, Profit Sharing, London and New York, 1892, ch. II, p. 44-58, wrote wisely.

Sometimes wages also are increased or diminished according to a sliding scale (echelle mobile, sliding scale), corresponding to the quantity and price of the thing sold; this is done especially in England and America.²

² Vanlaer, op. cit., p. 33-36; Bureau, op. cit., p. 90-99; Gilman, op. cit., p. 56-58.

830. (b) A certain participation in profits, by virtue of which workers, besides the daily and usual stipend, each year or half-year receive a proportional part of the profits which the master has made. For even if he who has taken upon himself the whole risk of the business is not held to divide the profit with the workers, nevertheless it is fair that, after setting aside some part of the profit for protecting himself against adverse events, he distribute another part between himself and the workers; since they have had a part in the production of the things, it is not fitting that they be altogether excluded from the profits, especially if these are immense, and if besides they suffer a diminution of wage when things do not succeed so prosperously. - In this way production also is increased not a little, at least in many cases: namely, when workers expect some premium above the usual wage, they are accustomed to labor more intensely. - By this manner of acting, likewise, relations between masters and workers are made more friendly and peaceful, since in this way they understand better that they are co-workers.¹

¹ These advantages may be seen set forth at length in Vanlaer, p. 161-190.

In reality, already from the year 1842, participation of this sort in profits was in use among various Nations,² and, although it did not always and everywhere have a happy outcome, it profited much especially in workshops in which there are fewer workers, who can be stirred up by mutual example to labor better. Today it is judged that this participation can be made through the distribution of labor shares (actionnariat ouvrier, actions de travail), concerning which cf. Supplement, p. 236.

² Cf. Vanlaer, p. 47-81; 277-302, where you will find enumerated the workshops in which this participation flourishes; Gilman, p. 66-411.

831. (c) Subsidies granted to workers (subventions patronales); that is, certain masters divide some part of the profit under the form of subsidies, insofar as from superfluous things they contribute something to various institutes created for aiding workers: for increasing insurances against fortuitous cases, involuntary cessation from work, diseases, old age, or premature incapacity for laboring, - for fostering schools in which professional instruction is given, - for obtaining healthy houses at a moderate price, - for instituting cooperative societies, or other societies entered into for the sake of honest recreation, - for aiding in a special way families burdened with numerous offspring, etc. - These indeed will profit greatly, if masters permit the workers themselves to manage these funds or these societies, or at least to have a part in their management; otherwise they soon conceive a sense of distrust against institutes of this sort, and prefer to suffer everything rather than have recourse to societies which are managed by masters alone, and, as they think, for their advantage.

832. (d) The moderate intervention of the Republic, not indeed in this sense, that by public authority the wages to be paid to workers can be defined in a general and universal manner; but by giving an example, namely insofar as the State, Province, or Municipality, when they hire workers, pay a proportional wage fully suitable for their decent support, or impose upon executors of public works a proportional minimum wage to be paid to workers; and by taking care in a general way that wages in such a city or province be defined by mixed councils, in which delegates from masters and workers, by common vote, weigh the matter fairly, the reasons on both sides being honestly set forth.

(e) Associations of workers, by which they, with united forces, can obtain all that masters can grant without loss; concerning these associations we must now speak a little more fully.

III. On Workers' Associations (syndicats professionnels).

833. 1. State of the question. (A) Among the means by which the condition of workers can be rendered more tolerable and secure, Leo XIII enumerates associations of craftsmen, whose utility in past centuries he thus describes: "That associations of craftsmen among our forefathers long consisted in good deeds is certain. In truth they produced not only distinguished advantages for craftsmen, but also honor and increase for the crafts themselves, as very many monuments testify."¹ In most regions, however, already from the seventeenth century, associations of this sort began to decline, and afterward they were abolished, with the right of association forbidden. Yet some survived secretly; others were instituted under one or another pretext, until at last the liberty of association was restored.

¹ The history and advantages of these associations have been described by E. Levasseur, Histoire des Classes Ouvrieres avant 1789; Martin Saint-Leon, Les Corporations de metiers; Hubert-Valleroux, Les Corporations d'Arts et Metiers; Blanc, Les Corporations de Metiers; more briefly, however, by L. Garriguet, L'Association ouvriere, 1904. - Their present state is set forth: for France, L. de Seilhac, Syndicats ouvriers, Federations, Bourses de Travail, Paris, 1902; for England, P. de Rousiers, Le Trade-Unionisme en Angleterre, Paris, 1904; for America, L. Vigoureux, La concentration des forces ouvrieres dans l'Amerique du Nord, Paris, 1899; R. Ely, The Labor Movement in America, New York, 1886; in Belgium, Vandervelde, Enquete sur les associations professionnelles d'artisans et d'ouvriers en Belgique, 1892; for Germany, Brandts, Les associations ouvrieres en Allemagne, 1899, etc.

(B) The same Pontiff inculcates the necessity of associations of this sort, accommodated to our morals: "In a more instructed age now, with new morals, and with the things which daily life requires having also increased, it is certainly necessary that workers' sodalities be adapted to present use." Indeed we have already demonstrated above, n. 185, the utility and the moral necessity of association; for man, having discovered the scantiness of his own powers, by natural inclination seeks to enter societies with others, so that by common counsel and action he may increase and multiply his powers.¹ And if this is true of all citizens, it must be said with greater right of workers, who otherwise would be handed over solitary and defenseless to unbridled competition; for since as individuals they are much less powerful than masters, they cannot efficaciously vindicate their rights unless by uniting counsels and forces.

¹ To the point Leo XIII (Rerum Novarum): "The explored scantiness of his powers impels man and urges him to wish to join foreign help to himself. That saying belongs to the sacred writings: It is better therefore that two be together than one: for they have the benefit of their society. If one falls, he will be supported by the other. Woe to him who is alone: because when he falls, he does not have one lifting him up (Eccles., IV, 9-10). And also this: A brother who is helped by a brother is like a strong city (Prov., XVIII, 19). By this natural inclination, just as man is led to civil union and congregation, so also he seeks to enter other societies with citizens, small indeed and imperfect, but societies nevertheless."

834. 2. On the relative utility of mixed and independent associations. Here, however, a question arises: what kind of associations is better, whether mixed sodalities (syndicats mixtes), composed of workers and masters, or separated sodalities, composed of workers alone or of masters alone. Leo XIII approves each kind: "That societies of this kind are commonly formed, whether composed wholly of workers, or mixed from each order, is pleasing: but it is to be desired that they grow in number and active virtue." Yet among Catholics, some favor mixed associations, others separated ones.

835. (A) Those who favor the former kind argue thus:² (a) mixed sodalities promote mutual confidence and concord between workers and masters. For associations composed of workers alone are as it were armies armed against masters; on each side perpetual distrust flourishes, and often between the two orders discord breaks out without just motive. For composing disputes no principles are admitted except the principles of strict justice and absolute equality, nor any means except agreements which now are extorted from masters, now from workers, by threats or fear. Hence that regime can be called a regime of separation, mutual distrust, and justice alone, under threats of violent dissension or under an armed treaty of peace. - On the contrary, in mixed associations the hierarchical order in those things which regard the direction of labor is indeed acknowledged, but at the same time equality between masters and workers as regards the contract of labor itself; the various difficulties which arise are solved by confidential recourse to the masters, through a council composed in equal number of delegates from each order (conseil d'usine); wherefore that regime can be called a regime of union, mutual confidence, and benevolence.

² Castelein, Instit. Philos. Moralis et Socialis, p. 400-403; id., Le Socialisme et le droit de propriete, p. 289-304.

836. (b) From this benevolent and mutual concord of masters and workers there arises industrial prosperity, which profits society no less than each order; for the common labor becomes more intense, and is better ordered to the same end, and therefore more and more perfect things are produced, and the profit of the master as well as the wage of the worker can be increased. Thus also the burdens of those laboring are diminished: for the master who truly loves his workers and is loved by them is more inclined to favor them and to furnish assistance to them; for equity tempered by charity profits more than justice alone.

(c) From this there is instituted a stronger struggle against socialism; for since socialists have nothing more ancient than to scatter dissensions between masters and workers, in order more efficaciously to overturn the social order, nothing stronger can be opposed to this manner of acting than the mutual benevolence and confidence of each order: for thus many dissensions are forestalled, and, if any arise, they are composed not by sedition and violence, but by conciliation and arbitration.

837. (B) Those who favor separated associations do not indeed deny these utilities speculatively; but they observe these things: - (a) For several years Catholics in various regions, with the greatest liberality, have tried with all their strength to institute mixed sodalities, yet with an unhappy outcome. Thus today, in France, while in the year 1900 there were only 29,044 workers and masters in mixed associations, 170,030 masters and 588,832 workers adhered to separated industrial associations.¹ The reason is that workers, in mind and character, education, and manner of living, are so distant from masters that they often shrink from meeting and conversing together; for workers wish to be independent, at least during the hours in which they do not labor, conscious of their own dignity, tenacious of their rights, desirous of justice rather than charity, most diligent guardians of solidarity; masters, however, zealous assertors of their own authority and dignity, often ambitious and desirous of acquiring riches quickly, wish to manage their own affairs alone, without any intervention of the State or of workers.¹ Wherefore it is very difficult to join masters and workers together in one and the same association.

¹ In P. Pic, op. cit., n. 552; from that time separated associations have grown much, as can be read in the periodical Bulletin de l'Office du Travail.

¹ For a fuller understanding of the matter, cf. J. Huret, Enquete sur la Question sociale en Europe, Paris, 1897; G. Routier, La Question sociale et l'opinion du pays, Paris, 1894; G. Lebon, Psychologie du Socialisme, Paris, 1902, p. 44-56; 317-323; 332-342; 414-418.

838. (b) Moreover, by separated associations the blind force of unbridled competition is more efficaciously broken; on the one side, namely, associated workers by common counsel and action seek a wage sufficient for themselves and their family, and on the other, associated masters weigh at what price they must sell the things made, so that, without their own loss, they may be able to satisfy the legitimate petitions of the workers. But since difficulties and dissensions often arise, councils of deputies are called, elected from each order, and thus, after an honest and sincere exposition and discussion of the matters, the dispute is amicably composed.

It is objected indeed that separated workers' associations are nothing other than legions armed against masters, always ready for rebellion, and slipping more or less into socialism. - That the matter is so in France and in certain parts of Germany is established with sufficient certainty from many facts.

Resp. We indeed concede that workers' associations, when first instituted, and especially where the best of the workers are deterred from entering them, often foster a certain spirit of rebellion, and more or less embrace the doctrines of socialists; from this arise dissensions, concerted cessations from work, and very many acts of violence. But in the course of time, by experience and by the study of social matters, the leaders of the associations gradually understand that nothing can be obtained by violence and sedition, since the ruin of workshops harms workers no less than masters; wherefore, after various attempts, they begin to be wise and to consider things with a sounder mind, and they strive to make their condition better by legitimate means. Thus especially in Great Britain² and in the Federated States of America;³ and therefore it can be expected that, after some time, things will so stand in France, especially if honest and well-moraled workers institute independent associations, and vindicate their rights no less strenuously, but more legitimately than the socialists.¹

² Sydney and Beatrice Webb, The History of Trade Unionism, London, 1894; G. Howell, Trade Unionism New and Old, London, 1894; F. Fagnot, Le Syndicalisme anglais, Paris, 1903; de Rousiers, op. cit.

³ R. T. Ely, The Labor Movement in America, New York, 1886; G. E. N. Neill, The Labor Movement, 1887; Levasseur, op. cit., t. I, p. 237-305. - Recently, in the 23rd Congress of the American Federation of Labor, held at Boston (Nov. 1903), President Gompers openly declared that the doctrines of the socialists lacked a solid foundation, indeed were erroneous and impossible in practice. (Report of the Proceedings, Washington, 1903; Bulletin de l'Office du Travail, March 1904, p. 240.)

¹ In reality the associations of typographers, which are older, exhibit greater prudence, as may be seen in L. de Seilhac, p. 121-125.

839. (c) By these associations well ordered, the education of workers is promoted, insofar as they, more and more conscious of their own dignity, strive to become more skilled in their art, purer and more temperate in their morals, and more capable in managing affairs; thus, for example, by force of the statutes in force in certain associations, drunkards, blasphemers, the lustful, in one word all those who offend honesty or good morals, are excluded.² - Moreover, when associated workers are Catholics, by good examples and exhortatory words they mutually stir one another up to cultivating virtue and religion, and not rarely bring others to religious practice by persuasion and by a benign manner of acting.

² You have examples, for America, in Ely, op. cit., p. 120-160; for England, in P. Bureau, Le Contrat de Travail, p. 227-228, where these words of one of the leaders of the workers are reported: "Do you believe that if we struggle with the ardor which you know..., it is only to make you gain three or four pence more per day? What would that serve if you continue to bet at the races, and to get drunk in the public houses? A fine result of our efforts indeed! No, my friends, know this well, what we wish, what we must obtain, is that you rise to a better life, to a life more conformable to the dignity of the human species."

840. (d) Thus also the way is prepared for the collective contract of labor, which, rightly understood, profits masters equally and workers; for in great workshops, it becomes morally impossible that masters enter a contract of labor with individual workers; besides, so that the agreement may be fair, and may not furnish occasion for many dissensions, the conditions as to the quantity or quality of the work, and also the determination of the price, must be defined minutely. Now for defining all these things justly, nothing is more expedient than a convention of delegates, who officially act for the parts of masters and workers: this indeed is easily furnished if there are separated associations of masters and workers; for then deputies are freely elected by the workers themselves, who defend their rights, and for that reason the conditions signed by the deputies are more easily ratified and fulfilled.¹

¹ Raynaud, Le Contrat collectif de travail, Paris, 1901; P. Bureau, Le Contrat de travail, p. 183-271; P. Pic, op. cit., n. 442-444.

841. (C) Conclusion. Since reasons not to be despised are brought forward on each side, each person can favor either kind of association, as he pleases.

(a) In small workshops, where masters and workers can more easily meet and friendly relations be had, mixed associations can usefully be instituted;² yet masters should take care that workers may freely open their mind and set forth what changes please or displease them; likewise let it be free to them by their own movement to institute and manage various societies, lest otherwise they seem to depend altogether upon the masters, and afterward, conscious of this dependence, incline to open rebellion.³

² Thus in the place called Val-des-Bois, wholly friendly relations flourish between L. Harmel, who is called a good father, and his workers; cf. L. Harmel, Manuel de la Corporation chretienne, Tours, 1879, p. 23-38; 213-255; U. Guerin, Fileur en peigne du Val-des-Bois (Collection Les Ouvriers des Deux Mondes), 2nd series, 38th fasc., 1896, p. 73-136.

³ You have an example of this matter in La Quinzaine, April 1, 1902, p. 350-375, Montceau-les-Mines et le Paternalisme, by P. Bureau.

842. (b) But in great workshops, with attention to the psychological dispositions, so diverse, of workers and masters, and also to the experiments made in various regions, the institution and lasting preservation of mixed associations often becomes morally impossible. Hence today, among most Nations, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, separated associations flourish, which nevertheless strive to preserve peace and concord by a mixed Council of conciliation and arbitration. Yet it must be diligently cared for that associations of this sort, political-party prejudices being set aside, do not foster the spirit of sedition, but rather promote by legitimate means the professional, physical, intellectual, moral, and religious good of the workers. Therefore from these associations men upright and honest, attached to the Catholic religion, should not be kept away; where the errors of the socialists have already invaded workers' associations, let other independent associations be instituted, to which the upright can join themselves; for the time will come when workers, enticed by socialists, will understand that they have been deceived, and will join themselves to those associations which strive to render the condition of workers better, without however wishing to overturn the whole social and religious order.¹

¹ "The workers who are refractory to socialist excitations, and who ask only to shake off the yoke of the socialist party, are numerous; we even believe that they are the majority. But abandoned to themselves, what can they do, except bend the back before the most violent and most audacious? They will be able to resist seriously only from the day when to the socialist syndicate there is opposed a syndical organization received by the chiefs of industry with real sympathy." (Delcourt-Haillot, in the periodical Reforme sociale, May 16, 1902, p. 767.) - In reality Christian or independent workers' associations have been instituted in Belgium (P. Rutten, Mouvement syndical chretien en Belgique, Ghent, 1903; L. Varlez, Quelques pages d'histoire syndicale belge, in Musee social, March 1902); in Germany (Tondeur-Scheffler, Les Syndicats ouvriers allemands, in Musee social, April 1902; G. Blondel, Le Mouvement syndical chretien en Allemagne, in La Quinzaine, January 1, 1902, p. 30-41); in France today 140,000 men and women adhere to the national association of Catholic workers, whose number grows daily, with not a few bishops favoring it, as will be set forth in French at the end of the work.

To the point Leo XIII: "They indeed for the most part understand that they have been deceived by false hope and a feigned appearance of things... With broken spirit, weakened body, how greatly many would wish to vindicate themselves from so base a servitude: and yet they do not dare, whether because human shame, or fear of want, forbids it. Now to all these, how wonderfully Catholic associations can profit unto salvation, if they invite the hesitating to their bosom, with difficulties to be disentangled, and if they receive the penitent into their faith and protection."

843. (c) So that Catholic professional associations may promote private and social good, they must be imbued with a Catholic spirit and tend to the perfection of piety and morals no less than to the increase of goods of body, mind, and family estate. Wherefore priests, who cannot join themselves to workers' associations, in many regions, must see to it that at least some from among the Catholics who enter these associations are so strengthened in faith and instructed in genuine piety that they are able to instruct others by words and examples; for just as a little leaven lifts up the whole mass, so a tiny flock of devout persons will gradually convert the whole multitude of laborers to better things.

Leo XIII illustrates this by the example of the first Christians, of whom most lived by the work of their hands: "It was possible to see them industrious, laborious, peaceful, holding themselves forth as an example of justice and especially of charity; at the spectacle of such life and morals, every prejudged opinion vanished, the detraction of the malevolent fell silent, and the fictions of long-standing superstition gradually yielded to Christian truth." Thus Christian craftsmen, if they join arduous labor to piety, and at the same time show themselves industrious, modest, and benign, will conciliate to themselves the confidence and benevolence of many, and reverence and honor for the Catholic religion.¹

¹ Certain Catholic societies contribute much to the right and Christian institution of young workers; while they assiduously inculcate the practice of Christian virtues, they teach adolescents how by legitimate means, with the rights of masters unharmed, they can render their condition better. Cf. Max Turmann, Education populaire, 2nd ed.

IV. On Cessation From Work (greve, strike).²

² Lehmkuhl, Arbeitsvertrag und Strike, Freiburg, Herder, 1895, in French Le Contrat entre patrons et ouvriers et les greves; Pottier, op. cit., n. 172-183; Vermeersch, op. cit., n. 470-477; Antoine, op. cit., p. 462-470; Rutten, Nos greves houilleres et l'action socialiste; Turquan, Les Greves, Paris, 1890; L. de Seilhac, La Greve de Carmaux, Paris, 1897; id., Les Greves, 1903; Howell, Conflicts of Capital and Labour, London, 1890; Levasseur, op. cit., t. I, p. 497-571; W. F. Willoughby, La Corporation de l'Acier des Etats-Unis et la Greve de ses ouvriers en 1901, translated from English by J. de Montaignac, in Musee social, February 1902.

844. 1. State of the question. (A) When a contract of labor is entered, it is defined explicitly or implicitly how long it ought to endure; this being posited, workers or masters act unjustly who, without grave reason, withdraw from a legitimate convention, and therefore are held to compensate the damage thence inflicted upon the other.³ - But if the contract was from the beginning, or has become, unjust (which can be judged from the rules set forth above, n. 793-802), those who, on account of the injury which they suffer, withdraw from the contract do not commit an injury. - Once the time has elapsed, workers can cease without injury toward the master, even without any reason: for it is permitted to them either to rest, or to hire out their work to others.⁴

³ Civil laws generally sanction this; for France, cf. Planiol, n. 1878-1896, where the laws of Dec. 27, 1890, and July 19, 1901, are set forth.

⁴ Yet, if they need to labor for the support of themselves and their own, and no hope shines upon them of finding another master by whom they may be hired, from charity and from prudence they can be held not to leave the work.

(B) But the question arises whether workers can cease from work in a body and by agreement, for this end, that they may obtain or extort from masters a greater wage or other conditions. This cessation from work is called by the name strike, and is defined as the common withdrawal by agreement of many workers for obtaining certain advantages from masters. - Often workers desist from laboring in order to obtain a greater recompense, but sometimes also that the labor may be made less long-lasting and less grave, or because certain workers, especially if they are associated, have been dismissed or more harshly treated; sometimes they complain that faith has been violated, or that an unfair stipulation has been attached to the contract. Not rarely, especially in France, they are stirred up by political agitators,¹ who affect love toward the people, so that they may capture their votes; hence sometimes it happens that most do not know the cause why they have refused to work, and do not know what is to be sought from the masters.

¹ "Assuredly the far greatest part of the workers prefer to obtain better things by honest labor without injury to anyone: yet not a few are numbered who are imbued with depraved opinions and desirous of new things, who strive in every way to move disturbances, and to impel the rest to violence." (Rerum Novarum.) - On the various motives on account of which cessation from work occurs, see L. de Seilhac, Les Greves, p. 177-229.

845. 2. Principles concerning cessation from work. (A) A common cessation from work by agreement is not permitted except for a grave cause, after mature deliberation, and after useless attempts to settle the dispute peacefully.

(a) For a strike is as it were a war between masters and workers, and brings many evils with it: "That kind of cessation affects with damage not only masters, and the workers themselves, but harms commerce and the utilities of the republic, and since it is not far from violence and disturbances, it very often brings public tranquillity into danger."²

² Rerum Novarum. - Thus, at Marseilles, in the year 1901, workers, by desisting from work, lost about 2,000,000 francs, the city itself 25,000,000 francs per week; in the Federated States of America, while a cessation from work was in force in the coal mines (houilleres) of Pennsylvania in the year 1902, masters were losing about 157,500,000 francs. - Cf. L. Seilhac, op. cit., p. 23-32.

In reality, during the whole time in which they desist from work, workers receive no wage, but spend for the support of themselves and their family the money amassed by long thrift; but masters not only make no profit, but often incur burdensome expenses for guarding and repairing their buildings and instruments of labor, and lose the opportunity of selling their merchandise not only for the present, but often also for future time, since not a few buyers are accustomed to have recourse to other manufacturers, and often afterwards retain this custom. Moreover railways, and also certain other workshops which depend on those in which the work has ceased, suffer not slight damages from this; sometimes the industry and commerce of a whole province are involved in tangled difficulties, and the number of the poor in the whole region is greatly increased. - Nor must the evils of the moral order be passed over in silence, namely hatreds which dissociate citizens, corruption of morals which naturally flows from long idleness, blasphemies against religion, violent and unjust acts by which persons or things are attacked, and other things of this sort.

Now it is an unshaken principle of ethics that so many and such great evils cannot be permitted without a grave reason which is truly proportioned to these evils; therefore the good which is expected from the strike must be of the greatest moment, and the hope of obtaining it well founded; and therefore the advantages and disadvantages must be weighed diligently and maturely in all justice and charity. Besides, it is necessary that no gentler and better way be available for attaining the intended end; therefore upright and honest men, delegated by masters and workers, must first come together, so that, insofar as it can be done, the dispute may be composed peacefully by mutual concessions; indeed, it is altogether expedient that, if the delegates cannot consent to one and the same proposal, the matter be left to be judged by arbitrators.

846. (b) But when there is a proportionately grave reason, maturely and long weighed, and the dispute could not be composed peacefully by the aforesaid means, it is permitted to workers to desist from work by agreement, provided they pursue a good end; for the matter concerns an act indifferent in itself, from which a double effect will follow, and by hypothesis the good effect intended is foreseen to surpass the bad effect; and if such a right, in these circumstances, were denied to workers, they could scarcely protect their rights in another way.¹ - Nor should it be said that that means is altogether inefficacious; for, as even the economists of the liberal school acknowledge, although workers have suffered many damages from strikes, nevertheless they often have obtained greater advantages from them; often also the fear lest a cessation from work prevail induces masters to concede to the workers whatever they can bestow without loss.¹

¹ Thus Leroy-Beaulieu, Traite, t. II, p. 453-454; Lehmk., Theol. moralis, t. I (11th ed., n. 1348), where he says: "Before this time (of the elapsed contract), to make a strike will not have been unjust if on the part of the master an open violation of the contract is committed, and he, having been warned, does not wish to desist from inflicting injustice. Indeed in such a case, when the matter concerns protecting a right of great moment, it can happen that it is permitted to exercise, not violence indeed, but a certain moral coercion against other workers... by excluding them from undue goods lest they make the repulse of the injury inefficacious, provided however that these can pursue the common cause with the others without incurring their own damage. Such an unjust violation of contract on the part of the master is an openly unjust depression of the recompense, an unjust denial of festal rest, the continuation of a grave danger against good morals."

¹ "Everything considered, strikes have been rather useful than harmful to the working class. - The permanent gain greatly surpasses the passing losses. - Strikes have chiefly contributed to improving workshop regulations, to reducing the excessive working day, to rendering the manner of payment more loyal, finally to making the worker respected by the patron." (P. Leroy-Beaulieu, Repartition des richesses, p. 626; cf. p. 395-407; P. Pic, n. 292-295.)

847. (B) Even when cessation from work is legitimate in itself, violent means must not be used either for deterring others from laboring, or for inflicting damage on masters.

The reason is that it is not permitted to use illegitimate means even for pursuing a good end; now violence is something illegitimate, nor must it be used except for repelling force. Wherefore workers who desist from work cannot by force compel others to do the same, nor strike or wound those who continue to labor. Yet they probably can, when the injustice of the masters is certainly established and redounds to common damage, morally compel other workers, especially those associated with them, by persuasion and just threats (for example, by expelling them from the association), not to labor for these masters until satisfaction has been made for the just complaints;² for otherwise the rights of workers often cannot be vindicated.

² Thus Lehmk., Casus 278, n. 895: "But if the injustice of the masters is clear and redounds to the grave common damage of the workers, it will not be unjust also morally to compel those workers who would wish to continue laboring for that lower recompense, not to do so."

Likewise, positively to inflict damage on masters by burning their houses or goods, or by harming them, is prohibited no less by natural law than by positive law; for there are other means for protecting the rights of workers; indeed experience establishes that by these violent means their cause is ruined, both because the mind of other citizens is thus alienated, and because occasion is given for the armed intervention of the Republic.

848. (C) When the common cessation from work is illegitimate, whether in itself or from the violences employed, the right of the State comes in, to impose an end upon it or to restrain abuses.

For it pertains to the supreme authority to promote the public good, and to prevent those things which disturb the order of society; but strikes which take place not because of a grave and reasonable cause, but for fostering sedition or other motives of this sort, or which bring force upon peaceful citizens, by that very fact disturb peace and the social order, and especially harm industry, commerce, and good morals, as was said above. "Let the authority of the Republic therefore intervene," says Leo XIII, "and, a bridle having been put upon agitators, let them restrain corrupting arts from the morals of the workers, and the danger of plundering from legitimate masters."

849. 3. On conciliation and arbitration.¹ Since it is better to forestall evils than to correct them, it is certainly very expedient to prevent dissensions between masters and workers by councils of conciliation and arbitration, some of which have been instituted by private authority, others by law.

¹ H. Crompton, Industrial Conciliation, London, 1876; rendered into French under Weiler's care: Arbitrage et conciliation entre patrons et ouvriers, Brussels; Office du Travail: De la Conciliation et de l'Arbitrage, Paris, 1893; Weiler, L'organisation des Conseils d'arbitrage etablis en Angleterre, Paris, 1877; Bayles, The Shop Council, New York, 1886, rendered into French under Foccroutte's care: Le Conseil d'Usine, Brussels and Paris, 1892; Peronnet, La Conciliation et l'Arbitrage, Paris, 1897; de Seilhac, La greve et l'arbitrage, Correspondant, Dec. 1902, p. 820-842; Tanquerey, in Vacant, Diction. de Theologie, t. I, 1733-1737.

(a) First indeed in England, Belgium, and the Federated States of America, already from the year 1860, councils of this sort were created by private authority, composed of an equal number of masters and workers, for solving difficulties which often arise concerning all things that regard industry, e.g., the amount of the wage, the duration of labor, the rules to be followed in the workshop, etc. The president of these councils is either one from the members selected by the council itself, or a certain magistrate of the region who is chosen for this office by the common vote of the workers and masters. By these means many dissensions were peacefully composed.

850. (b) Wherefore, in many regions, laws have been enacted for instituting officially mixed tribunals, which can compose disputes between masters and workers, or for defining the conditions under which arbitrators can be chosen. In most places, recourse to arbitrators remains altogether free; yet in certain places, such as Switzerland and Australia, workers and masters, in the case of dissension, are compelled to submit themselves to arbitration.

What is more opportune concerning this matter is controverted among sociologists. We indeed judge that workers and masters can be compelled, whether through themselves or through delegates, to appear before the magistrate, so that they may honestly set forth the motive of the dissension and their arguments; but it is not expedient that the sentence of the arbitrators be so obligatory that they are compelled to obey it. - The reason for the former is that it is certainly opportune, for forestalling violent conflicts, that delegates of each order meet together and plainly open their mind; for by a sincere exposition of facts and reasons many prejudices are set aside, and the way of concord is prepared. Now, in many cases, unless a legal obligation of acting thus rests upon each party, under whatever pretext, one or the other will reject the proposed convention.

On the other hand, it is generally not expedient that dissenters be compelled to obey the sentence; for who will compel workers to labor for such a master, against their own mind? and, if they labor unwillingly, will not the work be very imperfect? Likewise, if masters judge that they cannot accept the imposed conditions without their own loss, can they be condemned to certain ruin?

Nor can it be said that a sentence which does not have the force of law is altogether useless; for since this becomes a matter of public right, workers and masters are morally obliged to obey it, provided it seems sufficiently evidently consonant with reason; for they are impelled to this by public estimation, namely lest they incur the indignation of other citizens.

V. On The Means By Which The Condition Of Workers Can Be Made Better.¹

¹ Soderini, Socialisme et Catholicisme, Lille, 1896, chap. 23-27; G. Goyau, Autour du catholicisme social, Paris, 1900-1903; V. Brants, Les grandes Lignes de l'Econ. pol., Moyens generaux d'ameliorer la situation sociale, t. II, p. 266-363; Millot, Que faut-il faire pour le peuple? Paris, 1901; F. Veuillot, L'Apostolat social, Paris, 1902; Bouchage, L'Apostolat paroissial, Paris, 1903; Berardi, De officio parochi nostris temporibus, Faenza, 1902; E. Rostand, L'Action sociale par l'initiative privee, Paris, 3 vols., 1892-1897-1902; Vermeersch, Manuel social, Louvain, 1900; Baunard, L'Evangile du Pauvre, 2nd ed., Paris, 1904. - We also treated these things where we treated Charity, n. 817-835.

851. State of the question. Since these things are so, the office rests upon upright and Catholic men, but especially upon priests, of striving with all their powers that they make the condition of workers better, insofar as this can be done, and thus render concord and peace between the rich and proletarians more firm. To the point Leo XIII: "As regards the Church, she will at no time and in no way allow her work to be wanting, and she will bring so much more assistance, the more liberty in acting shall have fallen to her... let the ministers of sacred things direct all the powers of mind and industry." - These words indeed, spoken in the year 1891, laymen and priests heard, and in various regions they gave themselves to Catholic action; hence diverse institutes were created for the benefit of workers: "banks for loans to countrymen; associations, some for rendering mutual assistance, others for relieving necessities due to misfortunes; sodalities of workers; other helps of this kind, both of societies and of works."¹ This manner of acting received from some the name of Christian socialism, yet less rightly, since socialism, such as it is in fact defended, openly contradicts Christian dogmas; - but from others, popular Christian action, and elsewhere Christian democracy: the former appellation indeed suffers no difficulty; the latter, which did not please many, is nevertheless permitted by Leo XIII, provided it is not twisted to a political sense, and does not seem to exclude superiors and the rich, but "pertains solely to this, that those who sustain life by hand and art be brought to a more tolerable state, and gradually have that by which they may provide for themselves; that at home and openly they freely fulfill the offices of virtues and religion; that they feel themselves to be not animals but men, not pagans but Christians; and thus strive toward that one thing necessary."²

¹ Thus Leo XIII, in the Encyclical Graves de Communi, Jan. 18, 1901; Max Turmann described the evolution of Catholic action from the year 1891, Le Catholicisme social depuis l'Encycl. Rerum Novarum, Paris, 1900.

² Leo XIII, the cited Encyclical Graves de Communi, which is to be read attentively in its entirety; you have a commentary in the little work: L'Eglise et la Democratie chretienne by Goyau, Toniolo, and Pottier, Liege, 1901. - What in past centuries the Gallican clergy did for promoting also the temporal good of the faithful, Sicard sets forth, L'ancien Clerge de France, Paris, 1893, t. I, pp. 142-192; 318-335.

It will not therefore be unpleasant to enumerate briefly the principal means hitherto used for improving the condition of workers: 1. the young are to be instructed by Christian education, so that they become good workers; 2. adults are to be united together by various associations, so that they may more securely provide for themselves; 3. they are to be aided by other associations instituted among the richer; 4. they are to be strengthened in faith and virtue through religious associations.

852. 1. The Christian, virile, and professional education of the young. For rendering the lot of workers better, the good education of the young contributes greatly; for many, whether at home or in neutral schools, are not rightly instructed. It is necessary therefore that education be completed in pious works which are called patronages, or in study circles (cercles d'etudes, debating clubs). This indeed ought to be: (A) Christian; for piety "is useful for all things, having the promise of the life which now is, and of the future";¹ for by forming young people who are sober, chaste, lovers of labor and thrift, it certainly helps them much to manage even temporal matters prosperously. But, since today errors are scattered everywhere, the faith of the young must be nourished and strengthened: it is not enough to explain rightly, but it is necessary to prove by solid arguments the principal dogmas, such as the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the divine mission of Christ, the authority of the Church, etc. Let adolescents be taught how, according to their capacity, they may answer the common difficulties of unbelievers, and, in more difficult matters, have recourse to learned men. Among them let some be chosen, endowed with a sharper intellect, a nobler character, and greater fortitude, who may form a special society, imbued with an apostolic spirit, and draw other young persons to the practice of virtues by words and examples. They will be like so many apostles, who will greatly help priests in defending the faith and reforming morals.²

¹ 1 Tim., IV, 8.

² Congres international officiel du Patronage de la Jeunesse ouvriere, from June 10 to 13, 1900, Paris, 1901; Max Turmann, Les Oeuvres complementaires de l'Ecole, Paris, 1900; id., Les Patronages, 3rd ed. 1901; Gatouillat, Reflexions pratiques sur la necessite et la direction des Patronages de Jeunes Gens, Troyes, 1899.

Justice and charity demand that a due proportion should exist between labor and its wage. The employer must not abuse the necessity or temporary embarrassment of his workers by imposing oppressive conditions. He must not conceal onerous duties connected with an employment, and must pay his laborers promptly at the appointed time. He must not discharge them arbitrarily nor compel them by harsh treatment to give up their jobs. He should conform willingly to the laws regarding due provision for the life and health of his workers and treat them as helpers, not as slaves, ever mindful of the account he will have to give to the Lord, who judges rich and poor according to the same norms of justice.⁷

⁷ Col. IV, 1; Eph. VI, 9; 1 Tim. VI, 2; Philm. 16.

A servant or employee must not undertake work for which he is not fit or in which his faith or morals are placed in jeopardy. He must faithfully comply with the duties he has assumed by the contract into which he has, explicitly or implicitly, entered with his master or employer,—"not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men, but, as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart, ... knowing that whatever good thing any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bound or free."⁸ Finally, he has a claim to a fair wage⁹ and the right to employ all licit means in order to improve his economic and social status. Among these means are trade and labor unions and strikes.¹⁰

⁸ Eph. VI, 5–8.—Cfr. Col. III, 22–25; 1 Tim. VI, 1 sq.; 1 Pet. II, 18 sq.

⁹ Matth. X, 10; Luke X, 7; 1 Tim. V, 18.—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 114, art. 1.—A. Vermeersch, S. J., Quaestiones de Iustitia, 2nd ed., pp. 527 sqq.—F. X. Godts, C.SS.R., Scopuli Vitandi, 3rd ed., Bruges 1896, pp. 230 sqq.—J. Biederlack, S. J., Die soziale Frage, 7th ed., pp. 150 sqq., 233 sqq.—C. Gennari, Consultazioni Morali-Canoniche-Liturgiche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Rome 1902, pp. 378 sqq.

¹⁰ A. Vermeersch, S. J., Quaest. de Iustitia, 2nd ed., pp. 624 sqq.; Göpfert, Moraltheol., Vol. II, 6th ed., pp. 199 sqq.; Lehmkuhl, Arbeitsvertrag und Streik, 4th ed., Freiburg i. B. 1904, pp. 39 sqq.; IDEM, Casus Conscientiae, Vol. I, 3rd ed., pp. 895 sqq.; J. Treitz, Der moderne Gewerkschaftsgedanke, Treves 1909, pp. 73 sqq.; Broda, La Fixation des Salaires, Paris 1912; J. A. Ryan, Distributive Justice, pp. 400 sqq.; H. Parkinson, A Primer of Social Science, pp. 112 sqq.

For deciding what a fair wage is the following general rule has been laid down by Pope Leo XIII: "To labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the purposes of life, and chief of all, for self-preservation. 'In the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat thy bread.' ¹¹ Hence a man's labor bears two notes or characters. First of all, it is personal, inasmuch as the exertion of individual strength belongs to the individual who puts it forth, employing such strength to procure that personal advantage on account of which it was bestowed. Secondly, man's labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live; and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey. Now, were we to consider labor so far as it is personal merely, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small remuneration or even none at all. But this is a mere abstract supposition; the labor of the workingman is not only his personal attribute, but it is necessary; and this makes all the difference. The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It follows that each one has a right to procure what is required in order to live; and the poor can procure it in no other way than through work and wages. Let it then be taken for granted that workman and employer should, as a rule, make free agreements, and in particular, should agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that remuneration ought to be sufficient to support a frugal and honorable wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. In these and similar questions, however, such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc.—in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards, ... or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection."¹²

¹¹ Gen. III, 19.

¹² Leo XIII, Encyclical "Rerum Novarum," tr. in The Pope and the People, pp. 206 sqq.

The workman, then, says Fr. Slater, "has a right to a living wage, and the employer who grows rich by sweating his work-people commits a sin against justice and is bound to make restitution of his ill-gotten wealth."¹³

¹³ Slater, A Manual of Moral Theol., Vol. I, p. 293.

A living wage must be a living family wage (merces familialis), that is, one which will enable the laborer to establish a family and to support that family decently according to his station in life.

A family wage is due to a man because he is by nature ordinarily destined to found a family and provide for it. The wage should be proportioned to the normal size of the family. Many leading Catholic writers hold that the normal family wage is due to every workman on the ground of strict justice. This opinion, though not confirmed by the Church, is highly probable.

The principle of the living family wage, as Fr. Ross points out, has this important implication that it makes child labor unnecessary. If the head of a family receives a sufficient wage, his children will not be forced to work. They should not be robbed of their childhood for the sake of a few pennies a day. The State has a right and a duty to protect its future citizens by forbidding child labor.¹⁴

¹⁴ Reuter-Lehmkuhl, Neo-Confessarius, pp. 215 sq.; cfr. Göpfert, Moraltheol., Vol. II, 6th ed., pp. 196 sqq.; Parkinson, A Primer of Social Science, pp. 170 sq.; J. A. Ryan, Distributive Justice, pp. 373 sqq.; J. E. Ross, Christian Ethics, pp. 342 sq.; M. Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol. II, pp. 347 sqq.

310. On the just wage. Since a wage is, as it were, the price of labor, those things said above, n. 296ff., concerning the legal, common, and conventional price are also to be applied, with proportion observed, to the wage, which likewise can be legal, common, or conventional. Furthermore, there is distinguished the individual wage or pay, which suffices to furnish the worker alone with suitable food, clothing, and habitation; and the family or social wage, which furthermore suffices to support the worker's immediate family. The family wage is either absolute or relative. It is absolute when it suffices to support a family in ordinary circumstances, or when by it a thrifty and upright worker, without neglecting the aids which thrift and the moderate cooperation of wife and children can furnish, is able to provide decently for himself and his own. Such a family wage scarcely varies according to the number of children. For if the offspring is numerous, the expenses are certainly greater, but the income is also greater, since not only the husband but also the wife and children are supposed to labor and contribute to increasing the income of the family. The relative family wage is that which is required for supporting a family in extraordinary circumstances, e.g., if the wife is infirm and can in no way contribute to increasing the family's income, if the offspring is very numerous or oppressed by infirmities, if extraordinary expenses are necessary, etc.

312. Principle 2. An absolute family wage is to be granted from justice, or at least from charity, in the normal state of industry to an adult and able worker.

It is said, 1. in the normal state; for when commercial industry is in a state of distress, then the workers also must tolerate distress. It is said, 2. to an adult and able worker; for if the worker through infirmity or old age is unable to labor perfectly, the employer is not bound, at least from justice, to pay as great a wage as the worker needs for himself and his family. For then the republic ought to furnish assistance. But when the wife or children of the family can earn something in a suitable manner, they are bound to contribute to the support of the family. The reason for the principle is that the most sacred law of nature compels no one to celibacy, but permits marriage to everyone capable of it.¹⁹⁹ Moreover, the father of a family is bound to procure sustenance for his wife and children born to him; and consequently, if he is a worker, he must acquire so great a wage that he can suitably satisfy this duty.

It is disputed among Catholics whether employers are bound from commutative, or at least legal, justice, or from charity alone, to give an absolute family wage. Therefore Cardinal Goossens of Mechelen proposed three doubts concerning this matter to the Holy See. Cardinal Zigliara, by command of the Supreme Pontiff, responded in a letter to Cardinal Goossens in 1891 that an employer who pays a wage sufficient for the support of the worker but unequal to supporting his family does not sin against justice, whose demands are fully satisfied when equality of wage and work is observed. Therefore in this case an employer who does not pay an absolute family wage indeed sins more or less against equity and filial or familial duty, but is not bound to restitution. There are, however, several authors who nevertheless defend an obligation of justice in this case.²⁰⁰

¹⁹⁹ Hence Leo XIII says in the encyclical Rerum novarum: "No human law can take away from man the natural and primordial right of marriage."

²⁰⁰ Cf. Tanquerey, De iust. n. 818, who treats the question of the hiring of workers excellently and at length. The responses to the doubts of Cardinal Goossens are given in full by Vermeersch, Quaest. de iust. n. 420ff.

552. On the just wage. To determine the norm of a just wage, a threefold system is chiefly distinguished: that of the liberal economists, that of the socialists, and that of Catholics.

A. The system of the liberal economists is ruled wholly by a twofold economic law: the law of what is offered and what is sought, and the law of free contest or, as they say, competition, by which the price of all merchandise is determined. They deny objective value, and say that the wage depends upon the sole and free subjective agreement between worker and master, and therefore that that must be held just which the master freely offers and the worker freely accepts.

Hence in practice it is regulated by the law of competition, by force of which wages are increased or diminished according as owners more or less need the labor of workers. On the one hand, the master estimates the utility which comes to him from the use of the operative faculty of the workers, and the rarity or frequency of this; on the other hand, the worker estimates those things which are required for his honorable sustenance, and if he is truly free, he does not promise his work except to him who pays what is necessary for honorable sustenance. And this is in fact verified almost everywhere, that the wage in use is that which suffices for restoring and recreating the powers of workers.

But now the outcome has proved that individual liberty, left to itself under the law of unlimited competition, is incapable of furnishing to workers the security of congruous sustenance, and that it, even necessarily, cannot always define the just wage; therefore the question must be ruled by higher principles. In particular:

a) The foundation of the system of the liberals is false: that labor is nothing but merchandise.

b) The theory opens the door to tyranny, for it not rarely happens that workers in accepting a stipend are by no means truly free: for since they cannot labor fruitfully without machines or instruments which are in the possession of owners, and otherwise wholly need daily labor for daily sustenance, they are often compelled to accept the conditions imposed upon them, unless they wish to waste away with hunger. In these circumstances the price is not accepted freely, but is extorted from the worker; nor therefore can it be held as just.

c) Even granted that workers freely yielded from their right and accepted a wage insufficient for honorable sustenance, the contract would not be just, because in ordinary circumstances they cannot validly renounce those things which are necessary to them for living honorably.

Wherefore Leo XIII reproved economic liberalism: "Let it be granted, therefore, that worker and master freely consent to the same agreement, and expressly to the measure of the wage; nevertheless there is always underlying something from natural justice, and this greater and older than the free will of those making agreement, namely, that the wage ought not be inadequate for sustaining the worker, frugal indeed and of good morals. But if the worker, compelled by necessity, or moved by fear of a worse evil, accepts a harder condition, which, even unwillingly, must be accepted, because it is imposed by the owner or contractor of works, this indeed is to suffer force, against which justice cries out."

B. The system of the socialists arises from the absurd and unjust principles of Marxism according to which all capital is stolen, and therefore nothing is owed to it in the division of profit. Namely, the Socialists contend that to workers from justice there is owed the whole fruit of labor, with only those things taken away which are sufficient for restoring and recreating capital: namely, after deducting expenses made for the price of materials, the use of workshops and instruments, and their renewal. They cannot sanely deny some part to the intellectual labor of those who preside over the production of things and direct the works; nevertheless they judge that this should not be esteemed more than the work of hands.

But now, they say, it is manifest that the matter does not so stand. Owners retain for themselves the greater part of the profit under the pretext of interest to be received for money, of price for the utility procured from material and instruments, and of a premium for risk of capital; indeed capital is stolen riches reserved from thrift for producing new wealth. Thus workers are deprived of the greater part of the fruits, and, by force of the iron law of wages, they fall into misery, scarcely having the foods necessary for their own sustenance. Therefore workers must be cooperators with masters by a contract of partnership, and thus obtain a greater part of the profit, as is owed to labor, which is the sole cause of riches.

This system a) has a false foundation, namely, that capital of itself is stolen, and that labor is the only source of value (n. 401, 2).

b) Capital is not only a condition but a true cause of economic production. Namely, three causes concur in it: the principal efficient cause, which is labor, both the intellectual labor of those who direct the works and the manual labor of those who execute them; the instrumental efficient cause is capital, or the complex of machines and instruments; the material cause is matter with its powers, from which things are made. To these three causes, taken singly, part of the profit is to be attributed from justice. But now those who hold capital and furnish instruments to workers also usually contribute materials; indeed they furnish a positive subsidy through their money, by which they pay wages to workers before the things produced are sold. Therefore it is not strange if, on account of the manifold utilities conferred, they obtain a rather large part of the profit.

c) Besides, capitalists take upon themselves the risk of capital. This risk, although in prosperous years it is not always very great, during an industrial crisis often happens to be enormous: in truth not a few obtain an unhappy outcome in business and not rarely lose a great part of the money committed to undertakings. Moreover, since no one exposes himself to danger unless he hopes for great profit from it, on account of the risk of capital which masters undertake, they can, when profit has been given, increase that part of it owed to themselves, while workers, instead of uncertain profit, receive less but receive what is certain.

d) Capitalists, in the present-day circumstances of industry, also usually furnish, by themselves or through mandataries, intellectual labor directive of industries. But intellectual labor surpasses manual labor, and has the first parts in economic production, as being the first cause moving all the others. Certainly the happy or unhappy outcome depends especially upon the skill and unwearied labor of those who preside over industrial affairs, and upon whom the whole solicitude rests. Therefore to these a part of the profit, proportioned to their labor, must be attributed.

These circumstances being supposed, such as now generally exist, the system of letting of services, as it prevails today, or the wage system, cannot of itself be accused of injustice, as Pius XI explicitly pronounced in the encyclical Quadragesimo anno; although it is permissible to desire and to strive that, when circumstances have already changed, another contract, namely of partnership, at least mitigated, could be entered into between workers and masters, as more fitting to the human dignity of workers.

C. Catholic doctrine. Between the extreme systems of liberalism and socialism proceeds the Catholic doctrine set forth by Leo XIII, according to which from justice there is owed to workers at least that wage which is necessary to an honorable worker for integral sustenance,¹⁵ to which, namely, labor is first and principally ordered,¹⁶ and this is owed even if such were not the common estimation.¹⁷ Moreover, the practical norm of this wage is the common estimation of prudent men. It is said:

¹⁵ Which seems to include insurance against the dangers of labor, ordinary illnesses, and old age.

¹⁶ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 187, a. 3.

¹⁷ Common estimation is the proximate criterion determining the price of labor; nevertheless, that it not be vitiated but right, it must be founded on other remote criteria, of which the ultimate is necessity, the right and duty of the worker to sustenance.

1. It is owed from justice, which by Leo XIII is called natural justice, that is, a right of nature founded in the very nature of things antecedently to private and free contract. For it is opposed to the justice which arises from the contract itself. Therefore it is a justice independent of the positive will of men, and is derived from the intrinsic constitution of things.

However, it is not expressly declared from what virtue that obligation arises, whether from commutative justice, or from legal justice, or from a virtue annexed to justice; yet of itself commutative justice is to be understood:

a) at least if workers are compelled from necessity to undergo a lesser wage, and cannot validly renounce a just wage, possessing nothing besides it; and thus it would be ordinarily and regularly if a lesser wage were paid;

b) indeed always and from the very nature of things: for labor has as its intrinsic value that which is necessary for repairing lost powers; hence he who gives whole labor must receive what is necessary for integral sustenance.

2. At least a wage sufficient for the worker himself is owed; wherefore, on the one hand, abstraction is made here from the disputed question whether from justice an individual or family wage is owed (which controversy is set forth in the following number); on the other hand, it is affirmed that that wage is owed, even if the worker has from nature or art no special skill worthy of a larger price. But if the worker furnishes something more, a greater wage is owed to him, namely, one equivalent to the economic price of the work furnished.

3. Of itself there is owed a wage necessary for the worker's sustenance, provided that, on the one hand, the worker can labor with common skill and activity, and, on the other hand, the normal state of industry and commerce is had.

For in time of a general crisis, exceptionally, with at least the consent of the workers, the wage could be less than just; and in that case it is not imposed unjustly by the owners, but rather results from extrinsic circumstances, which the owners do not impose but rather undergo, so, for example, that by giving a greater wage they would have to fall from their own state.

553. Disputation among Catholics concerning the family wage. They dispute whether an individual wage, or also a family wage, is owed from justice. Against the family wage as owed from justice, these arguments are proposed:

a) Commutative justice intends equality, here namely equality between the wage and the work furnished. But labor, or the work furnished, is the personal labor of one man, not of a family. Therefore from commutative justice the wage must suffice for the sustenance of the man, not of the family.

b) The duty of feeding oneself, to which corresponds the obligation of giving a sufficient individual wage, is a certain necessity intrinsic and essential to the labor itself, namely, the necessity of repairing the powers handed over to work and lost by labor, and therefore, in estimating the wage of labor, it must of itself be attended to; on the contrary, the duty of feeding wife and children is a certain necessity extrinsic to labor, and therefore in estimating labor it must not of itself be attended to.

c) The duty of feeding a family is hypothetical, namely, if the worker is a father of a family; it is a duty freely undertaken, since the law of entering matrimony obliges no determined man; finally, it is a duty varying according to various families: he must sustain offspring more or less numerous, and sometimes father, mother, brothers. But if such a duty had to be attended to in estimating the price of labor, from justice there would be required a relative wage, varying according to the free choice of the worker and the number of persons whom he sustains.

The arguments for the family wage as owed from justice can be proposed thus:¹⁸

¹⁸ It is not our mode of proposing the arguments, but we have taken them from an excellent and most learned man who, at the same time answering the sayings of the adversaries, defended the family wage with great dexterity in this way.

a) Commutative justice indeed intends equality between the wage and the work furnished, but with attention to the personality and necessity of the one working. But the work or labor furnished is not the labor of one man abstractly and strictly taken individually, but is the labor of man as he in fact exists in the concrete and as he ought to exist according to the general ordering of nature and the moral law; in one word, it is the labor of the worker who is father of a family. Therefore the wage must suffice for assisting the condition of a father of a family.

b) The obligation of giving a sufficient wage is founded not so much in the necessity of providing for the physical labor itself, as in the moral necessity and personal dignity of the agent, for whom the wage obtained by labor generally is the only means of sustaining a family. But this dignity of the person, this moral necessity, is not something extrinsic to the one working, but is intrinsic to the worker and to personal work. Therefore in estimating the price of a just wage it cannot be neglected. Besides, from the very necessity of providing for physical labor and for the physical powers of the one working there already arises the necessity of a family wage; for the procreation of children is necessary for pursuing industrial affairs, and the valid worker himself needed the sustenance and cares of a family for a long time. Hence, just as masters lay aside part of the profit for procuring new machines at an opportune time, so a fortiori they must furnish to workers some part of the profit under the name of wage, so that at an opportune time there may be arms and hands by which machines can be moved and directed.

c) The duty of feeding a family is indeed hypothetical, but that hypothesis is verified commonly and of itself according to the motion of nature and the moral law; but justice regards those things which happen of themselves commonly, not those which happen rarely and by accident, namely, that adult workers remain unmarried. Besides, the duty of feeding a family is indeed freely undertaken, yet according to the motion of nature itself and often according to a moral obligation; it also arises from the use of a primary natural right, which cannot legitimately be impeded by any human law or by any contract. But if workers have a right to matrimony and family, by that very fact they have a right to the only means of sustaining a family. Finally, the family wage must not therefore vary according to the various necessities of each family, just as neither is the individual wage varied according to the various necessities of each individual; but, as has already been said, the price of labor must be estimated according to those things which happen commonly; moreover, to provide for special necessities pertains to natural equity and charity.

Therefore the family wage is not understood as relative, which would have to be increased proportionately to the number of children: namely, that which is required for the sustenance of a family in extraordinary circumstances, for example, if the wife is sick and in no way can contribute to increasing the income of the family, if the offspring is very numerous or oppressed by illnesses, if extraordinary expenses are necessary. But it must be understood as absolute: namely, such a stipend is to be furnished to any worker, so that when he marries and thus constitutes a family, he can sustain his family, provided however 1. that the wife undertakes that kind of work which can stand together with her duties; 2. and likewise that the children, at the opportune time, begin to labor in a way proportioned to their powers; 3. and that the number of children is not extraordinary. In those extraordinary cases, especially of very numerous offspring, the social good demands that societies of beneficence, or even the republic itself, furnish special assistance to such families.

554. Conclusion of the disputation. 1. It does not seem that it can be sufficiently proved that the immediate end of labor (to which it is first, of itself, and principally ordered), and its intrinsic value, or "its equivalent," is the family wage, and accordingly that this is always and of itself owed from justice; for the wage is not immediately founded on the necessities of the worker, but on the value of the labor.

2. Nevertheless the family wage is owed of itself not only from charity, but at least from natural equity or honesty, which demands both that workers be able to feed their family by their labor from the one means of labor which they have, and that the owner, if he receives a great benefit from the workers, compensate this by supererogations; indeed also from legal justice, because the common good requires it.

3. Also from commutative justice, in ordinary circumstances and in the normal condition of industry. For common estimation, in determining the price of labor, must attend to this: namely, that workers generally, in order to fulfill their duty toward their family, have no other means besides labor, which they do not intend to let except for a family wage; hence, in the normal state of the economic order, workers generally do not have the intention of renouncing this wage, indeed they cannot even renounce it, and owners cannot impede workers from using that sole means for fulfilling their duty toward their family.¹⁹ And therefore common estimation will have the family wage as a minimum. But if owners by unjust means compel workers, or abuse their necessity or the abundance of workers, so that they impose a lesser wage, they sin against commutative justice, because they impede workers from exercising their right.

¹⁹ Therefore there is a twofold different mode of establishing the family wage: 1. so that it rests immediately upon the intrinsic value of human labor; although we have heard this mode proposed by the most illustrious Pottier, it is not established for us that it has been sufficiently proved; 2. so that it rests immediately upon the general condition of workers, who, in the normal circumstances of industry, neither intend nor freely can intend to let their work except for a family wage; which mode seems to be proposed by the Illustrious Waffelaert, Em. Van Roey, and others.

We have said: a) in ordinary circumstances, because if in a certain region a sufficient number of workers had another means of sustenance, for example, from the cultivation of a small field or garden, or from some animals: hens, goats, a cow, etc., they could freely renounce a wage in part;

b) in the normal condition of industry, because if the general condition is unhappy, the owners would not impose it upon the workers, but equally with the workers would unwillingly suffer it. Therefore these could prefer an insufficient wage rather than have none.

4. Sometimes from commutative justice a wage greater than the family wage is owed, namely, when the labor furnished is commonly estimated as having greater value, and indeed from a threefold cause, according as production will be more abundant or more perfect, the supply of workers smaller, or the prosperity of industry greater.

5. But if from the theoretical controversy of this question one comes to practice, Catholics now in practice all agree that the family wage is most greatly to be desired for the good of the whole society and to be procured in every honorable way, in which sense Pius XI himself also recently spoke; likewise, that in every Christian society obeying the laws of justice and not laboring under universal poverty, there in fact exists a family wage through common estimation by the spontaneous consent of masters and workers; and when this comes into common use, according to all, the family wage must also be attributed from commutative justice, unless someone is excused from this obligation for particular reasons.

Excuses can be: a) if he hires from mere charity or without proportionate utility: for then he does not hire for profit;

Question 2. What is to be said especially concerning the hiring of works?

Resp. 1st. That the contract may be just, equality must be preserved between the wage and the work. The wage will be just which is customarily given to workers. The master is bound to agree with the worker concerning a just wage. And if this is left to the master's judgment, he must hand over a just wage, although the lowest.

Resp. 2nd. One wage is individual and another familial: the individual is that which suffices for nourishing a frugal and well-mannered worker; the familial is that by which a thrifty worker, having employed prudent aids, can support himself and his family, consisting of three or four children. Now let Cardinal Zigliara be heard, responding by order of the Supreme Pontiff, Leo XIII, to various doubts which arose concerning the Encyclical Rerum Novarum: "But if there is asked the criterion by which the equality of the thing between the manual work of the worker and the wage to be given by the master ought to be established, we answer: That criterion must be sought in the Encyclical from the immediate end of the worker, which imposes on him the natural office or necessity of laboring, namely from food and clothing for suitably sustaining life, and to which manual labor is first and principally ordered: 2. 2. q. 187, a. 3. Therefore as often as the work is such that through it the worker satisfies his aforesaid natural office of attaining the immediate end of his labor, and the wage is unequal for attaining this end, namely suitable food and clothing, speaking of itself and with the nature of things considered, there is an objective inequality between the work and the wage, and therefore an injury of commutative justice."

Question 3. Is a familial wage owed to workers by justice?

Resp. 1st. Affirmatively, by legal justice, so that the master sins gravely against it who does not assign this wage to workers.

Resp. 2nd. Authors disagree concerning whether it is owed by commutative justice. Yet the negative opinion seems to us to be preferred. For the equality which commutative justice regards appears between the labor of the worker and those things which are necessary for sustaining him, but in no way between the labor of one man and those things which are necessary for nourishing a whole family: this is the doctrine of Cardinal Zigliara in his response to the question: "Will the master sin who indeed pays a wage sufficient for the support of the workman, but unequal for nourishing his family, whether this consists of a wife and numerous offspring, or whether it is not so numerous? If affirmatively, against what virtue?"

Resp. "He will not sin against justice; yet sometimes he will be able to sin either against charity or against natural honesty. Explanation. From this very fact, that according to the things declared the equality of wage and work is observed, the demands of commutative justice are fully satisfied. But the work is the personal work of the worker and not of his family, nor is it referred to the family itself first and of itself, but secondarily and by accident, inasmuch as the worker distributes the received wage with his own. Therefore just as the family, in the case, does not increase the work, so by justice it does not require that the wage owed to the work itself be increased."

Albert, a young German, came to London, where he obtained the position of a clerk in a certain large commercial house. But since he knew neither the English language nor the duties to be performed sufficiently, he was received on the condition that he would be content with a salary of twenty pounds for each year. He intended, after one or two years, enriched by experience of the English manner of business, to return to his own country, and hence accepted the condition. In the meantime, however, sometimes pressed by great straits, since twenty pounds in no way sufficed to support him, he sought counsel and help from a certain Catholic priest, who doubted whether Albert might take something more, even secretly, in the name of a just wage. Hence it is asked:

1. What are the mutual obligations of masters and workers?

2. What is a just wage?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. This question is answered in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 289.

2. What is a just wage?

This question may be answered in the words of Leo XIII, who in his “Encyclical on the Condition of the Working Classes,” May 15, 1891, says: "Let it be then taken for granted that workman and employer should, as a rule, make free agreements, and, in particular, should agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of nature more imperious and more ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that the remuneration must be sufficient to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If, through necessity or fear of a worse evil, the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.”

3. The case. Albert, a young German, came to London and obtained a post as clerk in a merchant’s office. As he knew English very imperfectly and was new at his duties, a salary of £20 a year was offered him. He intended to learn the English method of business, and; in a year or two, go back to Germany, so he accepted the terms. He soon found that he had not enough to live on, and sought the advice and help of a Catholic priest, who doubted whether Albert might not secretly take something more than £20 to make up a living wage.

No; Albert will not be justified in occultly compensating himself and taking in secret more than he agreed to take. He was in reality only an apprentice at the post, his work was not worth more than £20 a year, and the experience he gained made up for what might have been wanting in the amount of his salary. The general rule laid down by Leo XIII does not apply to special cases like this. Albert should get assistance from home, or in some other way; he is not the victim of injustice, and he can not resort to occult compensation.

1. The iron law of wages was the chief weapon used by Lassalle against existing capitalism. Herein liberal social economists, Adam Smith, Ricardo,² J. B. Say, and others, had prepared the way for him. Lassalle³ appeals with evident comfort to these great authorities in establishing his iron law.

² According to the teaching of Ricardo, the average wages will always, in the long run, coincide with the cost of production. Ricardo distinguishes between the natural price and the market price of labor. The natural price is that which is necessary generally to make existence and propagation possible. The market price, on the other hand, is that which under the law of supply and demand is actually paid for labor. The latter may sometimes exceed the natural price, and sometimes fall below it; but it will always fall back to the natural price. It may be conceded that Lassalle has expressed this law in more odious terms than did Ricardo, but in substance their teaching exactly coincides.

³ Especially in his Arbeiter-Lesebuch and Offenes Antwortschreiben. In the latter Lassalle cites for his opinion besides Ricardo, Adam Smith, and Say, also Malthus, Bastiat, and John Stuart Mill.

With Marx himself the law of wages never found recognition, and it has also been expunged from the present official platform of German socialism. Yet Lassalle numbers still many adherents among socialists, and his writings have been republished as a means of propagandism. It is therefore not out of place to bestow some attention on his “iron law of wages.” The meaning of this law is gathered best from Lassalle’s own explanations:

“The iron economic law, which in our day, under the rule of supply and demand, determines the wages of the laborer, is the following: The average wages are always confined to the necessary sustenance which, according to the custom of a given nation, is necessary to insure the possibility of existence and propagation. This is the point around which actual wages oscillate like the swing of a pendulum, without ever remaining long either above or below this standard. Wages cannot permanently rise over this average; otherwise there would result from the easier and better condition of the laborers an increase of the laboring population and a supply of hands which would again reduce the wages to, or even below, the average point.

“Nor can wages permanently fall below the average of the necessary sustenance of life; for this would give rise to emigration, celibacy, prevention of propagation, and finally the diminution of the laboring population by want, which consequently would reduce the supply of hands and again raise wages to their former or even a higher rate. The actual average wages consist, therefore, in a constant oscillation about this centre of gravity, to which they must always return, around which they must revolve, standing sometimes above and sometimes below.”¹

¹ Offenes Antwortschreiben, p. 10. Arbeiter-Lesebuch, p. 5.

"That laborers and wages continually revolve in a circle, the circumference of which can at most reach the margin of what is barely sufficient to satisfy the necessary wants of human sustenance . . . is a circumstance which never changes.”²

² Offenes Antwortschreiben, p. 12.

Lassalle, it is true, admits that these customary necessities of life are greater in our day than in former times; but notwithstanding all this the laboring classes are, in given social circumstances, always confined to what is barely necessary for the continuance of existence and of propagation. Therefore, according to Lassalle, the laborer has no prospect of bettering his condition.³

³ Arbeiter-Lesebuch, p. 27.

2. This is the dreadful law of which socialists have made use until the most recent times to discredit the institution of private property.⁴ But their appeal to this law is without foundation.

⁴ Cf. the Gotha platform. As we have remarked above, the law of wages is expunged from the present platform. Nay, more: Liebknecht and others have since maintained that they had always rejected it. And yet they supported the Gotha platform for fifteen years. And yet, for a quarter of a century, workingmen were assured on the strength of that law that every effort at bettering their situation in the present order of society was useless. Is this not the height of frivolity?

a. If by the iron law Lassalle would only assert that under the rule of supply and demand and as long as workingmen are unorganized and unprotected a certain tendency exists to confine wages generally to what is barely necessary for the support of life, we would have no quarrel with him. For this tendency is a natural result of the selfishness of the rich, who are at the same time the mightier class. The average man is naturally inclined to purchase at a low and to sell at a high rate. As the laborer wishes to sell his labor power at the highest possible rate, so also the employer will endeavor to purchase labor at the lowest possible figure. But the rich employer is commonly the mightier, and will therefore succeed oftener in reducing wages below the normal figure than the laborer will succeed in raising them above the normal standard. Yet this universal tendency, which is the result of human selfishness, is by no means an economic law; else it might be also regarded as an economic law that dealers adulterate goods and that men grow rich by idleness.

But this state of things may be remedied by wise protective legislation in behalf of workingmen and by the organization of strong labor unions.

b. That Lassalle’s principle can be regarded as an economic law lacks every semblance of proof. In order that an economic law, in the proper sense of the word, may be established, we must have a fact which from certain permanent causes necessarily exists in all places and at all times. ‘This, however, is not the case with the supposed law of Lassalle; or, if it is, it has not thus far been proved. Let us examine the arguments which Lassalle, and before him Ricardo, adduce.

Wages, he says, cannot permanently rise beyond the average of what is barely necessary, according to custom, for the support of life; for else there would result an increase of the laboring population, and consequently of the supply of labor hands, which would again reduce wages to the former standard. But is it true, let us ask, that the laboring population will increase in the same proportion as the comforts of life? Such a statement cannot be borne out; experience rather teaches the contrary. He who would find large families in England, say, must not look for them in the dwellings of the better-to-do laborers, or wealthier classes, but in the poorest tenements of the Irish laborers. In like manner, in America large families are to be found generally among the poorer classes of immigrants, while the birth-rate among the wealthier classes is notoriously low. Again, there is no land whose population generally is better off than France, and in no land is the rate of increase of population so low. And the reason is evident, even though we abstract altogether from religious influence. The better off a laboring family is the more it is concerned, as a rule, to maintain its social standing and to rise to a still higher rank. Rash marriages are more rarely entered upon in such circles than in the lower ranks of society. It does not follow, however, that morals are purer in the higher than in the lower strata of society. There is another feature of the question, however, which Lassalle overlooks. Granted that better circumstances would produce an increase of population, yet it does not thence follow that the competition of the laborers would increase in like manner, for it would take a period of from sixteen to twenty years at least to produce any marked effect of such increase. Children are not from their very birth capable of competition. Consequently, even according to the supposition of Lassalle, a laborer could for well-nigh a generation receive more wages than would be “necessary, according to existing customs, for the support of life and for propagation.”

It may also happen that, despite the increase in the supply of labor, wages do not diminish, as with the supply also the demand may increase. If the demand for labor increases in the same proportion as the supply, wages remain the same; but it may easily happen that in many places, owing to new enterprises, the demand for labor may steadily increase for years, so that the increase of the number of laborers does not necessarily entail the diminution of wages.

We have no proof, therefore, that wages cannot for a considerable time exceed what is necessary for the maintenance of life. Nor has Lassalle proved that wages may not in some cases remain permanently below this standard. In that case he thinks emigration, celibacy, restriction of propagation, and finally a decrease of the laboring population resulting from misery would ensue, which would lessen the supply of labor hands and would bring wages back again to their former standard.

But, as we have already remarked, poverty does not lessen the birth-rate unless in that extreme case in which the laborers are literally starved. It can easily happen, and has happened, sad to say, that in many places the laboring classes have for a long time led a wretched life in the sense of Lassalle, without any perceptible diminution in the birth-rate. Poverty does not prevent marriages among the poor, nor does it prevent propagation. The poor are precisely in this respect often much more conscientious than those who call themselves the cultured classes. For the rest, even though poverty might produce a decrease in the birth-rate among the laborers, yet the effects of this diminution would be noticeable in the labor market only after the lapse of many years. In the mean time the gaps would be filled up by new laborers coming from surrounding districts. Marx has established, on the data of inquiries made by physicians and inspectors of factories, that in many manufacturing districts the laborers had lived for many years in the most wretched misery without experiencing any increase of wages. Lassalle’s law, therefore, whether we consider it from its favorable or unfavorable aspect, remains unproved.

But it is not only unproved: it is simply false. The principal touchstone of economic laws are facts. Now what are the facts in regard to Lassalle’s law? The statistics quoted above (p. 165 sqq.) are proof sufficient that long since the position of laborers, especially in England, has been improved, and that above all, in the matter of wages, there has been constant progress. We trust to God that a wise social policy to be pursued in the future will make the improvement permanent.¹

¹ Karl Marx from the outset rejected Lassalle’s iron law of wages. Nay, in his Criticism of the Social Democratic Programme he characterizes the insertion of this law in the platform as a “revolting retrogression”; and rightly so, from his own standpoint. According to Lassalle, the injustice of the wage system consists only in this, that the laborer’s wages can never go beyond a low maximum, and thus the wage-worker is doomed to a miserable existence. According to Marx, the wage system in the capitalistic order of things is absolutely unjust and intolerable, because it makes the laborer the slave of the capitalist, and permits the workman to labor for his sustenance only, with the obligation to work a certain portion of the time for nothing, merely to produce "surplus-value” for the capitalist. For '‘surplus-value” is always effected at the cost of the laborer: and as the capitalist is then only willing to carry on industry when his money is likely to produce “surplus-value,” capital is of its very nature calculated for oppression. It is a “pitiless beast of prey.” Hence he was forced to consider the adoption of Lassalle’s iron law in the socialist programme as a step backwards. Nay, the adoption of this law was diametrically opposed to, and an abandonment of, Marx’s theory of “surplus-value.” Hence we can easily understand his indignation at finding the iron law on the socialist platform.

To Our Venerable Brethren, All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Peace and Communion With the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

IT is not surprising that the spirit of revolutionary change, which has so long been predominant in the nations of the world, should have passed beyond politics, and made its influence felt in the cognate field of practical economy. The elements of a conflict are unmistakable: the growth of industry, and the surprising discoveries of science; the changed relations of masters and workmen; the enormous fortunes of individuals, and the poverty of the masses; the increased self-reliance and the closer mutual combination of the working population ; and, finally, a general moral deterioration. The momentous seriousness of the present state of things just now fills every mind with painful apprehension ; wise men discuss it; practical men propose schemes ; popular meetings, legislatures, and sovereign princes,—all are occupied with it, and there is nothing which has a deeper hold on public attention.

Therefore, Venerable Brethren, as on former occasions, when it seemed opportune to refute false teaching, We have addressed you in the interest of the Church and of the common weal, and have issued Letters on Political Power, on Human Liberty, on the Christian Constitution of the State, and on similar subjects, so now We have thought it useful to speak on the CONDITION OF LABOR. It is a matter on which We have touched once or twice already. But in this Letter the responsibility of the Apostolic office urges Us to treat the question expressly and at length, in order that there may be no mistake as to the principles which truth and justice dictate for its settlement. The discussion is not easy, nor is it free from danger. It is not easy to define the relative rights and the mutual duties of the wealthy and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators constantly make use of these disputes to pervert men’s judgments and to stir up the people to sedition.

But all agree, and there can be no question whatever, that some remedy must be found, and quickly found, for the misery and wretchedness which press so heavily at this moment on the large majority of the very poor. The ancient workmen’s Guilds were destroyed in the last century, and no other organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws have repudiated the ancient religion. Hence by degrees it has come to pass that Working Men have been given over, isolated and defenceless, to the callousness of employers and the greed of unrestrained competition. The evil has been increased by rapacious Usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is, nevertheless, under a different form, but with the same guilt, still practised by avaricious and grasping men. And to this must be added the custom of working by contract, and the concentration of so many branches of trade in the hands of a few individuals, so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses of the poor a yoke little better than slavery itself.

To remedy these evils the Socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, endeavor to destroy private property, and maintain that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that, by thus transferring property from private persons to the community, the present evil state of things will be set to rights, because each citizen will then have his equal share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their proposals are so clearly futile for all practical purposes, that if they were carried out the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. Moreover they are emphatically unjust, because they would rob the lawful possessor, bring the State into a sphere that is not its own, and cause complete confusion in the community.

It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the very reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and to hold it as his own private possession. If one man hires out to another his strength or his industry, he does this for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for food and living; he thereby expressly proposes to acquire a full and real right, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of that remuneration as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and invests his savings, for greater security, in land, the land in such a case is only his wages in another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his own disposal as the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in this power of disposal that ownership consists, whether the property be land or movable goods. The Socialists, therefore, in endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, for they deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thus of all hope and possibility of increasing his stock and of bettering his condition in life.

What is of still greater importance, however, is that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation. For the brute has no power of selfdirection, but is governed by two chief instincts, which keep his powers alert, move him to use his strength, and determine him to action without the power of choice. These instincts are self-preservation and the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which are close at hand ; beyond their surroundings the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by sensibility alone, and by the things which sense perceives. But with man it is different indeed. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of animal nature, and therefore he enjoys, at least as much as the rest of the animal race, the fruition of the things of the body. But animality, however perfect, is far from being the whole of humanity, and is, indeed, humanity’s humble handmaid, made to serve and obey. It is the mind, or the reason, which is the chief thing in us who are human beings ; it is this which makes a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially and completely from the brute. And on this account—viz., that man alone among animals possesses reason—it must be within his right to have things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living beings have them, but in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things which perish in the using, but also those which, though used, remain for use in the future.

This becomes still more clearly evident if we consider man’s nature a little more deeply. For man, comprehending by the power of his reason things innumerable, and joining the future with the present—being, moreover, the master of his own acts—governs himself by the foresight of his counsel, under the eternal law and the power of God whose Providence governs all things. Wherefore it is in his power to exercise his choice, not only on things which regard his present welfare, but also on those which will be for his advantage in time to come. Hence man not only can possess the fruits of the earth, but also the earth itself; for of the products of the earth he can make provision for the future. Man's needs do not die out, but recur; satisfied to-day, they demand new supplies to-morrow. Nature, therefore, owes to man a storehouse that shall never fail, the daily supply of his daily wants. And this he finds only in the inexhaustible fertility of the earth.

Nor must we, at this stage, have recourse to the State. Man is older than the State ; and he holds the right of providing for the life of his body prior to the formation of any State. And to say that God has given the earth to the use and enjoyment of the universal human race is not to deny that there can be private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general; not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they please, but rather that no part of it has been assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man’s own industry and the laws of individual peoples. Moreover, the earth, though divided among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all; for there is no one who does not live on what the land brings forth. Those who do not possess the soil, contribute their labor ; so that it may be truly said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one’s own land, or from some laborious industry which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth.

Here, again, we have another proof that private ownership is according to nature's law. For that which is required for the preservation of life, and for life’s well-being, is produced in great abundance by the earth, but not until man has brought it into cultivation and lavished upon it his care and skill. Now, when man thus spends the industry of his mind and the strength of his body in procuring the fruits of nature, by that act he makes his own that portion of nature's field which he cultivates—that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his own personality ; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his own, and should have a right to keep it without molestation.

These arguments are so strong and convincing that it seems surprising that certain obsolete opinions should now be revived in opposition to what is here laid down. We are told that it is right for private persons to have the use the soil and the fruits of their land, but that it is unjust for any one to possess as owner either the land on which he has built or the estate which he has cultivated. But those who assert this do not perceive that they are robbing man of what his own labor has produced. For the soil which is tilled and cultivated with toil and skill utterly changes its condition; it was wild before, it is now fruitful, it was barren, and now it brings forth in abundance. That which has thus altered and improved it becomes so truly part of itself as to be in great measure indistinguishable and inseparable from it. Is it just that the fruit of a man’s sweat and labor should be enjoyed by another? As effects follow their cause, so it is just and right that the results of labor should belong to him who has labored.

With reason, therefore, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have maintained the opposite view, has found in the study of nature, and in the law of Nature herself, the foundations of the division of property, and has consecrated by the practice of all ages the principle of private ownership, as being preëminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing, in the most unmistakable manner, to the peace and tranquillity of human life. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws,—laws which, as long as they are just, derive their binding force from the law of nature. The authority of the Divine Law adds its sanction, forbidding us, in the gravest terms, even to covet that which is another’s: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife ; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything which is his.^*

^* Deuteronomy v. 21.

The rights here spoken of, belonging to each individual man, are seen in a much stronger light if they are considered in relation to man’s social and domestic obligations.

In choosing a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty either to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to virginity, or to enter into the bonds of marriage. No human law can abolish the natural and primitive right of marriage, or in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage, ordained by God's authority from the beginning. Increase and multiply.^† Thus we have the Family; the “society” of a man’s own household; a society limited, indeed, in numbers, but a true “ society,” anterior to every kind of State or nation, with rights and duties of its own, totally independent of the commonwealth.

^† Genesis i. 28.

That right of property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must also belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, such a person must possess this right so much the more clearly in proportion as his position multiplies his duties. For it is a most sacred law of nature that a father must provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, nature dictates that a man’s children, who carry on, as it were, and continue his own personality, should be provided by him with all that is needful to enable them honorably to keep themselves from want and misery in the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of profitable property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by a power within itself, that is to say, by the father. Wherefore, provided the limits be not transgressed which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists, the Family has, at least, equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of those things which are needful to its preservation and its just liberty.

We say, at least, equal rights; for since the domestic household is anterior both in idea and in fact to the gathering of men into a commonwealth, the former must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the latter, and which rest more immediately on nature. If the citizens of a State—that is to say, the Families—on entering into association and fellowship, experienced at the hands of the State hindrance instead of help, and found their rights attacked instead of being protected, such association were rather to be repudiated than sought after.

The idea, then, that the civil government should, at its own discretion, penetrate and pervade the family and the household, is a great and pernicious mistake. True, if a family finds itself in great difficulty, utterly friendless, and without prospect of help, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid; for each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the walls of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, the public power must interfere to force each party to give the other what is due; for this is not to rob citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the State must go no further: nature bids them stop here. Paternal authority can neither be abolished by the State, nor absorbed; for it has the same source as human life itself. “The child belongs to the father,” and is, as it were, the continuation of the father’s personality; and, to speak with strictness, the child takes its place in civil society not in its own right, but in its quality as a member of the family in which it is begotten. And it is for the very reason that “the child belongs to the father,” that, as St. Thomas of Aquin says, “ before it attains the use of free will, it is in the power and care of its parents.”^* The Socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and introducing the providence of the State, act against natural justice, and threaten the very existence of family life.

^* St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 2a 2æ Q. x. Art. 12.

And such interference is not only unjust, but is quite certain to harass and disturb all classes of citizens, and to subject them to odious and intolerable slavery. It would open the door to envy, to evil-speaking, and to quarrelling ; the sources of wealth would themselves run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality of which so much is said would, in reality, be the levelling down of all to the same condition of misery and dishonor.

Thus it is clear that the main tenet of Socialism, the community of goods, must be utterly rejected; for it would injure those whom it is intended to benefit, it would be contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and it would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. Our first and most fundamental principle, therefore, when we undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This laid down, We go on to show where we must find the remedy that we seek.

We approach the subject with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which belong to Us. For no practical solution of this question will ever be found without the assistance of Religion and of the Church. It is We who are the chief guardian of Religion, and the chief dispenser of what belongs to the Church, and We must not by silence neglect the duty which lies upon Us. Doubtless this most serious question demands the attention and the efforts of others besides Ourselves—of the rulers of States, of employers of labor, of the wealthy, and of the working population themselves for whom We plead. But We affirm without hesitation, that all the striving of men will be vain if they leave out the Church. It is the Church that proclaims from the Gospel those teachings by which the conflict can be put an end to, or at the least made far less bitter; the Church uses its efforts not only to enlighten the mind, but to direct by its precepts the life and conduct of men; the Church improves and ameliorates the condition of the working man by numerous useful organizations; does its best to enlist the services of all ranks in discussing and endeavoring to meet, in the most practical way, the claims of the working classes; and acts on the decided view that for these purposes recourse should be had, in due measure and degree, to the help of the law and of State authority.

Let it be laid down, in the first place, that humanity must remain as it is. It is impossible to reduce human society to a level. The Socialists may do their utmost, but all striving against nature is vain. There naturally exist among mankind innumerable differences of the most important kind; people differ in capability, in diligence, in health, and in strength; an unequal fortune is a necessary result of inequality in condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community; social and public life can only go on by the help of various kinds of capacity and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which peculiarly suits his case. As regards bodily labor, even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have been wholly unoccupied ; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight, became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation of his sin. Cursed be the earth in thy work; in thy labor thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life.^* In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on this earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must be with man as long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let men try as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently—who hold out to a hardpressed people freedom from pain and trouble, undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment—they cheat the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only make the evil worse than before. There is nothing more useful than to look at the world as it really is—and at the same time to look elsewhere for a remedy to its troubles.

^* Genesis iii. 17.

The great mistake that is made in the matter now under consideration, is to possess oneself of the idea that class is naturally hostile to class; that rich and poor are intended by nature to live at war with one another. So irrational and so false is this view, that the exact contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human body is the result of the disposition of the members of the body, so in a State it is ordained by nature that these two classes should exist in harmony and agreement, and should, as it were, fit into one another, so as to maintain the equilibrium of the body politic. Each requires the other; capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in pleasantness and good order; perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and outrage. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in making it impossible, the efficacy of Christianity is marvellous and manifold. First of all, there is nothing more powerful than Religion (of which the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing rich and poor together, by reminding each class of its duties to the other, and especially of the duties of justice. Thus Religion teaches the laboring man and the workman to carry out honestly and well all equitable agreements freely made; never to injure capital, or to outrage the person of an employer; never to employ violence in representing his own cause, or to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises, and raise foolish hopes which usually end in disaster and in repentance when too late. Religion teaches the rich man and the employer that their work-people are not their slaves; that they must respect in every man his dignity as a man and as a Christian; that labor is nothing to be ashamed of, if we listen to right reason, and to Christian philosophy, but is an honorable employment, enabling a man to sustain his life in an upright and creditable way ; and that it is shameful and inhuman to treat men like chattels to make money by, or to look upon them merely as so much muscle or physical power. Thus, again, Religion teaches that, as among the workman’s concerns are Religion herself and things spiritual and mental, the employer is bound to see that he has time for the duties of piety; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family or to squander his wages. Then, again, the employer must never tax his work-people beyond their strength, nor employ them in work unsuited to their sex or age. His great and principal obligation is to give to every one that which is just. Doubtless before we can decide whether wages are adequate, many things have to be considered; but rich men and masters should remember this—that to exercise pressure for the sake of gain, upon the indigent and the destitute, and to make one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a crime which cries to the avenging anger of heaven. Behold the hire of the laborers . . . which by fraud hath been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.^* Finally, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workman’s earnings, either by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing ; and with the more reason because the poor man is weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should be sacred in proportion to their scantiness.

^* St. James v. 4.

Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed, would not strife die out and cease ?

But the Church, with Jesus Christ for its Master and Guide, aims higher still. It lays down precepts yet more perfect, and tries to bind class to class in friendliness and good understanding. The things of this earth cannot be understood or valued rightly without taking into consideration the life to come, the life that will last forever. Exclude the idea of futurity, and the very notion of what is good and right would perish; nay, the whole system of the universe would become a dark and unfathomable mystery. The great truth which we learn from Nature herself is also the grand Christian dogma on which Religion rests as on its base—that when we have done with this present life, then we shall really begin to live. God has not created us for the perishable and transitory things of earth, but for things heavenly and everlasting; He has given us this world as a place of exile, and not as our true country. Money, and the other things which men call good and desirable—we may have them in abundance, or we may want them altogether ; as far as eternal happiness is concerned, it is no matter; the only thing that is important is to use them aright. Jesus Christ, when He redeemed us with plentiful redemption, took not away the pains and sorrows which in such large proportion make up the texture of our mortal life; He transformed them into motives of virtue and occasions of merit: and no man can hope for eternal reward unless he follow in the blood-stained footprints of his Saviour. If we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him.^* His labors and His sufferings, accepted by His own free will, have marvellously sweetened all suffering and all labor. And not only by His example, but by His grace and by the hope of everlasting recompense, He has made pain and grief more easy to endure ; for that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory.^†

^* II. Timothy ii. 12.

^† II. Corinthians iv. 17.

189. The relations between laborers and their employers ought to be such as to conduce to the benefit of both parties. This cannot be the case unless full justice be done on each side. It is therefore of great importance to understand in this matter the golden mean between the exactions of grinding capitalists and the unreasonable demands of Communists and Socialists.

By wages, we understand the compensation agreed upon by the workman and his employer for the former's services to the latter. We shall first consider such an agreement merely as an onerous contract, money or its equivalent being exchanged for work. Each party has a right to that which he gives in exchange; and if the compensation is proportionate to the services rendered, the contract is just. The services thus contracted for cannot be of use to the employer, as productive property, except in their results. Accordingly, whatever profit he can derive by the combination and direction of such labor above that which the wage-earners themselves could have won by their individual exertions is his gain; whatever he loses thereby is his loss. They have no part in the management; consequently, it would be unreasonable for the laborers to claim, in addition to the stipulated compensation, the right to divide with their employer the profits of his management.

Their mutual relations — we are not speaking of co-operative associations — are not those of partnership; else the losses, as well as the profits, would have to be shared in common.

190. How shall we determine the proper amount of wages to be paid to each laborer? The answer to this question is not easy, especially for particular cases. The following principles, however, are of general application:

1. To preserve the balance of equality, which ought to exist in every onerous contract, between what is given and what is received in return, a laborer who, by superior skill or industry, renders more valuable service than others, is entitled to higher wages.

2. The laborer who is called upon to expend unusual exertion, by performing more painful or more protracted toil, by exposing life or limb or health to more than ordinary danger, by devoting an uncommonly long time to the task of preparing and qualifying himself for his position, is entitled to a compensation exceeding the ordinary wages.

3. The chief difficulty is encountered in fixing the amount of wages for ordinary service. This must be the standard or basis of wages. For other kinds of service there ought to be higher pay; but what shall we give for ordinary service? Labor, many answer, is like merchandise, and its owner, the laborer, is entitled to that only which his labor will bring in the market; and hence, whatever he agrees to accept, even though forced by stress of need or competition to sell his toil for a pittance, that is the proper amount. Now, this view is erroneous and unjust. Labor is not common merchandise; it is the wear and tear of life in rational beings, every one of whom has an inalienable right to his life — not the life of a beast of burden, but the life of a man. Hence, he has the right to all that is necessary to maintain human life, not only in his own person, but also in those who are naturally dependent upon him for the means of subsistence. The wages, therefore, which an employer is bound in justice to pay to the man that labors for his interest as faithfully as a human being can be fairly expected to labor, ought to be sufficient to support the workman and his wife and children with decency and reasonable comfort. This is the minimum quantity of wages.³

³ "The labor of the working-man is not only his personal attribute, but it is necessary; and this makes all the difference: the preservation of life is the bounden duty of each and all, and to fail therein is a crime. It follows that each has a right to procure what is required in order to live; and the poor can procure it in no other way than by work and wages. Let it be granted, then, that, as a rule, workmen and employer should make free agreements, and, in particular, should freely agree as to wages; nevertheless, there is a dictate of nature more imperious and more ancient than any bargain between man and man, viz., that the remuneration must be enough to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If, through necessity or fear of a worse evil, the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or a contractor will give him no better, he is the victim of force and injustice." — Pope Leo XIII., Encyclical on Labor, 1891.

191. Can wage-earners justly form organizations to protect themselves against exacting capitalists? — in other words, are labor unions lawful? A right to an end implies a right to the means necessary to attain that end, if such means do not violate the rights of others. Now, laborers have a right to fair wages; therefore, they have a right to the just means necessary to obtain fair wages. But organized association on the part of workingmen is often necessary; it is often the only means of securing fair wages from overreaching employers. Such association does injustice to no one. Therefore, workingmen can, with justice, have recourse to labor unions as a means of self-protection.

Are strikes illicit? Men have a right to refuse working for unfair wages. Their places may be taken by others, and the latter cannot justly be prevented from doing so, except by moral suasion. Of course, employers also have a right to form unions, in order to protect themselves against unreasonable demands of their employees.

192. If the common good is injured by the general stoppage of work attendant on strikes and lock-outs, the most proper remedy is to be sought in the intercession and arbitration of fair-minded and disinterested persons. On general principles, it is not desirable that the government should meddle with peaceful disputes of citizens, as long as private means are at hand for bringing about a good understanding. Boards of arbitration are usually the best agency for restoring health and vigor to the whole industrial system.⁴

⁴ "In these and similar questions, however, such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories, workshops, etc., in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the state, especially as circumstances, times and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards, . . . or to some other method of safeguarding the interests of wage-earners, the state to be asked for approval and protection." — Leo XIII., Encyclical on Labor.

Yet no general or lasting cure can be effected, except by animating the members of both classes with the spirit of justice and mutual love. Now, this cannot be secured without a sound education, which itself implies the doctrines of the true religion.