THE SANCTITY OF CONTRACTS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 73, 20 December 1937, Page 8

THE SANCTITY OF CONTRACTS

“A Deep Problem”

MORAL OUTLOOK IN TRADE AND COMMERCE

“Without giving assent to all that is said in this leader, there can be no doubt that in advocating a return to respect for moral values, ‘The Dominion’ is recognising a deep problem of our day,” said the Rev. Father J. A. Higgins, S.M., director of social studies to Archbishop O’Shea, commenting on "The Dominion’s” editorial of Saturday morning on “The Sanctity of Contracts.”

“There is no problem more urgent than the question of our moral outlook on matters industrial and commercial, ’ continued Father Higgins. “Unfortunately very many people adopt quite an unmoral attitude in all matters of commerce or business —for them there is nothing either moral or immoral in business. Business is business: and that is all about it. There is little wonder, then, that such people do not regard contracts as things about which they should have any scruples. For them contracts are to be kept, broken or adjusted according as suits their own business ideas: if it pays, stand by a contract, otherwise get out of it if you can and do not mind what means you use to do so. “Now there are several aspects of this important problem, far too many to be dealt with in this short remark on the subject, but two points stand out as grave beyond others. One, in an economic world that knows practically no economic stability, is it reasonable to expect men to consider contracts as sacred? Contracts are made about material things such ms wood, coal, and wool: and if wood is just wood without any more ado, all will be clear iu a contract about wood. But if wood is of changing value, there will very easily arise the circumstances in which a revision of contract is not only desirable, but is also a duty in justice. There does not appear to be any way out of this difficulty unless men will agree to keep values stable.

“If men must stand by their contracts, contracts must stand by men. But contracts cannot stand by men unless values are stable. There will at once be many who will assert that the idea' of stable values is sheer nonsense. They deny the evidence of history, but let that pass, what should be abundantly clear to any thinking person is this: you cannot have contracts sacred and at at the same time have the values of articles in a condition of flux. Actually, when values change contracts are changed, and changed without any reference to the will of the contracting parties. There has been enough said recently in foreign affairs about unilateral action and contracts to make this issue clear. If men are to be bound by their word, and certainly thus they should be bound, they must have freedom of giving their word, and their word must not be tampered with without their consent. But to change values, to alter the values of the very objects of contracts, is , actually the same as tampering with the word men give. "The position, therefore, seems to be: either we guarantee men that their word will stand, that no person will be allowed to play tricks with their word, or else we cease to talk to men about their obligation to keep their word. The very notion of the sacred character of contracts comes to Us from that period of European civilisation when Europe was genuinely Christian, from a time in which only a calamity such as the Black Death could make any serious difference in the value of the objects of contract.

“The second point is this: What of education? There is not even the slightest possibility of our return to a moral standard or code in the matter of contracts while we teach in school, college and university that morals and economics are completely divorced, that economics is utterly independent of morality and that it is abstird to think that ethical considerations can have any sway in the economic field. To demand that men hold contracts sacred is to demand that they take a moral view of life, at least of contracts. But it is extremely difficult to understand how this is ever going to be achieved as long as men are taught that in the field of contracts ethics has no part.

“The man who is trained to view as unmoral ■ the very objects about which he makes contracts and agreements will most certainly come to regard himself as bound by no moral law in his actions with regard to his contracts. It must be obvious to all that to teach the freedom of economics from ethics and then to call upon men to act ethically concerning contracts, is to ask for the morally impossible. “What things will a man hold sacred except those which he values? Then we must teach men to hold the moral law sacred above all things, and we must control our social life, our economic ways and means accordingly, for men will not take you seriously if while you speak of the moral law and oblige them to stand by their word, you also permit economic arrangements to be made, to be changed, modified and rearranged without reference to, or respect for, tlie moral laws of life. Are men to-day formed and moulded in such a manner as to guarantee that they will hold contracts sacred? Does the great force of education thus inspire them and form their minds? Does example in the economic world assist them?”