THE STATE AND LABOR

New Zealand Tablet, 11 July 1918, Page 7

THE STATE AND LABOR

(By Joseph Husslein, S.J., in America.) Before the advent of the Church the duty of the State towards labor was almost entirely ignored. Even among the Jews the conditions of labor were far from ideal, although, the hardships of the bought or hired servant were greatly reduced by the Divinelygiven legislation. Religion has ever been the main defence of the working man. Paganism in its most complete material development despised labor under every form. The history of labor in the ancient pagan world is mainly the history of slavery, and slaves were the merest chattel in the eyes of the pagan State. According to the wording of the Roman law they were to be regarded: "Pro nuljus, pro mart ids, pro quadruped ibu a" ; "As nothing, as dead things, as four-footed beasts." That, in brief, was their legal status. They could not even contract a marriage which the law would recognise. The same conditions returned when Christianity was swept away by the barbarian hordes before the new dawn of the Ages of Faith. The slave was the master's property. Even with returning civilisation his testimony could not be received in court except under torture. Such were the rights of labor in the eyes of the State, except where Christianity had been able to bring relief. After the lapse of centuries the Church succeeded in impressing upon the public administration a new concept of the rights and dignity of the laborer, which the State was bound to safeguard under the Christian dispensation. By her doctrine of brotherly love and the example of the God-man she brought about the abolition of slavery and gradually ameliorated the lot of the serf, until the day of his complete emancipation dawned. But long before that period she had been active in inspiring and directing social legislation in favor of the working man. The laborer, as viewed by the Church, is an integral part of the living organism of society. He has therefore social rights that must be protected and defended by the State. Numerically, he represents by far the greatest element within the commonwealth. Industrially the prosperity of the entire community is inseparably connected with his daily toil. "It may be truly said that it is only by the labor of the working man that States grow rich," wrote • Pope Leo XIII. Hence the public administration is under an obligation not merely of charity, but of strict justice to provide for the welfare of its laboring classes, and it is the duty of every government to see that "They who contribute so largely to the advantage of the community may share in the benefits they create." {The. Condition of Labor.) But the obligation of the State is based upon even higher considerations. Transcending the purely material order, this duty of safeguarding all the just interests of the working population is founded upon the end of society itself, which, in the words of the Holy Father, is "to make men better." Economic conditions, as we need hardly repeat here, can exercise the most vital and far-reaching influence upon the moral and religious life of the people. "In all well-constituted States," saye the great Pope, of the working mm, "it k » matter of no slight

importance to provide those bodily and external commodities the use !of which is necessary to virtuous action." It is possible, indeed, for men to eave their souls under the most distressing economic conditions, but in general such circumstances will constitute a serious obstacle to morality and religion. Hence their removal is practically "necessary" if virtue is to thrive in any community. So the duty of the State to protect the rights of the working classes and to provide for their material well-being is lifted into the higher sphere of true, noble, and virtuous living. From this, as an important corollary, follow the right and the duty of the Church to-insist that the State shall faithfully discharge its duties towards the laboring man and the poor. Catholics may not be indifferent to the social question, nor may priests and bishops ignore it. The Supreme Pontiffs have here set the noble example which all are to imitate according to their ability. From whatever aspect or angle we may view the social question it will always remain a religious as well as an economic, political, and legislative problem. Such it was in the days of Isaias, when he exhorted the Jews: "Learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge for the fatherless, defend the widow." Such it is to-day. It is through the State, as a last resort, that we seek judgment, bring relief to the oppressed, and secure justice for the fatherless and the widow, as witness the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Mothers' Pension Law. No defence can be offered for the post-Reforma-tion principle of laissez fa-ire, or non-interference on the part of the State. Under this policy collective bargaining was forbidden to the laborer, and only the fulfilment of contracts was safeguarded by the public authorities. It was the theory under which the demoralising form of uncontrolled capitalism came into existence and grew into a menace to civilisation. Yet it was universally upheld by the Protestant economic schools of the day and accepted as a practical working principle of the new Protestant statecraft. The inevitable reaction against it gave birth to anarchism, Socialism, and all the various forms of modern radicalism. The principle of individual bargaining based upon it was the economic source of an endless train of evils, as the principle of the individual interpretation of the Bible had been their religious" origin. The laissez-faire policy could obviously have no other effect than the destruction of the economically weaker party and his complete oppression, without any hope of redress or assistance from the State. To imagine that the rights of capital and of labor would balance themselves without any superior control was no less palpable a deception than to fancy that man's nature could develop most perfectly by granting full license to all its senses and faculties. Yet this logical transference of the principle of laissez /aire from the economic to the moral order has actually been made in our modern plays and novels and in the philosophical and educational literature of the day. When the need of State interference in economic life was finally admitted the fatal superstition still lingered on that the first object to be safeguarded at all hazards by the State was the industrial prosperity of the country, meaning the interests of large fortunes rather than the economic welfare of the masses. Catholic State action in favor of the people is even to-day confused with Socialism, to the great gain of the latter, whose borrowed plumage hides its real nature. Socialism is not identical with a reasonable State protection, but with State tyranny and State absolutism. Whatever popularity Socialism may possess is entirely attributable to its camouflage Catholicism. The principle of State interference can thus be briefly summarised. The State is called upon to act wherever the general welfare of the community or the just interest-of any particular class is imperilled. State interference is a last 'resort, to be invoked when private means are inadequate, Under every form of society such action will at times be necessary to secure the rights of the weaker party. But the principle of turning over all power and initiative to the State is a

fatal delusion upon which Socialism is founded. It finds no authorisation in Catholic teaching. We shall briefly indicate here four aspects under which the welfare of the laborer may be guarded by intelligent legislation. It should be noted that we are concerned here merely with the rights and not with the obligations of labor, which must similarly be enforced by the State where the public welfare requires it. Religiously it is the first duty of the State to secure for the laborer his Sunday rest;' This implies a cessation of work consecrated by religion. The Sunday rest was instituted that it might preserve the human dignity of man made to the image and likeness of God,-enable him freely to lift up his thoughts in worship to his Almighty Creator, and afford him the necessary leisure for the outward practices of religion. Morally it is the duty of the State to alter conditions of labor which threaten to prove detrimental to virtue. Thus the employment of children by night and as messengers sent into questionable surroundings, the temptations to which women are frequently exposed under certain conditions, and the various circumstances that lead to vice among the laborers in factories and elsewhere, are instances which call for prompt and strict legislation wherever due provisions are not made by the employers. Physically there arise the problems of sanitation, of the prevention of industrial accidents, and of all the many regulations that can secure for the worker such surroundings and conditions of labor as are consonant with his human dignity. "Women," as Pope Leo XIII. warns us, "are not suited for certain occupations; by nature they are fitted for home work." It is the duty of the State to prevent their employment in occupations detrimental either to their physical or their moral wellbeing. The good of society requires this. In the same manner children may not be placed in workshops and factories "until their bodies and minds are sufficiently mature," nor may they be exposed to conditions that "would blight the young promise of a child's faculties and make any real education impossible." So, too, the hours of labor must not be excessive: "As a general principle it may be laid down that a workman ought to have leisure and rest in proportion to the wear and tear of his strength; for the waste of strength must be repaired by the cessation of work." (The Condition, of Labor.) We are furthermore told that it is the duty of the State to remove the causes from which labor troubles are bred. Socially the State must remember that normally a family depends upon the wages of the working man. Hence it is not only necessary that his wages be adequate to support a home in Christian decency, but also that provision be made for the possibilities of unemployment, sickness, accidents, and other circumstances, including death itself, which may remove the breadwinner from his daily task while the family at home is deprived of his support. Hence the many insurance provisions, the workmen's compensation laws, the oldage and the mothers' pensions, and similar enactments. Here again the general principle must be laid down that self-help rather than State-help should be aimed at in such legislation. Where it can equitably be done it is better that insurance laws should not be based upon State support. This, however, supposes an adequate wage, a question which calls for special discussion. As a final argument and as a summary of all that has here been said we quote the words of Pope Leo XIII.: "If by a strike or other combination of workmen there should be imminent danger of disturbance of the public peace; or if circumstances were such that among the laboring population the ties of family life were relaxed ; if religion were found to suffer through the workmen not having time and opportunity to practice it; if in workshops and factories there were danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from any occasion of evil; or if the employers laid burdens upon the workmen which were unjust or degraded them with conditions that were repugnant to their dignity as

human beings; gnally, if health were endangered by excessive labor or by work unsuited to sex or age—these cases there can' be no question that, within certain limits, it would be right to call in the help and authority of the law.” {The Condition of Labor.) The limits referred to here are defined by the extent of the evil itself or of the danger that is to be removed. So far, and no further, should the State intervene in the conditions of labor.