.

Thomas S. Preston was born at Hartford, Connecticut, 23 July, 1824. He died at New York, 4 Nov., 1891. He studied in the Episcopalian general seminary, located at Ninth Avenue and Twentieth Street, New York, where he was recognized as the leader of the High Church party. In 1846 he received deacon's orders, and served in this capacity at Trinity Church, the Church of the Annunciation in West Fourteenth Street, and at Holy Innocents, West Point. In 1847 he was ordained presbyter by Bishop Delancey of Western New York. He was a deep student of the early history of the Church and of the Fathers, and thus gradually began to feel the branch theory untenable. He was convinced of the truth of Catholicity, as well as of his obligation to embrace it, before he had ever read a professedly Catholic book, or spoken to a priest. He was baptized and received into the Church on 14 November, 1849. In the autumn of 1850 he was ordained priest, and assigned to duty in the cathedral. In 1851 he was appointed pastor of Yonkers with out-missions at Dobbs Ferry and Tarrytown. In 1853 he became secretary to Archbishop Hughes, and chancellor of the diocese. He was appointed pastor of St. Ann's in 1863, and was promoted in 1872 to be vicar-general. During the absence of Archbishop Corrigan in 1890 he was administrator of the diocese. His Advent and Lenten conferences attracted multitudes from all parts of the city. His works are: "Reason and Revelation" (New York, 1868); "The Divine Paraclete" (1879); "Ark of the Covenant" (1860) "The Divine Sanctuary" (1887); "Gethsemani (1887); "The Sacred Year" (1885); "Vicar of Christ" (1878); "The Protestant Reformation" (1879); "Protestantism and the Church" (1882); "Protestantism and the Bible" (1888); "Christian Unity" (1881); "The Watch on Calvary" (1885) "Christ and the Church" (1870); "God and Reason" (1884); "Devotion to the Sacred Heart".

MEN generally appreciate and admire consistency. Although they may not agree in principles or opinions, they respect those who live in faithful accordance with their professions. There are many of our fellow-citizens who do not admire the Catholic religion. Some misunderstand it altogether, and others regard it with hostility. Nevertheless they accept some, at least, of our principles, and honor us when we are true to the obligations of our creed. The Catholic Church must be judged by its own standards, and we cannot be blamed for acting in accordance with them, as long as we respect the just rights of others and are faithful to all the obligations of our country.

We believe the church to be a divine organization, united to Christ, her head, animated by the Holy Spirit, and therefore the teacher and preserver of faith and morals. While we uphold that which we receive as truth, we feel bound, also, to reprobate error. We touch no one's physical freedom, nor can we interfere with moral liberty. There is no tyranny in this, since obedience to authority is essential to our organization.

These remarks are made to justify this brief article, and to explain the interference of the church in moral and religious questions. In matters purely political, having no connection with faith or morality, we do not meddle. Every man among; us is free to choose his political relations, and act as he deems best for the welfare of his country. We yield to no one in loyalty and devotion to our republic. It is next to God in our hearts, as past history since the formation of our Constitution has abundantly proved. Theories which contravene morals, which violate the law of God, and are ruinous to society, are not purely political. If the teaching authority of the church should allow such theories to pass without reprobation, it would become a partaker in the crime, and share in the evil consequences of false doctrine. Our organization is such that we must speak plainly, or be held guilty before God and our fellow-citizens.

The various theories embraced under the general name of communism or socialism are, in the opinion of the Catholic Church, not only contrary to the law of God, but destructive of the best interests of society. Of them we must speak with no uncertain tongue, even though they be upheld by parties calling themselves political.

Communism and socialism, in the general acceptation of these terms, are related to each other, and differ only in degree, while they are one in principle. Socialism denies the right of private ownership in capital or in land, or in both. Communism denies every kind of ownership, and asserts the individual equality of all men as to all things. Various have been the motives of such theories. Some philanthropists have thought to relieve the poverty of the masses by taking the property of the rich, forgetful of the fact that if there were no such thing as private property there would be nothing to appropriate. Others have reasoned that the state or the commune might seize the possessions of those who have too much, and 'relieve the wants of those who have too little. It is, however, an , axiom in morals that we can never do wrong in order that good may come. If there be such a thing as private property, the state cannot touch it without robbery, unless for the highest good of the whole people, and with just compensation to the owners. The socialism which has been advanced in this country, of late, as a panacea for human ills, denies that there is, or can be, any private property in land. We quote the exact words of Mr. Henry George:

"We must make land common property. …If private property in land is just, then the remedy I propose is a false one; if, on the contrary, private property in land be unjust, then is the remedy the true one."

The whole theory advanced by this gentleman is contained in this proposition, and without it all he has written and argued goes for nothing. On it he stands or falls. In his opinion land can never be appropriated by any individual, no matter what the state or the community may do to sanction it According to him, property in land is robbery.

"Although the whole people of the earth were to unite, they could no more sell title to land against the next generation than they could sell that generation."

He is more radical than Herbert Spencer, since he denies that in the wholesale confiscation of land any compensation is due to the land-owners. We need go no further in the examination of Mr. George's theory. Let us take it as it stands without gloss or comment.

On it we have two remarks to make. It is contrary to the constitution of all civilized nations, and would destroy the present order of society. Secondly, it is contrary to the law of God and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

1. We are not aware of any civilized society, under any form of government, which does not recognize private property in land. The Constitution of the United States declares that "no one shall be deprived of property without due process of law;" and that "no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation." The Constitution of the State of New York repeats these words of the federal Constitution, and adds that "all lands within the State are declared to be allodial, so that, subject only to the liability to escheat (through failure of heirs), the entire and absolute property is vested in the owners according to the nature of their respective estates." To deny the right of property in land is, therefore, to revolutionize society; to call the landowners thieves is to accuse all civilized nations of wholesale robbery.

2. That this kind of socialism is contrary to the law of God, has been very plainly demonstrated in an article in the November number of this review. To the arguments of that article we think there can be no answer. But we need only quote the commandments of God: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his house, nor his field, nor anything that is his." *[Deut. v., 21.]

As far as the Catholic Church has authority, she has spoken enough in condemnation of communism and socialism, which she has proscribed. By such condemnation she has declared that private property in land is just, and she has sanctioned the holding of such property by ecclesiastics and religious bodies. If the church and her ministers may rightly own real estate, then surely, by act as well as word, she reprobates Mr. George's proposition. There can be no necessity of further argument. The fathers of the church and the popes have distinctly condemned any attack upon the just rights of property, wherever such attacks have been made. Among the propositions of John Wyckliffe condemned by Pope Martin V. are these: "Pope Sylvester and the Emperor Constantine erred in settling property on the church." "The pope as well as all ecclesiastics who possess property arc heretics because they hold real estate." The Roman pontiffs have often condemned in the plainest terms the errors of socialism and communism, and have thus asserted the rightfulness and justice of private property in land. Pius IX., in an allocution, Sept 5, 1851, bewails "the evils which have sprung from the utterly unjust confiscation of church goods and estates, and from the reckless spoliation which has, in a great measure, prepared the soil for the growth of those most pernicious and fatal errors, socialism and communism." Leo XIII. has more than once asserted the right of the church to all the ecclesiastical property, and has condemned those who, under any pretext, would take it from her. This he has done so recently as the consistory of Nov. 25, 1887. The encyclical of Dec. 28, 1878, has these words:

"Catholic wisdom, relying upon the precepts of the natural and the divine law, has provided for the security of the state and the family by its tenets concerning the right of domain und the division of property. The socialists denounce the right of property as a human invention, repugnant to the natural equality of men. But the church ordains that the right of property and dominion, which springs from nature itself, be kept sacred and inviolate to every one."

As far as regards the socialism of Mr. George, the language of the supreme pontiff is abundantly plain. In his letter to the Archbishop of New York, May 4, 1887, Leo XIII. declares that he has "accurately considered the whole series of facts from the beginning," and commends the action, of the archbishop " in bringing before his supreme tribunal the false doctrines concerning the right of property disseminated among the people in newspapers and public assemblies." It is not necessary to devote further space to this point. If the church defends the right of property in land, holds such property herself, and condemns those who attack this right, she certainly condemns those who assert that land-owners are robbers. It is the doctrine of Catholic theologians that property in land is held by natural right, which the state can only confirm by just laws, but which it does not give, and cannot, therefore, take away without injustice. This is really contained in the words of Leo XIIL above quoted, where he speaks of the right of property and dominion which springs from nature itself. To quote the words of Rev. Father Holaind:

" The right of appropriation, and consequently of ownership, belongs to natural law in its strictest sense. Occupancy is the fact by which the right is applied to this or that material object. Positive law gives occupancy a sanction which society is not at liberty to withhold."

We are met here by a subtle distinction between property and ownership; one meaning the exclusive right of possession, and the other only the right to the temporary use of a thing. There is, in reality, no such distinction. No lexicon recognizes any such distinction, neither is it to be found in common law or common sense. "Webster defines ownership as "the state of being an owner, the exclusive right of possession," and property or proprietorship he defines as "the exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing." The terms are synonymous, and either of them signifies the absolute right to a thing, to the exclusion of all other persons. The right to use anything is contained in ownership or proprietorship, but the right to use anything does not necessarily include property. A proprietor may give the use of his land or goods to another, while he alone retains the exclusive possession. To say that there is in any kind of property an unearned increment, is not only to state what is false, but to deny the right of property altogether. The owner has the full title to all the legitimate increase of his property, or he does not own it; he only uses it. Every increment is earned, and belongs justly to the owner. If there were no increase in values, there would be no inducement to hold property of any kind. This truth applies to everything that man can appropriate, and skill, forethought, and anxiety earn this increase. There is no such thing as an unearned increment, and the term, if it have any meaning, denies the right of true property in anything to which it applies. Mr. George is too honest to seek escape from the boldness of his proposition that "property in land is unjust," by such a subterfuge. Nowhere does he retract the leading principle of his theory; and his argument in regard to an unearned increment is based upon the assertion that the so-called owner of land has no right to anything but its use.

His theory is intended to revolutionize society. It is not a proposition of political economy, leaving untouched the fabric of the social system. He does not propose to put his theory into act by any violence. He does not excite the poor to plunder the rich, nor advise the people to take possession of the lands of private owners. But he asks the state to do so by way of legislation, and seeks to instill into the minds of our citizens that all land-owners are actual thieves, holding that to which they have no just right. He hopes to convert the masses to this opinion when the majority of voters shall decide by law to deprive all proprietors of their land. Here comes the plain truth again, that robbery by the many is as unjust as robbery by the few. Might does not make right, nor does violence extinguish justice.

We give Mr. George the credit of honesty, although some of his followers either deceive themselves or try to deceive others. He proposes a tax upon land which is virtually the confiscation of such property. It matters little to me whether my property be taken away altogether, or whether a tax be laid upon it in such a way that I cannot hold it. If "the land be taxed up to its full value," as he proposes, no owner can hold it. As he says, you need not use the word "confiscation;" but "the land becomes the people's, leaving to the landlords the possession of their deeds of title and conveyance." "But," say some, "has not the state the right to regulate taxation according to its needs?" We answer, "Yes, with due regard to vested rights and contracts." The community has the right to do anything just and necessary. It has no right to spoil its citizens of their property, nor to impose a tax which would extinguish their rights. This is rapine, and not political economy. And this is especially evident when the tax is imposed with the admitted purpose of depriving proprietors of their possessions. There is, perhaps, little prospect in a country like ours of the adoption of such violent measures; but the dissemination of principles like these, which virtually make every land-owner a thief, is always dangerous, since many men do not reason, but are led by passion or prejudice. Let Mr. George propose a tax based on economic principles alone, and theologians will leave him to himself; but when he advocates confiscation of all land, on the principle that no private individual can justly hold it, he attacks the law of God and the essential truths of morality. We repeat, let his followers retract the proposition that "property in land is unjust," and we will relegate the discussion to political economists. They may study the question of taxation, and are not likely to persuade any civilized community to take any kind of property from its owners by a confiscating tax.

"But," say some of the advocates of the new socialism, "does not the right of eminent domain exist fully recognized by all countries? Does not this right of the commune imply that all property, especially that of land, belongs to the state?" We reply, that the right of eminent domain does exist, and not only implies, but asserts, the justice of private property in land. It directly contradicts the theory that the state is the source of property to individuals. It really declares that private proprietors hold their possessions by a natural right which no positive law can extinguish. Let us see what is meant by eminent domain. We quote the words of Chancellor Kent:

"The right of eminent domain, or inherent sovereign power, gives to the legislature the control of private property for public uses only. …A provision for compensation is a necessary attendant on the due and constitutional exercise of the power of the law-giver to deprive an individual of his property without his consent, and this principle in American constitutional jurisprudence is founded on natural equity, and is laid down by jurists as an acknowledged principle of universal law."

To quote a theologian, Suarez writes that

"The commonwealth or the king has a certain high dominion over the possessions of all the citizens, and the private property of all, which does not exclude their private dominion ; but, notwithstanding that, it gives power to use these goods for the common utility of the state when, the moment of need calls for it."

"We have seen how the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of New York, forbids the " taking of private property for public use without just compensation." The high dominion of a state can take private property for public use, preferring the need or good of the whole people to that of a private individual. But in so doing it must render just compensation. By this is protected the right of the citizen to that which is his own. If it were not his own, if he were a thief in holding land to which he had no just title, no compensation could be due. This principle of eminent domain also asserts the natural right of the individual to his property, as the state cannot extinguish that right If the state created that right it might extinguish it. With what face, then, do socialists refer us to eminent domain when they urge seizure of private property without compensation, and propose the violation of one of the fundamental laws of nations?

There are two points remaining on which we desire to speak before we close this brief essay. We have sufficiently shown the unchristian character of the main principle of Mr. George. His proposition that private property in land is a grievous wrong, has been condemned by the Catholic Church many times in and act. Some of his friends, we believe with no inspiration; from him, take refuge from the censure of the church in the fact : that the Sacred Congregation of the Index has not condemned any of his books, and, therefore, assert that Catholics may safely; hold his opinions. Any reasoning mind will at once see that f this is a dishonest position. If the supreme tribunal of the church has already condemned the main proposition of his theory, that condemnation alone is sufficient for sincere Catholics. No ecclesiastic nor any ecclesiastical corporation could for one ; moment justly hold any property in land if his theory were true. It is also certain that many books worse than those of Mr. George's are not yet placed upon the Index. It would be a curious reasoning to conclude from this fact that Catholics could follow their teaching. He who proves too much proves nothing. When the Sacred Congregation sees fit in its wisdom to consider the works of Henry George, there can be no doubt that it will condemn his political economy, which is nothing but a new edition of socialism. Proudhon is already condemned, and to him be owes the theory on which he bases his system. "Property is theft," says Proudhon, and "property in land is theft," says Mr. George, and land is the only "real" property. The passage from this socialism to communism in its complete form is easy.

We do not believe that there is any danger of the adoption of Mr. George's system in our country. We think it would prove the ruin of the very class it seeks to serve. But we would ask the laboring class to consider well the risk they run in giving favor to principles which, if they could be carried out. would diminish their resources and destroy their prospect of independence. We make no attack upon the honesty or sincerity of Mr. George. Undoubtedly he believes that he has found a remedy for the ills of society, and thinks his theory the fruit of true philanthropy. Many political economists as wise as he find many contradictions in his statement, and are unable to see how the universal robbery of land-owners can benefit the working class, or stimulate trade or production. For ourselves, we think that his principles acted upon would reduce the earnings of the laboring class and increase the cost of living. But, leaving aside theories of political economy, and arguing from the point of morality, which underlies the prosperity of nations, we can never be made to believe that injustice will benefit any people. Deep in the heart of any prosperous nation must be implanted the sense of justice, the obligation to render to every one that which is his due. A remedy which proposes universal robbery is not only worse than the evil it seeks to cure, but would lead to the disregard of all rights. In the observance of the natural law of God the poor are as much concerned as are the rich.

There is another great evil which flows from socialism and its kindred theories. It seeks to array capital against labor, as if one were the natural enemy of the other. Surely society is made up of different classes, and all should co-operate for the common good; one cannot well do without the other. All are equal before the law, possessing an equality of civil rights. An equality of social condition never has existed and never will exist, and to hold it up as possible is to deceive men with a foolish dream which can never be realized. Theorists of this kind are the worst enemies of the working classes, deluding them by vain prospects, familiarizing them with injustice, and cheating them of the just rewards of their labor. The Catholic Church is confessedly the friend of the poor. She looks upon them as the most cherished children of her flock. Schemes of benevolence and even of divine tenderness have their fountain in her heart For ages has she been the defender of the oppressed, and she has relieved want and blessed poverty everywhere. She has taught the obligations of the divine law to every class, to the king upon his throne, to the rulers of the state, to the rich in their many cares, and to the toilers in the field and the mine. All her children are equal to her, all the recipients of her bounty, of the grace with which her Lord has endowed her. It is her special mission "to preach the gospel to the poor, deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind." No philanthropist, however sincere, can measure the fountain of divine pity that is in her. Her priests are specially consecrated to the service of those in want or suffering. They, in their vocation, are the benefactors of the poor, teaching obedience to Jaw and justice, and self-denial where God commands it Not for this world was man made, but for a world eternal, for a life with God, to which the trials of our different probations lead. To forget this high truth, to trample upon the principles of justice and the precepts of the natural law, is to hurry on the ruin of nations. Thus far by Christian society socialism of every kind has been rejected as the foe of peace and order, the enemy of the honest and industrious poor. We do not believe that the time has coins when men, forgetting the truths of religion, and the dictates of the natural law, will tear in pieces the hallowed fabric of society, and consign themselves to a chaos of disorder.