The Question of Henry George's Writings
John Cardinal Gibbons
Archbishop of Baltimore
[A letter written from Rome, To His Eminence Cardinal
Simeoni, Prefect of the Holy Congregation of the Propaganda, 25
February, 1887]
Eminence:
I have had already the honor of presenting to your Eminence my views
on the social question which agitates America, especially regarding
their relations with the Knights of Labor. But recently another form
of social discussion has developed connected with the doctrines of Mr.
Henry George, an American writer identified with the working classes.
And since my arrival at Rome I have heard discuss the idea that the
writings of Henry George would be placed on the Index. After having
meditated well on the subject, I believe it is my duty to submit to
your Eminence the reasons why l must point out that a formal
condemnation of Henry George's books would be neither opportune nor
useful.
1. Henry George is by no means the inventor of the theory that he
maintains respecting the right of property to the land. In his major
book Progress and Poverty he precisely cites the teachings of
Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill, two of the principal writers of
England. And in the English periodical the Contemporary Review
of November 1886, a distinguished professor cites them even more
fully, to demonstrate, as he says it, that Mr. George is merely a
plagiarist of these celebrated authors. But? it seems to me that the
world will judge him rather singularly if the Holy See will attack the
works of a humble American artisan, in lieu of attacking his great
masters. And if there is some who think that it will therefore be the
duty of the Holy See to pronounce a judgment on Spencer and Mill,
perhaps it would be prudent before hand to consult their Eminences
Cardinals Manning and Newman on the expediency of such an action.
2. It is proper to remark that Henry George's theory differs from
that which is ordinarily called communism or socialism. Because, as
Father Valentin Steccamella has displayed it very well in his work on
communism, published by the press of the [College of the] Propaganda
in 1882, that the latter involves "the abolition of private
property and the collectivization of all property into the hands of
the state." But, whoever has read Henry George's books has to
recognize that he does not teach nor wish that at all. On the
contrary, he upholds absolute property of all the fruits of human
energy and work even if they have been increased to great riches
acquired either by work or by heredity. It is only regarding the land
itself that he would like to limit the individual's property by an
extension of the supremum dominium [supreme domain] of the
state and respecting this he has expressly said that by no means would
he dispossess the actual owners, but that our system of taxation would
simply change so that the taxes would come from the land and not from
the fruits of human labor. One therefore sees that in the practical
form in which the controversy presents itself to the American public,
it is simply a question affecting governmental power over the
individual possession of the land. And besides this, there is the
following to note:
a) Whoever closely studies the question of the relation of the state
to the right of the possession of land, as it has been treated by
Father Steccanella and by other Catholic writers on how taxation laws
have been regulated and of the support for the poor in several
countries, and especially in England, cannot scarcely fail to
understand that it is a very complex question, subject to a great deal
of diverse circumstances of time and place and they have not as yet
been resolved by a decisive decision.
b) The question is already before the American public as a political
problem arid in an arena of such practice it will soon discover its
termination.
c) Because Mr. George himself recognizes that it is solely the
legislative power of a country which could operate such an arrangement
of affairs: and it is quite sure that there will never be a Congress
nor a legislature which would vote a change of such profound social
relations, nor would a president approve of it.
d) In a country like ours, which is not at all a country of
doctrinaires and visionaries, speculative theory will not be
dangerous, nor would live a long time after after its practical
application will have been rejected; and one could allow it, in
complete assuredty, to die by itself.
3. Certain recent events in our country have caused a very profound
and very extensive popular excitement having close relations with this
question. Because your Eminerce understands better than myself how
much it is necessary that we take care not only to speak the truth,
but also to carefully choose the time and the circumstances of saying
it, so that our action will produce salutary results and not
disastrous ones. It appears therefore evident that even if there had
been certainly cause for a condemnation, this would not now be the
time to express it.
4. Finally, it could be prudent here that to apply the moral
principle which counsels not to express a judgment whose consequences
would probably be contrary rather than favorable towards the proposed
laudable purpose. Because I maintain it for certain that such would be
the result of a condemnation of Mr. George's works. This would give
them a popular importance that they would never have otherwise had and
excites an appetite for curiosity which would make them sell in
thousands of copies, and which would then immensely extend their
influence which the condemnation would seek to restrain and prevent.
Another word, with a practical people like the Americans, in whose
nature bizarre and impractical ideas soon find their grave, it seems
to me that prudence suggests allowing the absurdities and falsities to
die by themselves, and not to run the risk of giving them an
importance, and an artificial life and force by the intervention of
the Church tribunals.
|