Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

PRIVATE PROPERTY DISPUTE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1963 GEORGIA BULLETIN .PAGE 3 Mrs. Murphy’s Civil Rights - Balancing Oppossing Views The following article is reprinted with kind permission from the Octo ber 19 issue of America, National Catholic Weekly Review, published by Jesuit Fathers at New York, BY WILLIAM J. DAVIS, S. J. Of the many witnesses to come before the Senate Com merce Committee, testifying against the public-accom modations section of the President’s civil rights bill, perhaps none was more eloquent or forceful than Gov. Farris Bryant, of Florida. In a packed Senate Caucus Room, he told the Senators that he came “to argue thet case for freedom.” Customers are free to trade where they please, but this civil rights bill would deny owners a like freedom. If a customer can walk into a store, look over the owner or the merchandise, and then decide not to buy, for any reason whatsoever, or even for no reason at all; if he can base his decision even on the looks of the storeowner-then “the owner of the property ought to have the same freedom.” So runs the argument of Governor Bryant, and so runs the argument in the minds of many reasonable men who seem genuinely concerned about Federal interference with the rights of property owners. To resolve the apparent conflict between civil rights and property rights, it is necessary to take a second look at our traditional view of private property. Just what rights, for instance, does the now famous Mrs. Murphy have in the running of her boardinghouse? For Sirs. Murphy, and for Americans generally, the right of ownership is an unassailable absolute. 1 earned this property. It’s mine. I can do with it as I please.” Some such expression of absolute ownership, including use, rises spontaneously to the lips of most Americans. Even those who cannot justify this right philosophically know that it is somehow guaranteed as God-given and inalienable, and the presumption is one of absolute independence in the ownership of property. The defenders of Mrs. Murphy contend that she (or her family) built her establishment independ ently and that she therefore can expect to do as she pleases with it. They decry government interference as an infringement on her right to own and dispose of her property freely. Their argument begins with the fact that this prop erty was gained by private initiative. Was it really? Did the Murphys mill the boards that built it? Did they smelt the steel that fashioned the tools that drove the nails? While the building was under construction, who grew the wheat and ground the flour and ran the rail roads and provided the thousand and one other serv ices that the Murphys used? And even more funda mentally, who settled the land and built a society and maintained law and order, so that this building could be constructed? “Private” initiative, in any absolute sense, is a myth. But if Mrs. Murphy could not originally acquire her boardinghouse without the aid of society, neither can she now maintain it “privately.” How can she keep it safe from thieves? How can she be assured that the commodities she needs to run it will not skyrocket beyond her means through the action of monopolists? How can she be assured that the food she buys for her guests will not poison them? And finally, how can she be secure from those today who have sworn to "bury her”? The point is obvious. The individualist’s exaggerated view of private endeavor is one of the greatest hoaxes ever to slip into the stream of conventional wisdom. No one owns a boardinghouse, or anything else for that matter, without being in partnership with a tremen dously complex, co-operating, interrelated organism known as society. Like it or not, we are interdependent. And if property cannot be gained independently or maintained independently, then neither can it be used in total independence. To say that owners have the right to do whatever they please with their property, irrespective of society, is simply false. St. Thomas Aquinas, while defending the right to acquire private property, makes it very clear that this right does not carry with it the right of indiscriminate use. The disposal of private goods must be in accord with the primary destiny of all goods —service of man. As Ambrose Farrell, O. P., puts it: “Ownership of every kind is a stewardship carrying with it social obligations.” Traditionally, we have emphasized the fact that man’s very nature demands a measure of independent ownership. But what we must bear in mind, while in sisting on this “natural” right, is that man’s nature is a social nature and demands a concern for society even in his ownership. It is not as though man has independ ent rights to which are added a few social riders. The fact is that the right itself is essentially colored by man’s social nature. The social character of private property, therefore, is not a sort of afterthought of only relative impor tance. It is of the very essence of private property. Re view the traditional arguments for private property and you will find that they all reduce to one: private property is the best way to make our God-given fund of material goods serve the common good of all man kind. The truth is that the social character of property is absolute; its private character is relative. This is not to say, as Saint-Simon, Comte and their camp followers said, that society is the real owner of all property. Individuals are true owners, but society has a vested interest in their ownership. Especially those “private” businesses that draw constantly from the public must, in turn, recognize the rights of the public. If they do not, then public authority must intervene. Some might object that government intervention is bad. In a sense it is; it’s too bad. In fact, in a sense, it is tragic, because it is an indication that we as in dividuals have not recognized and fulfilled our social obligations. Because of our failure, government inter vention becomes necessary and its desirability is no longer the question. And if there is danger involved (as there admittedly is) in such intervention, we have no one to blame but ourselves for failing to act on the individual or local level. We cannot hide behind an irrational hostility to public authority when we our selves have necessitated the expansion of that authority. Exaggerated individualism has traditionally blasted all social reforms with bromides about freedom from interference, private rights, private initiative, and creeping socialism. But the ironic truth is that no one makes social reforms more necessary than does the individualist. Numerous social problems, calling for government regulation, are the direct result of his IT COSTS SO LITTLE TO PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD IN THE GEORGIA BULLETIN ‘THE FATHER’S EYE’ TV Keeps The Pope Posted On Council c & s REALTY COMPANY "Specialist* In Commercial and Industrial Real Eftate” Suite 200 Henry Grady Bldg. Atlanta 3 Ga. Warenouaea, Stores, Mfg. Plants, Acreage, Shopping Center Dev., industrial Dev., Subdivision Dev., Insurant* 524-2052 MIKE & STEVE SERTICH ROME (NC) — Council Fat hers who have their seats on the Gospel side of the council hall in St. Peter’s can watch a mysterious amber light on a camera posted just behind a big statue of the Prince of theAos- tles. The light Is bright red when flashed on, and when It Is, that means Pope Paul VI Is watch ing! IN HIS PRIVATE study : the Pontiff has a special tele vision receiver which he uses from time to time to follow council proceedings. The amber light Is his link. "The Father's eye," the eng ineers In charge have called it. "When 'll Papa' is looking," they say, "the behave. . .!" boys' better V RYBERTW A MINTING ” SSO FORIEST iOAD, N. t, LITHOGRAPHING L— — ATLANTA, GEORGIA Srrpi»t Stmre »•»> IGNATIUS HOUSE RETREATS Schedule for next three weeks November 7-10 November 14-17 November 21-24 Women Men Women Phone 255-0503 or Write 6700 Riverside Dr. N.W. Atlanta. 5, Ga. SINCE HE IS probably the best known among the coun lay auditors, Ralmondo Manz- ini, editor of the Vatican City newspaper "L'Osservatore Ro mano," has been given a spec ial title by some of the bis hops: They like to call him endea ringly and facetiously, "Father Auditor." THE ITALIAN for "Father" being "Padre," and "Padre" being the title used for priests who are Religious, Manzlnl feels -rather complimented oc cupying the unique position of a "lay padre"! Archbishop Perlcle Fellcl, the council's general secretary, Is a pretty strict boss. He sees to it that order is kept in the hall. HE HAS announced that he does not want to see council Fathers wandering about behind their seats during debates. No promenading! says his oral ukase. Of course, the bishop may go to the much-used coffee lounge, but there they find another "Verboten": **No smoking." IT IS TOUGH for some of them, but the fire hazard In St. Peter's is to serious to take a chance on, even in cloak rooms. laissez-faire principles. Granted, for instance, that I can do as I please with my property, then naturally enough I can shift the location of my plant without regard to employee dislocation; I can hire and fire without re gard for collective bargaining; I can engage in rack- renting, in real-estate speculation, and in a host of other activities that result in social harm. Discrimina tion against Negroes caps a long list of abuses resulting from the liberalist view of “the sanctity of private property.” In fact, even the various forms of collectivism, which ‘he individualists so universally fear, frequently follow from this same false premise of the absolute nature of private property. Given the assumption that owner ship carries with it the right to use things as the owner pleases, then the only way to correct misuse is by a change of ownership. And sp the various collectivist systems conclude that the state must become sole owner if society is to benefit properly from material wealth. Even Catholic writers sometimes leave the im pression that the only solution to the problem of in justice is some impractical equalization of ownings, and, in so doing, neglect to stress the social obligations of those who are owners. In correcting abuses, however, we must not make the mistake of the collectivists. Government interven tion must itself be controlled by strict limits. The day will never come when the right of ownership will be justly absorbed by the state. Private property will nevei become obsolete. It will remain as long as man is man. The forms that ownership takes may need constant readjustment by social authority to bring them in-line with their essential purpose; but that authority can not swallow up the basic right. O bviously, if individuals and lesser organizations realize their responsibilities, the state need not and ought not to step in; but when we on the lower level fail, then it is the responsibility of the govern ment to see to it that community rights are not tram pled on by individuals. In Quadragesimo Anno Pius XI insisted, while reiterating the warning to leave to subordinate groups as broad a control as possible, that public authority has not only the right but the duty to make adjustments in the matter of ownership. His words bear quoting at length: It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of ownership that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To de fine these duties in detail when necessity requires and the natural law has not done so is the function of those in charge of the state. Therefore public au thority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately, upon consideration of the true requirements of the com mon good, what is permitted and what is not per mitted to owners in the use of their property. (§ 49) A Catholic can hardly deny the right of the state to in tervene in the use of property for the common good, as indeed the state already does by a number of accepted practices, such as lawsuits to redress injuries, zoning laws and eminent domain. The attitude we should take toward such interven tion was well expressed by Mayor Ivan Allen Jr., of Atlanta, Ga., testifying before the Senate Commerce .FA2L i Committee in favor of the civil rights bill. Asked about Federal intrusion into businesses in his city, he replied that such government actions as child-labor laws, cer tain labor laws thpmselves, wage-and-hour acts and the like can hardly be considered “intrusions” since, for the most part, they have been “for the benefit of most of the people of the country.” Finally—and this question. brings us back to Mrs. Murphy—when should the government act? Obviously, too much government interference will create more evils than it corrects; but too little is equally harmful. When the state moves, it must keep all aspects of the common good in mind. Property has a social aspect, but it also has a private aspect. The state must preserve both. When a business is small and relatively more private, as we will presume is the case with the Mur phy boardinghouse, the state should not interfere di rectly, even though Mrs. Murphy may be unjustly drawing profit from the public without realizing her social obligations to that public. But in the case of those businesses that substantially affect the common good, the state can and should interfere whenever there is serious abuse. And how decide what is a “Mrs. Murphy" boarding- louse and what is a substantial business? Reason and prudence must decide. Although we hate to give these factors a place in this world of scientific exactness, there is simply no substitute for them in human affairs. They guide us in interpreting what is substantial in the Clayton Act and in other acts; they must likewise guide us in the present matter. Perhaps, as has been suggested, the Murphys can be separated from the non-Murphys by the $10,000 gross-income level. Some division point must be agreed upon to preserve both privacy and public good. And while $10,000 is an arbi trary figure, it does not seem an unreasonable one. If someone thinks otherwise, he can advance reasons why the division point should be moved up or down, but he ought not to attack the very principle of the govern ment’s right to regulate. In conclusion, therefore, let me return to the prob lem posed by Governor Bryant. He has shrewdly ap praised the civil rights issue as a struggle “between conflicting demands for freedom.” But are the demands for freedom equally justified on both sides, or are owners demanding freedoms that were never theirs? Those who make private property an unassailable ab solute stretch property rights beyond reason. And if they have their way, they will not only destroy an im portant civil rights bill; they will strip social authority of the very possibility of effective reform. They will hack away from free society its strongest bulwark—its capacity for self-adjustment and reform. There is no solution to “the conflicting demands for freedom” if we accept the individualist assumptions about the nature of ownership. The solution Governor Bryant suggests-to allow the owners the freedom to continue to make errors—is intolerable when so large a portion of the public, indeed, when the whole nation, is suffering from those errors. The Communist or So cialist solution—to make the state the sole owner—is likewise intolerable in view of man’s nature. This con flict can be resolved only by admitting that our right of ownership bears within it social responsibilities which should be promoted by the reasonable, con trolled and limited intervention of social authority. Holy Father Warns ‘Peace’ Is Abused BARREN GROUND FOR DEMOCRACY?—Recent military coups in the Dominican Republic and Honduras marked the collapse of two more democratic regimes in Latin America. Added to nations already under military rule and dictatorships in Cuba, Haiti and Paraguay, other sore spots are shown on this map of Latin America: El Salvador, where military un rest is high; Venezuela, top target of communists; Colom bia, hard hit by Castro terrorists, and Brazil, scene of “guer rilla” labor strikes and inflation. St Paul Parish Assists Victims ST. PAUL, Minn. The pastor of the Birmingham Negro church In which four girls died In a September bombing has ex pressed thanks to a Catholic parish here for Its sympathy. The Rev, John H, Cross, pas tor of the 16th Street Bapto.. church In Birmingham, said "we have been strengthened in the way that persons of both racial groups have pledged their support and have offered pray ers in our behalf." VATICAN CITY (NC) — Pope Paul VI has urged mem bers of the Pax Chris ti move ment not to stray from their role of spreading the peace of Christ and to be award of the abuses of the word "peace." The Pope received members of the international Catholic movement devoted to encourg- ing peace which was founded af ter World War II in an audie nce led by Maurice Cardinal Feltin of Paris, president of the movement. "YOUR FIRST concern," he said, "should be not to devia te from the ‘guideline that has bean laid down for you. In the world in which we are living— you know it better than others— there Is an abuse of the word 'peace'. . .which, has been the cause of setting men against each other instead of uniting them. "Let it be clear that the pe ace for which you are working is and will always be that which has been so beautifully defined by Our predecessor, John XXIII, in his memorable encyclical Pacem In Terris, the peace whose name is borne by your movement: . the peace of Ch rist, Pax Christ!." HE WARNED members of the movement to avoid involving the Church in areas not related to the peace of Christ, and urged the essentially European or ganization to consider enlarging its scope outside of Europe. "Because the peace of Christ has no limits," he said, "It is a common good, given to every one, which puts out roots and strengthens itself as It grows. Various circumstances have not permitted the movement to en large beyond European boun daries up till now, Has not the moment arrived to apply the "Due in altum' (Lead upward), of the Gospel? And what bat ter occasion than the ecumenl- wlth the episcopates of those countries where establishment of the movement might seem to be needed and possible?" Churches Robbed LOUISVILLE, Ky. (NC) Theft of three chalices and a ci- borlum together valued at $1,000 has been reported by St. Brlgld church, eighth Louisville parish to be robbed In the past 14 months. Eight Catholic chur ches in the East End of Louis ville have been robbed since September, 1962, In most cases chalices have been the chief ob jects stolen. MOTOR HOTEL • TV * A - gONDT.ONlNS • MMOvI • • IOI 4 irvIMSI •TATIOM* | - • a C h noom Office Equipment Business Machines Safes—Service—Supplies PHONE 525-6417 172 WHITEHALL STREET, S.W. ATLANTA 3, GEORGIA