Edward McGlynn
Charles B. Fillebrown
[Reprinted from the book, Natural Taxation,
published 1917.
Part I / The Authorities / Chapter 7]
Dr. Edward McGlynn, one of the most prominent supporters of the new
movement in its early days, was born of Irish parentage in New York
City, Sept. 22, 1837. He became a protégé of archbishop
Hughes, who sent him to the College of the Propaganda in Rome to be
educated for the priesthood. He distinguished himself as a student,
and at the age of 22 was ordained. His first work in the ministry was
as an assistant pastor to Dr. Cummings at St. Stephen's Church in New
York City. Eight years later he succeeded Dr. Cummings as pastor. Of
fine presence, large in heart and large in person, he won the love and
esteem of his 1,700 parishioners. He was a zealous Catholic, devoted
to the spiritual doctrines of his church, and withal a man of
independent thought and unbounded courage -- an ardent American. He
deserves peculiar honor, not because of original work, but because, in
a great metropolis, he was the shepherd of a great flock of a great
church, who stood forth like a full-blown radical rose in a great
garden of conservatism; and because he presented his land theory for
final decision with a completeness of doctrine and beauty of form
hardly to be excelled.
Incidental to a visit of Michael Davitt in behalf of Irish land
reform, and under the spell of Progress and Poverty, Dr. McGlynn
announced himself a disciple and supporter of American land reform.
Speaking from the same platform with Davitt, he proclaimed the
righteousness of their cause with such force and eloquence that Henry
George, to whom hitherto he had been unknown, hailed him as "an
army with banners," and the two men became warm friends. A brief
five years later Dr. McGlynn, standing in the presence of a funeral
throng of 10,000 in and out of the Grand Central Palace, closed his
eulogy of his friend with the impressive phrase: "There was a man
sent from God whose name was Henry George."
The work of Dr. McGlynn in advancing his newly espoused cause is
important, not only because of his convincing power as a thinker and
orator, but also because he brought the subject to the attention of
the authorities of his church in a way to compel their judgment upon
the taxation of economic rent has a moral issue.
The circumstances were these. Because of his public utterances in
behalf of the single tax at a time of the Land League agitation, in
1882, and in 1886 in the mayoralty campaign in which Henry George,
Abram Hewitt, and Theodore Roosevelt were candidates, Dr. McGlynn
became involved in a controversy now historic, with his ecclesiastical
superiors. The initial issue was one of church discipline, rather than
of the truth of an economic tenet. The situation was aggravated by the
lack of temperance among some of the parties, so that it finally
resulted in Dr. McGlynn's excommunication, a grievance to his many
friends both in and out of the Catholic Church. Among these a fellow
priest, Monsignor Bertsell of Rondout, New York, was, throughout the
controversy, counsel for Dr. McGlynn, interesting himself in the
exoneration of his friend. The interest of the Vatican in this country
were at that time in the hands of Monsignor Satolli, resident
ablegate, one of whose important charges was to bring to a
satisfactory conclusion what was then known as the McGlynn
controversy.
Monsignor Satolli in a formal visit to the United States in 1889, and
as the guests of archbishop Corrigan, had ample opportunity for
investigation of the land question from the viewpoint of the United
States and of Rome. Hence he had four years of time in which he might
have made up preliminary examination. He was credited with having been
one of those consulted when the Popes encyclical Rerum Novarum,
of May 14th 1891, was in preparation, that was thereby the better able
to judge what was in accord or in conflict with it.
Dr. McGlynn at the request of the Apostolic Delegate, submitted to
him, through his counsel, a statement in Italian, expressing his views
on the subjects of private property in land and the taxation of
economic rent. On this statement Monsignor Satolli consulted four of
the professors of the Catholic University. The decision of Monsignor
Satolli that there was nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine in the
opinions of Dr. McGlynn as exhibited in that statement was official,
and was followed by the return of Dr. McGlynn to active duty at
Newburgh, New York, where he died, January 7th 1900.
In the teachings of the Catholic Church, notably in the encyclical
all of Pope Leo 13 on the Condition of Labor, 1892, the Pope
carefully reiterated the law of the church in this comprehensive
sentence:
The right to possess property is from nature, not from
man; and the state has only the right to regulate its use in the
interest of the public good, but by no means to abolish the right to
possess it altogether. The state is, therefore, unjust and cruel,
if, in the name of taxation, it deprives the private owner of more
than is just.
The reinstatement of Dr. McGlynn with thus imply that if the single
tax could be shown to be just, it would not be a contravention of the
ethical teachings of the Catholic Church.
It is somewhat curious to note that whether or not it was his
ecclesiastical fire that burned the error out of his mind, in Dr.
McGlynn statement of economic belief upon which he was restored to his
priestly functions there is not a hint of the abolition of the
institution of private property or estate in land, or of the equal
right of all men to the ownership of land. The one thing prominent was
the simple tenet of the right of all men to the rent of land. Dr.
McGlynn just about to his ecclesiastical superiors the error which
they combated -- the abolition of private property in land -- and they
yielded to him his economic conviction, refined by his own masterly
hand, of the right of all men to the rental value of land.
If the foregoing is true, then the McGlynn adjustment, instead of
being a surrender on the part of the church, was a distinct step in
economic advance, and all the harsh misrepresentations and disputes
over this unfortunate incident are seen to have been worse than a
waste of words -- a sorry detriment to a sacred cause.
The episode of Henry George's open letter to Pope Leo the 13th, which
presumed upon the Pope's hostility to the single tax doctrine, proved
the most disturbing element in the progress of that cause, and has so
continued for the quarter of a century that has intervened. Fresh
reference to this incident is justified by the fact that this mistake
of Henry George's, which he frankly confessed and did his best to
correct, was the same mistake which many of his devoted followers have
thoughtlessly sanctioned, and still persist in prolonging and
aggravating without, like him, confessing their citizens. The blemish
of an ex-parte judgment upon a great reputation is as nothing compared
with a vindication of a great cause. The present occasion, late so it
be, is the proper time to establish, in harmony with succeeding
events, the main facts of the case. The following excerpts from
letters from Dr. McGlynn's ecclesiastical counsel, Monsignor Bertsell
February 15 to March 6, 1909, are self-explanatory, and corroborate
the truth of the situation:
DEAR MR. FILLEBROWN:
.....I told Henry George that he had made a mistake in writing his
letter to Pope Leo 13th, as if he opposed his theory he should have
used the many parts of that Encyclical of Leo 13th that laid the
foundation for the single tax theory without antagonizing any part
of it. Once Henry George openly said that he found opposition to his
theory in the Encyclical, Catholics, especially bishops, would
presume against Henry George, even where the questions were not
within the domain of the faith, and would be to openly adopt the
theory even if it appeared plausible. I told him that his letter
would always injure his influence among Catholics. He frankly
acknowledged that he had committed a tactical mistake at least -- as
he said that even in questions of political economy the presumption
would be that the Pope with all his counselors would be wiser than
he, and as he himself had declared that he had found the postulates
for his theory in that encyclical, he should have utilized them for
the upbuilding of his theory, instead of appearing to find obstacles
to it.....
Dr. McGlynn from the beginning interpreted Leo 13th"s
Encyclical on labor as in full conformity with the principles of the
single tax.....
Archbishop Corrigan from the Cathedral pulpit personally explained
that the Encyclical Rerum Novarum had in clear view condemned Henry
George's and Dr. McGlynn's land theory, as part of socialism. This
was really the occasion of Henry George's reply to Pope Leo 13. I
published in the New York Sun in January, 1893, the English
translation of my Latin presentation of the theory to Monsignor
Satolli, which was the first presentation accepted by him and the
professors of the Catholic University. Then I suggested to Henry
George to write to the New York Sun on what he thought of my
presentation, and to recall his opposition to Leo 13th's Encyclical.
His letter was published in the Sun in January, 1893, wherein Mr.
George expressed his approval of the presentation, and stated that
he had been misled into his reply to Leo 13th by Archbishop
Corrigan's interpretation, and that he now regretted his criticism
because he found really the postulates necessary for his theory in
the encyclical, with which Monsignor Satolli had found my
presentation (as he had Dr. McGlynn's) to be in accord....
I have just read in The Life of Henry George, by his son
pp. 562- 566, a fair account of what I stated above, with quotation
of one letter [New York Sun.]
Very sincerely yours,
(Sd.) R. L BURTSELL
In a later letter Monsignor Bertsell suggested the following, which
appears as a footnote in The ABC of Taxation, page 104:
Henry George, in his Open Letter to the Pope, apparently
did not advert to these words, more than is just, and hence his
reasoning is open to the charge of lacking that complete justice
which was his highest aim.
Dr. McGlynn was Henry George's great and powerful coadjutor in
bringing to men's minds the broad general truths involved in the
nature of economic rent and its taxation. Neither of them concerned
himself with specific ways and means. Neither thought of interpreting
the statement that all ground rent ought to be taken for public use to
mean that the whole of it ought to be taken and at once, but both,
recognizing that are right thing may be done in a wrong way, insisted
that a right way ought to be found to do a thing that ought to be
done.
The following English version of the document presented to Monsignor
Satolli by Dr. McGlynn in December, 1892 -- and by his direction
examined by a committee of the professors of the Catholic University,
at Washington, D. C., and declared to contain nothing contrary to
Catholic teaching -- will stand as a monument to the catholicity of
the Catholic church.
All men are endowed by the law of nature with a right to
life and to the pursuit of happiness, and therefore with a right to
exert their energies upon those natural bounties without which labor
or life is impossible.
God has granted those natural bounties, that is to say, the earth,
to mankind in general, so that no part of it has been assigned to
anyone in particular, and so that the limits of private possession
have been left to be fixed by man's own industry and the laws of
individual peoples.
But it is the necessary part of the liberty and dignity of man that
man should own himself, always, of course, with perfect subjection
to the moral law. Therefore, besides the common right to natural
bounties, there must be by the law of nature private property and
dominion in the fruits of industry or in what is produced by labor
out of those natural bounties to which the individual may have
legitimate access, that is, so far as he does not infringe the equal
right of others or the common rights.
It is a chief function of civil government to maintain the equally
sacred these two natural rights.
It is lawful, and it is for the best interest of the individual and
of the community, and necessary for civilization, that there should
be a division as to the use and an undisturbed, permanent, exclusive
private possession of portions of the natural bounties, or of the
land; in fact, such exclusive possession is necessary to the
ownership, use, and enjoyment by the individual of the fruits and
products of his industry.
But the organized community through civil government must always
maintain the dominion over those natural bounties, as distinct from
the products of private industry and from that private possession of
the land which is necessary for their enjoyment. The maintenance of
this dominion over the natural bounties is the primary function and
duty of the organized community, in order to maintain the equal
right of all men to labor for their living and for the pursuit of
happiness, and therefore with their equal right of access directly
or indirectly to natural bounties. The assertion of this dominion by
civil government is especially necessary, because, with the very
beginning of civil government and with the growth of civilization,
there comes to the natural bounties, or the land, a peculiar and an
increasing value distinct from and irrespective of the products of
private industry existing therein. This value is not produced by the
industry of the private possessor or proprietor, but is produced by
the existence of the community, and grows with the growth and
civilization of the community. It is therefore called unearned
increment. It is this unearned increment that in cities gives to
lands without any improvements so great a value. This value
represents and measures the advantages and opportunities produced by
the community, and men, when not permitted to acquire the absolute
dominion over such lands, will willingly pay the value of this
unearned increment in the form of rents, just as men when not
permitted to own other men, will willingly pay wages for desired
services.
No sooner does the organized community, or state, arise, then it
needs revenues. This need for revenues is small at first while
population is sparse, industry rude, and the functions of the state
few and simple, but with growth of population and advance of
civilization the functions of the state increase and larger and
larger revenues are needed. God is the author of society and has
pre-ordained civilization. The increasing need for public revenues
with social advance being a natural, God-ordained need, there must
be a right way of raising them -- some way that we can truly say is
the way intended by God. It is clear that this right way of raising
public revenues must accord with the moral law or the law of
justice. It must not conflict with individual rights; it must find
its means in common rights and common duties. By a beautiful
providence, that may be truly called divine, since it is founded
upon the nature of things and the nature of man, of which God is the
creator, a fund, constantly increasing with the capacities and needs
of society, is produced by the very growth of society itself,
namely, the rental value of the natural bounties of which society
retains dominion. The justice and the duty of appropriating this
fund to public uses is apparent in that it takes nothing from the
private property of individuals except what they will pay willingly
as an equivalent for a value produced by the community, which they
are permitted to enjoy. The fund thus created is clearly by the law
of justice a public fund, not merely because the value is a growth
that comes to the natural bounties which God gave to the community
in the beginning, but also, and much more, because it is a value
produced by the community itself, so that this rental value belongs
to the community by that best of titles, namely producing, making,
or creating.
To permit any portion of this public property to go into private
pockets, without a perfect equivalent being paid into the public
treasury, would be an injustice to the community. Therefore the
whole rental fund should be appropriated to common or public uses.
This rental tax will make compulsory the adequate utilization of
natural bounties exactly in proportion to the growth of the
community and of civilization, and will thus compel the possessors
to employ labor, the demand for which will enable the laborer to
obtain perfectly just wages. The rental tax fund, growing by a
natural law proportionately with the growth of civilization, will
thus be sufficient for public needs and capacities, and therefore
all taxes upon industry and upon the products of industry may and
should be abolished. While the tax on land values promotes industry,
and therefore increases private wealth, taxes upon industry act like
a fine or a punishment inflicted upon industry -- they impede and
restrained and finally strangle it.
In the desired condition of things land would be left in the
private possession of individuals, with full liberty on their part
to give, sell, or bequeath it, while the state would levy on it for
public uses a tax that should equal the annual value of the land
itself, irrespective of the use made of it or the improvements on
it.
The only utility of private ownership and dominion of land, as
distinguished from possession, is the evil utility of giving to the
owners the power to reap where they have not sown, to take the
products of the labor of others without giving them an equivalent --
the power to impoverish and practically reduce to a species of
slavery the masses of men, who are compelled to pay to private
owners the greater part of what they produce for permission to live
and to labor in this world, when they would work upon the natural
bounties for their own account, and the power, when men to work for
wages, to compel them to compete against one another for the
opportunity to labor, and to compel them to consent to labor for the
lowest possible wages -- wages that are by no means the equivalent
of the new value created by the work of the laborer, but are barely
sufficient to maintain the laborer in a miserable existence, and
even the power to deny to the laborer the opportunity to labor at
all. This is an injustice against the equal right of all men to life
and to the pursuit of happiness, a right based upon the brotherhood
of man which is derived from the fatherhood of God. This is the
injustice that we would abolish in order to abolish involuntary
poverty.
That the appropriation of the rental value of land to public uses
in the form of a tax would abolished the injustice which has just
been described, and thus abolish involuntary poverty, is clear;
since in such case no one would hold lands except for use, and the
masses of men, having free access to unoccupied lands, would be able
to exert their labor directly upon natural bounties and to enjoy the
full fruits and products of their labors, beginning to pay a portion
of the fruits of their industry to the public treasury only when,
with the growth of the community and the extension to them of the
benefits of civilization, there would come to their lands a rental
value distinct from the value of the products of their industry,
which value they would willingly pay as the exact equivalent of the
new advantages coming to them from the community; and again in such
case men would not be compelled to work for employers for wages less
than absolutely just wages, namely, the equivalent of the new value
created by their labor; since been surely would not consent to work
for unjust wages when they could obtain perfectly just wages by
working for themselves, and finally, since, when what belongs to the
community shall have been given to the community, the only valuable
things that men shall own as private property will be those things
that have been produced by private industry, the boundless desires
and capacities of civilized human nature for good things will always
create a demand for these good things, namely, the products of labor
-- a demand always greater than the supply; and therefore for the
labor that produces these good things there will always be a demand
greater than the supply, and the laborer will be able to command
perfectly just wages -- which are a perfect equivalent in the
product of some other person's labor for the new value which is his
own labor produces.
|