What happened to this heroic statesman who, at a time when Catholics were weak in number and influence and the victims of a deep and unreasoning hatred, came to their defence and associated himself publicly with a great bishop to right their wrongs? He paid the penalty of his loyalty to principle and justice; for when the newly organized Republican party met in convention in the city of Chicago in the year 1860, William H. Seward was the leading candidate for the highest honor in the gift of his party and was supported by the majority of the delegates. Nevertheless a Seward convention was compelled " to halt in its purpose and set him aside with all his preeminent qualifications and with all the enthusiastic devotion of his party to him." The cause of his defeat was his " attitude on the school question." It was his "record on that single question, when Governor of New York, that made him an impossible candidate for President in 1860." 1 Such was the fate of this great man who deserves an honored place in every history of the Catholic Church in America and of Catholic education for the courageous and splendid sacrifice which he made because of his belief in the justice of the Catholic claim in education.

A word in conclusion. Catholic education forms a logical and consistent system. Catholic truth is not less imperative in the education of our young boys and girls and of our young men and young women of the higher schools than in the training of the children of the elementary schools. Our supreme effort should be to develop our educational system from the kindergarten to the university, so that no child of the faith will at any time find it necessary to seek elsewhere than in a Catholic school the education he desires. That this glorious achievement is possible is one of the most encouraging and

1 McClure, Lincoln and Men of War Times, pp. 28, 29.

consoling signs of our system, for the forces that are inherent in Catholic education - the unselfish consecration of Catholic teachers to their high calling, the painstaking efforts, and the momentary and other sacrifices which the religious communities are making to prepare well-equipped and thoroughly trained teachers for our parish schools, the rapidly increasing confidence in, loyalty, and devotion of Catholic parents towards Catholic education - will place our schools in the first rank of educational institutions.

IS SOCIALISM A HOME DESTROYER?

ADDRESS BY THE REV. EDWARD A. FLANNERY

It was in Brussels three years ago, on the eve of the general elections. We had noticed the walls of that Belgian capital placarded with posters, advertising the tickets that sought electoral support. The signs of the socialistic party were foul in their denunciation of everything connected with the established religion of the country. The assaults, vile in epithet and scurrilous in illustration, were not directed against the so-called clerical party alone, but were turned fiercely against whatever Christianity represents. The night before the election we were seated in front of our hotel when from down the street we heard the echo of marching crowds and the fanfare of trumpets, as if a mighty army were in motion. Our interest was naturally aroused and we hastened to catch a glimpse of the passing throng. Never can I forget what broke upon our vision. Turning the corner of the main thoroughfare, which was lit to daylight brightness by myriads of electric lamps, a mob of men, women, and children hurtled past. It was not a political parade as we know the word, but it was a maddened army of fanatics, carried along on the wings of a frenzy that would strike terror into the soul of a casual onlooker. For a similar scene one would have to return to the days of the French Commune, for as they hurried along a song, like the wail of lost spirits, went up from the throats that never seemed to tire of shouting derision against all that we hold sacred. It was not a clamor for political support; it was a shriek for religious overthrow. As they passed along, the faces of the marchers

were lifted up, lit with an unholy glow of passionate hatred for what they denounced. The song they chanted was their international hymn, whose weird notes resound in my ears even yet. Like some primitive war incantation of our Indian tribes the music maddened those who sang and terrified those who listened. Here was no idle campaign cohort that on the morrow of election would forget the foe of yesterday and join with the victor in securing wise legislation and stable government. It was a mob driven wild with an emotion deep and deeper than any feeling outside the sentiment stirred in the soul by religious touch. Socialism, there, was destruction rampant, threatening all that we have come to associate with the name of religion.

The spectacle was out of the common, it may be said, and the hatred shown there was due to causes outside the movement and was stirred by inflamed local conditions. It is not fair to condemn a general issue because in restricted territory repulsive features have been attached. Socialism must be separated from some narrow, national manifestations and some personal defects with which its opponents seek to identify the movement. As a world activity it must be judged on universal lines. It must not be cast aside because freebooters follow in the wake of its accredited army, no more than our struggle to free the slaves should have been decried because marauding bands swept the country over which our troops were marching. Because the Belgian associates may have been carried to extremes by certain abuses under which they groaned is no reason why socialism, as an economic theory, should not be given a fair hearing.

In order to do justice to what they wish treated fairly it would be a first requirement that we should know clearly what the word they use really means. Socialism is on every lip, but

66

to every second ear it has a different sound. To some the whole socialistic agitation is the creation in our country of a new political alignment, of a new political party, like the older ones of which the voters have grown tired. If this were true it would be a piece of impertinence for one of my calling to discuss the question. The political phase is only one side, and to the full-blown socialist the most negligible feature. Others believe that socialism is simple communistic ownership, no matter how the combination of interests is brought about. The Shakers and the Catholic religious Orders have this kind of common possession, but the comrades would hardly call them brothers. To another view it is coöperative partnership in industry. Several pool their interests and share the profits. Such combinations were known before the word socialism was ever pronounced, and any number of farmers could enter into such an agreement without proceeding a step towards where the red flag is flying. Neither does mere government control constitute a socialistic regime. Mexico owns the railroads, Italy the telephone and telegraphic means of communication, Russia has large areas of state-claimed land, many most autocratic nations hold mines and power sources. Still there is not the slightest relation with socialism. We may go so far as to concede that our country, as now established, might adopt governmental control to such extent that all mines, railroads, forests, streams, public utilities, and farms would be under public title, and yet that actual possession would not be the setting up of a socialistic state, provided the mode of acquisition and the character of government differed from the plans which the socialists father.

What, then, is socialism, and how do the faithful themselves define the word? Morris Hilquitt, the best known and most plausible exponent of the system in America, tells us that