APPENDIX D
183
questi bent, una dornanda maggiore del 1’offerta e cost il lavorante
potra pretendere effettivamente alia mercede veramente
giusta, la quale sara un precise equivalente reso dal prodotto
del 1’altrui lavoro, in contraccambio del nuovo valore che
egli produce col lavoro proprio.
There has recently appeared from the pen of a Catholic layman
a book* in which the author tries to extenuate the importance
of Monsignor Satolli’s decision by intimating that it
represents only the simple individual opinion of the four professors.
Loyalty to truth dictates that this criticism should be
here offset by some pertinent facts in the case.
Monsignor Satolli in a former visit to the United States in 1889
and as the guest 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 a preliminary examination.
Monsignor Satolli was credited with having been one of
those consulted when the Pope’s Encyclical, Return Novarum,
of May 15, 1891, was in preparation, and was thereby
the better able to judge what was in accord or in conflict
with it.
Among the important duties of his mission was to bring to a
satisfactory conclusion what was then known as the McGlynn
Controversy. Dr. McGlynn, at the request of the Apostolic
Delegate, submitted to him through his counsel, Dr. Burtsell,
a statement in Italian of his views on the subject of private
property in land. On this statement Monsignor Satolli consulted
four of the professors of the Catholic University. The decision
of Moncignor Satolli that there was nothing contrary to
Catholic doctrine in the opinions of Dr. McGlynn as exhibited
“* Fundamental Fallacy of Socialism,” Arthur Preuss, published by
B. Herder, St. Louis, Mo., 1908.
