It is not an infrequent occurrence for persons given to the habit of petty thefts and fraud, to seek to justify their irregular conduct by a pretense of justice which they call secret compensation.  They stand arraigned before the bar of their conscience on the charge of niching small sums, usually from their employers; they have no will to desist; they therefore plead not guilty, and have nothing so much at heart as to convince themselves that they act within their rights.  They elaborate a theory of justice after their ideas, or rather, according to their own desires; they bolster it up with facts that limp all the way from half-truths to downright falsities; and thus acquit themselves of sin, and go their way in peace.  A judge is always lenient when he tries his own case.

Secret compensation is the taking surreptitiously from another of the equivalent of what is due to one, of what has been taken and is kept against all justice, in order to indemnify oneself for losses sustained.  This sort of a thing, in theory at least, has a perfectly plausible look, nor, in fact, is it contrary to justice, when all the necessary conditions are fulfilled to the letter.  But the cases in which these conditions are fulfilled are so few and rare that they may hardly be said to exist at all.  It is extremely difficult to find such A case, and nearly always when this practice is resorted to, the order of justice is violated.

And if common sense in the case of any given individual fail to show him this truth, we here quote for his benefit an authority capable of putting all his doubts at rest.  The following proposition was advanced:  “Domestic servants who adjudge themselves underpaid for services rendered, may appropriate to themselves by stealth a compensation.”  This proposition has received the full weight of papal condemnation.  It cannot be denied that it applies to all who engage their services for hire.  To maintain the contrary is to revolt against the highest authority in the Church; to practise it is purely and simply to Sin.

A case is often made out on the grounds that wages are small, work very hard and the laborer therefore insufficiently remunerated.  But to conclude therefrom the right to help oneself to the employer’s goods, is a strange manner of reasoning, while it opens the door to all manner of injustice.  Where is there a man, whatever his labor and pay, who could not come to the same conclusion?  Who may not consider himself ill-paid?  And who is there that really thinks he is not worth more than he gets?  There is no limit to the value one may put on one’s own services; and he who is justified to-day in taking a quarter of a dollar, would be equally justified to-morrow in appropriating the whole concern.  And then what becomes of honesty, and the right of property?  And what security can anyone have against the private judgment of his neighbor?

And what about the contract according to the terms of which you are to give your services and to receive in return a stipulated amount?  Was there any clause therein by which you are entitled to change the terms of said contract without consulting the other party interested?  You don’t think he would mind it.  You don’t think anything of the kind; you know he will and does mind it.  He may be generous, but he is not a fool.