We may conclude, then, that if the direct employers fail to fulfill their duties towards their employees, that the Consuming Class, as being a beneficiary of the work done, are bound to assume these duties. As yet, however, the obligation is abstract as being fixed upon a class and not some particular individual about to purchase an article; and it is hypothetical as simply assuming that employers neglect their duties. The further question now presents itself: Do employers actually neglect their duties, and what can and should the Consumer do? FOOTNOTES: [2] Great Encyclicals of Leo XIII, "On the Condition of Labor," p. 236: N. Y., 1903. [3] "Pope Pius X on Social Reform," London, 1910: p. 8. [4] Kelleher, "Private Ownership," Dublin, 1911: p. 174; cf. also p. 179. Italics added. [5] "Christ, the Church, and Man," p. 74: St Louis, 1909. [6] Gury: "Compendium theologiæ moralis," n. 579: De just. et jure: Ratisbon, 1874. [7] See Appendix, 1. [8] See Appendix, 2. [9] Cf. John A. Ryan, "The Church and Interest-Taking," p. 31: St. Louis, 1910. [10] Cf. Bull. U. S. Bur. Lab., Jan. 1, 1911, pp. 876, 878, 881. [11] Cf. St. Thomas, Summa, 2a 2ae, Q. 77, A. 1-2; St. Alphonsus, Lib. IV, Tr. V, n. 793. [12] W. Cunningham, "Christianity and Social Questions," p. 114: London, 1910. [13] See Appendix, 3. [14] Cf. Liguori, l. c. [15] See Appendix, 4. [16] Cf. De Lugo, XIX, II, 4-5. [17] Cf. De Lugo, L. c., XVII, II, n. 37. [18] L. c., n. 16, n. 19. [19] Liguori, Lib. IV, Tr. IV, n. 427. [20] Ballerini, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 696-7. [21] See Appendix, 5. [22] See Appendix, 6. [23] See Appendix, 7. [24] Aquinas, l. c., Q.64, A.2. [25] L. c., Pt. I, Tr. VI, Sec. V, n. 49. [26] Liguori, l. c., Lib. IV, Tr. IV, n. 393; Ballerini, l. c, n. 62. [27] Liguori, l. c., n. 402. [28] Ballerini, l. c., n. 126. [29] Liguori, l. c., n. 374. [30] Aquinas, l. c., Q.66, A.2; Noldin, l. c., De Sept. Praec., n. 368, ed. 8a. [31] See Appendix, 8. [32] "Past and Present," Bk. III, Ch. X. CHAPTER THREE WHAT IS A JUST EMPLOYER? The terms "fair wages," "reasonable comfort," "living wage" have often been used in the previous discussion. No attempt was made to make them more definite because it was not necessary at the time. Employers were simply assumed to violate the standard represented by these expressions. But if we are going to decide _de facto_ that employers are actually neglecting their duties, we must manifestly have some norm by which to judge them. What is this standard?