PRECEPT AND PRACTICE.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9020, 5 February 1895, Page 4

PRECEPT AND PRACTICE.

The Beverend Leonard Isitt, in r & letter which we print in* another column, takes upon himself to reprove us for a cartoon recently issued from the office of the Pkess Company. Apparently"«'he K has been burning to have a fling at us for some time, and not being able to find fault with anything that has appeared in this journal' he falls foul of something issued by another paper which happens to be published at the same office as the Pbess, but which, as Mr. Isitt knows, is under entirely separate editorial control. This, jhowever, is merely by the way;" we have no objection to meeting the reverend gentle- \ 1 man even - upon the ground he has chosen. We will hot say that his attitude in finding fault with the Truth cartoon reminds one of Satan re-1 proving sin because that might sound ] rude, and we have no desire to be rude even to Mr. Ism.- We will say, however, that his letter is a conspicuous illustration of the besetting weakness of most prohibitionists. They are so much occupied over the supposed peccadilloes of other people that they have neither time nor inclination to see and correct their own offences. We are sorry Mr. Isrrr is not able to see the difference between the Truth cartoon and the grossly offensive matter in tfie Prohibitionist to which we deemed it our duty some weeks ago to draw pointed attention. The Truth picture was a satirical sketch suggested by a recent, public scandal, which had been commented on and condemntxi by newspapers of all shades of opinion. It was not, and did not pretend to be a caricature or a likeness of any particular individual, and was certainly not an attack, on any man in his private life: The Prohibitionist lampoon was an altogether unprovoked outrage upon . a

'■ Christchurch merchant, who has spent a long and honourable career among us, without even so much as a whisper , against his name. Not only his features, but his private house, and even his church were dragged into the pages of this scurrilous print. The whole thing was a deliberate attempt, in accordance with the bludgeoning I policy which the prohibitionists have lately adopted, to gibbet the gentleman in question for not subscribing to their fanatical doctrines in their most fanatical extremes. It is this same policy which fills the Prohibitionist week after week with coarse personalities for which the conductors have had to apologise to save themselves from legal consequences. It is this policy which causes the prohibitionist school to employ hireling orators in the Square to utter abuse which even the Prohibitionist would not dare to print. €t is this policy which has lately filled the public with contempt for the prohibitionists, and the pharisaism of which Mr. Ism's letter is a sample, and it has brought about a reaction in which even the cause of true temperance may suffer from the violence and imprudence of these misguided leaders. We would earnestly urge the Bey. Leonard Isitt to first pluck out the beam that is in own eye before he concerns himself with the mote that is in his brother's eye. When we happen to need instruction in ■journalistic propriety or decorum, we shall look to some editor of standing who has shown bis ability to concluct his own paper with decency and honour.