TOPICS OF THE DAY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 81, 3 October 1910, Page 6

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

•Wellington was prettily attacked at two points by Vice-royalty Eloquent on Saturday. The Gov.V ice-royalty, ernor was busy withnational defence at Miramax, and Lady Islington was concerned Jtih national art afc the Academy. Between the two of them they covered the utilitarian and the aesthetic, and their worda soared high above the commonpiJ/ee. Lady Islington is not of the ncrorder of speakers who stammer out a colourless hacangne. She did not run to dusty abstract nouns. She nourished fragrant posies, for which the assembly was grateful. Incidentally, she spiritedly assailed ultra-impressionism, and left I •the elect something to meditate. In the meantime the Governor was working for defence. He was stressing the value of I rifle-shooting, and was giving an assurance that during his term of office he would do his best to encoarage New Zealand's men to become expert marksmen. It was distinctly an "on day" for Vice-royalty. Before the Governor arrived the heralds proclaimed that he and his wife would whole-heartedly interest themselves in the people's work and ideals. The events are surpassing the forecasts. The. perennial question where Caesar's jurisdiction begins and "Spiritual ends has been causing Independence." trouble in Queensland for the past three years on account 'of litigation raised more than three years ago and persistently maintained ever since by the Rev. W. S. Frackelton, the minister of the Ann-street Presbyterian Church, Brisbane. The broad outlines of the case were set forth in The Post of Saturday in a footnote to the cable message reporting the protest of the Presbyterian General Assembly Committee. In cases like this, each- case has to be judged on its individual merits. There is little if any question as to the underlying principles, but where the limits of more or less overlapping jurisdictions are involved, there is room for wid« diversity at> to their application. The fallibility of the judgments of courts, civil and ecclesiastical, from the lowest to the highest, is continually exemplified by their conflict with each other ; or there would bo no occasion for courts of revision and appeal ; nor would, as sometimes happens, the final court inflict, widespread hardship and injustice by its provision. Happily, Australasia, having no establishment, is relieved of the complications which caused so much disaster in the still unforgotten "disruption" days in Scotland ; but a much later case, into which this element did not enter, was even more striking. "For the decision of the House of Lords, even if sound in law, was opposed to that of the inferior courts, and was disastrous in some of its consequences. That the State must be supreme in the interpretation of legal contracts seems to be self evident — that no private body, religious or otherwise, should be permitted the privilege of "contracting oat" of ordinary civil obligations. But the State should be very guarded as to the manner in which jt interferes with the freedom of churches and congregations in their domestic relations. The bond between parson and people is not a matrimonial tie, "for better, for worse," and in a caße of "incompatibility," like that of the Annstreet Church, the compulsory enforcement of the bond — whatever the .rights and wrongs of the case may be^ — must necessarily embitter the situation. In our note on the Frackelton case, we have touched only on A Strange Case, the question as between Church and State tribunals, and it is probable that in this respect a parallel case in New Zealand woold be discussed and decided on the same general principles. But there has been a somewhat startling sequel, which, as far as we know, is unprecedented, and whkh seems to indicate some strange defects either in the Queensland statutes or legal procedure. Mr. Alexander Muir, a master printer and publisher in Brisbane, has appealed to the Church for aid in the ruinous legal costs in which he finds himself involved. through. th<e simple action of signing the "call" to Mr. JTraj\kielk>a in, August, 1896. Tfa.e facts

are set forth ajpi substantiated in. a ] number of printed documents which w© have received, in the course of the proceedings, thejerorend gentleman, who seemed to ha.ye been very soon m "hot water" with his congregation, issued successively (as we have" already noted) writs against certain members of the Presbytery and against the Presbytery as a body and General Assembly. As ;fche resatt of these, his suspension, was declared void, and judgment given in his favour with costs, a mandamus against the Presbytery and Assembly being issued. Bat Mr. Frackelton, having drawn up a large account for 1 "maintenance and stipend," issued a writ, not against the eburch courte, but against private members of the congie■gation, -who he alleged to be responsible! on the.ground that they had signed the "call." Between eighty and ninety names were attached to the document, but the minister seems to have treated the signatory members as having assum-ed-the responsibilities of shareholders in an unlimited liability company, "Wewere astounded," Mr. Muir writes. The legal advisers of the Church said that the claim was preposterous, and had no chance of success. The- Church, admitted a (doubtful) limbiliby of £40, which was offered and refnsed; bat theplaintiff subsequently accepted £»TOO offered in full satisfaction. He bad never brought the case (which had been prepared for trial) before the court; but the decision was given, TOtix>ut any defence being heard, for the £100— and. costs, the accumulation of two years' vexatious legislation. By this time, onJ,y two of the defendants were accessible, and they refused to paj* — until a bailiff was put in and seized their goods. Their engagement under the "call" was the ordinary promise to contribute to the minister's mainte- • nance "as God should prosper them."-