MR. A. R. ATKINSON REPLIES TO HIS CRITICS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 52, 29 August 1913, Page 8

MR. A. R. ATKINSON REPLIES TO HIS CRITICS

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— After a brilliant campaign in the South, during .which he has been convicted of more flagrant and more serious inaccuracies in the course of a single address than had previously to yesterday bee>n laid to my charge in twenty years of .controversy (see Mr. John Caughlev's letter in the LytteltOn Times of the 26th), Canon Garland has returned to revive tae flagging energies of the Wellington campaign. The presence of his master mind was sorely needed. The squad which he had organised— dare I call it an awkward squad?— got through its volley-firing with fair ' success under his supervision on Sunday, the 17th. But, though, like the famous General who " fled full soon on the Ist of June," the Canon may be presumed to have " bade the rest keep fighting," his troops preferred his example to his precept. The withering fire which with my unaided pop-gun I have been able to turn on to tneir position from my commanding station on the heights — "the mountain tops where is the throne of Truth" — has sufficed to confine them to their lines. But with the return of their General the demoralised and shattered army took the field again yesterday and fired another volley. The noise was terrific. Canons to right of me, Archdeacons to left of me, D.D.*s and smaller fry "Volleyed and thundered. Nevertheless I can assure you that not a man in my irreducible minority of one was dismayed, and I am satisfied that when the smoke hap cleared away the strictest medical examination will show that not one has been hurt. I am certainly not going to labour too heavily with the subtleties of the textual criticism to which my opponents have subjected my much-perverted statement. They point with triumph to the fact that I admit no less than three of the disputed words; three out of a sentence containing twenty-three is indeed a tremendous admission! If my censors will supply any sentence of the same length I oeheve that my ingenuity would be equal to the task of making quite a considerable alteration in its meaning if I were .allowed to change twenty of the words and to vary the order of the other three— which is exactly what has been done with mine. Another feat of critical sagacity is the discovery that " religious oigotry " fits the context, but "religious dogma" does not. Thus speaks this well-drilled team with General Garland in charge; but when Private Gibb was thinking and speaking for himself on that memorable Sunday ho confessed to finding the perverted context obscure, as well he might. He said then, "We are accused of ' political cant.' It is, indeed, hard to tell what our censor means by this." It was, indeed, hard to divine from the botched report which is now held up as a model of accuracy, for the line of thought had been broken.. It -was -the

reference to the cant phrase " Trust the people " that supplies the nexus, as I have previously explained. But now under the master's guidance it all comes upon him like a flash, and he sees with the rest that " bigotry " was the very word needed. It is not surprising that with feebler literary acumen I should have blundered on the inferior word. But it would be a marvel indeed if my use of the inferior word were confirmed by the official stenographer of the Government, and yet we were both mistaken ! The fact that " religious dogma " is the phrase in the official record is conveniently ignored by my accusers. But it is time that I came to the real pith of the rejoinder. I have already disavowed not merely the use of the offensive language imputed to me, but the holding of any such opinions, and declared that my only feeling for tho bulk of the Bible-in-Schools' League's supporters is one of genuine respect. But all this is swept aside by the triumphant demonstration of my critics that I am r a liar. lam stating the matter with brutal plainness, but with perfect accuracy. The conflict between myself and the Government stenographer on the one side and the Dominion reporter on the other is, of course, capable of being resolved against me without branding me with deliberate falsehood, but no charitable middle course consistent with my veracity is left open by the thoroughness of my accusers. The inference that is solemnly drawn from my delay in contradicting the incorrect report is nothing short of a charge of deliberate lying. First, there was my eight days' delay in making the correction — a charge which comes with special force from gentlemen who have themselves taken ten days to deal with my letter. Then there was my general commendation of the Dominion's report in connection with Mr. Aitken's challenge of my reference to the Nelson system. Thirdly, for jusb to show how brazen I am I will add to the damning indictment another point which has eluded the vigilance of Canon Garland—there was the fact that the gist of _ the offensive matter is actually contained ia one of the cross-headings of the Dominion's report. The conclusion drawn from the first two points, and corroborated by the third, which I have added myself, is that I had seen the re* port before the storm broke, saw nothing Wrong in it except the point raised by Mr. Aitken, and " thereby endorsed the accuracy and the offensivenesh " of the words in dispute. In face of the fact that I had previously declared in answer to Bishop Sprott's just and not uncharitable censure (Post, 19th inst.) that I had not seen the offehsive words Until my attention was called to them a week later by the thunders from the pupits, what is this but a deliberate— a ten days' deliberated — charge against me of deliberate lying? Now, Mr. Editor, I should be a hypocrite — which ia a good deal worse than an ordinary liar— if I professed any indignation at this amazing charge. Some thing* are too mean, too silly, and too ridiculous to deserve the indignation of an honest man, and this is one of them. For more than twenty years I have laboured in this city, and most of my energies have been devoted to public causes which I knew to form nothing but a hindrance to my personal advancement. I have been in the thick of most of the public fights tßat were going ; I have hit hard— often no doubt too hard— but never below the belt; and I have generally been on the losing side. But among the compensations has been a reputation for straight-going, for fair dealing, and for telling the truth which opponents have often been as free to acknowledge as friends. I certainly cannot profess the slightest apprehension that a reputa- j tion established under such arduous conditions and over so long a period of time is going to be snuffed out or even imperilled because, under the refining influence of the controversy which is to bring the country peace at the last, four Christian ministers have put their nantt& to the charitable indictment that you published yesterday. That a stranger from Australia should have cared and dared to launch this charge against me does not surprise me. Very little that Canott Garland could do would surprise me. But I am surprised that three of my fellow-citizens should, have had the courage to ba«k him up in his latest addition to the amenities of public controversy in this country. When Bishop Sprott heard of my denial of the original charge he did not pause to cavil or to cross-examine ; but with th© charity and the generosity that we have learned to fexpect of , him he accepted the contradiction without reserve Bishop Sprott acted like a gentleman, but Archdeacon Harper and his colleagues have preferred to follow the lead of Canon Garland. They have added to the original charge against me, the infinitely graver one of deliberately lying in order to escape it. For my trial I put myself, in the phrase of the old law, upon God and country. Let the prosecutors select the jury. A dozen officebearers of St. John's or St. Peter's, a dozen publicans, a dozen' political opponents, or even a special jury of four from the directors of Staples and Co. —tho tribunal may be as my accuse* please, and each can have a K.C. to help him. Let the issues be whether I have lied in this matter and whether they have played the part of Christians ana gentlemen in the accusation they have brought. Let my evidence and argument be limited to my unsupported word of honour, and on the other eide let parsons and X.C.'s do their worst, with, of course, full tight to cross-examine. I am quite content to abide by the result. "The use of character," as Burke says, "is to be a shield against calumny," and if my character is not sufficient to stand this strain, let it go down. — I am, etc.. A. R. ATKINSON. 29th August, 1913.