BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 151, 27 June 1914, Page 8

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

DEFENCE LEAGUE AND MAYOR DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. _ The alleged refusal of the City Council's Tramways Committee to allow tho National Schools Defence League to advertise to-morrow's demonstration on the ' tram-cars has resulted in a challenge of j the accuracy of the Mayor's statement of the case. A letter (briefly referred to i in yesterday's Post) has been sent by Professor H. Mackenzie, secretary of the League, to the Mayor and councillors. It is as follows: — "If the statements (regarding a socalled 'communication' from his Worship to me concerning the refusal to place our Schools Defence advertisements on the city tramcars) Attributed to the Mayor, in this morning's Dominion and Times. are_ correctly reported, I have no hesitation in characterising them as barefaced mis-statements of fact. I communicated with his Worship (not vice versa) and (on behalf of the League) asked him if he could undertake to preside at either of our meetings at Sunday's do monstration against the proposals of the Bible-in-Schools party. He replied |No' ; and after a pause, "1 think I have engagements for Sunday. I shall let you know later.' (I presume I thanked him.) He added : 'With regard to the advertisement affair, I have been out of town and only just got back. I knew nothing about your application, but if you modify it and send it in, it will', I think, be placed on the cars.' I replied : 'It's nouse ; it's too late.' He replied: 'I'm in no way to blame,' and by way of winding up his so-called 'communication,' ho remarked : 'I'll see about my Sunday engagements and let you know later.' He later in the day rang me up informing me he found that he had engagements for Sunday! "To suggest that (if he really did suggest) he made any reference to the Tramway Committee's haying met, or to 'welcoming' our advertisement, is simply and ! plainly not true. Nor is there a single word of truth- in ■ the statement that " I thanked him, on behalf of the League, for any services rendered, or to be rendered, in connection with the city tram advertisement affair, though I treated him, I ' think, ' with every courtesy throughout the conversation." Mr. Luke stated this morning, in reference to this letter, that :ie c;<i:ic hack to town on Tuesday iii::ht from trie country, and on Wedn^daj .afternoon attended a meeting of the Tramway Committee. The committee dealt with the application of the league for adv'erj tisemonts on the trams, and came ;o a ! decision on the matter, lie promised to communicate with Professor Mackenzie as soon as possible, and .just liter 7 o'clock rang up the university. The I official who answered brought' Pioitssoi 1 I Mackenzie, and the Mayor then told him what was determined by the committee with reference to the adveitisements, saying that the committee was quite willing that the league's advertisements should be put on the trams, but" that the advertisements must be subject to revision and agreement between the Tramway Board ( and the league. Professor Mackenzie replied I that it was too late, and that they would do nothing more in the matter. "I am quite willing," said Mr. Luke, "to leave it to the official who answered the telephone whether O1 1 not I rang up and asked for Professor Mackenzie, for whom 1 had a communication." Mr. Luke said that he thought Professor Mackenzie must have forgotten one of the occasions when he was in telephonifc '" communication' with' him. Professor Mackenzie rang up first ; then the Mayor, about an hour later, rang up to tell him about his < Sunday engagements: but the conversation about the committee's decision occurred some hours later. Mr. Luke added that last night lie telegraphed to Professor Mackenzie, stating that he had rearranged his engagements, and could take -the chair at the Sunday evening meeting ; but he received a reply thanking him, and stating that other arrangements had been made. Professor T. Hunter has v written tlw following letter to The Post :—: — "Sir, — In your columns the Mayor is reported to have said at the last meeting of the City Council, that the advertisement of the National Schools Defence League would have been placed on the cars if the wording of the advertisement had been altered. What authority the Mayor had for making such a statement Ido not know. When the advertising agents reported that the advertisement had been refused, I enquired from the City Electrical Engineer (Mr. Richardson) and from the secretary of the Tramwa.y Board, and both informed me that the board had refused the advertisement not on account of the wording, but on account of the controversial character of the subject advertised. Will the Mayor publicly state the authority for ln' s statement?" In reply to this letter, which was submitted to the Mayor this morning, Mr. Luke said the Tramway Board did not decide the policy of the council. It was purely an administrative body, and its refusal of the advertisement was reported to him as soon as he reached Wellington. On Wednesday the matter was submitted to the - Tramway Committee, which passed a resolution that a communication |be sent to the league stating that the council was prepared to receive the advertisement — but the advertisement would need to be subject to agreement between both parties. It was the decision of the committee, not of the Tramway Board, which he communicated to Professor Mackenzie. The committee had no objection to the advertisement, only to some phrases in it.