METHODS OF CONTROVERSY

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 28, 1 February 1917, Page 2

METHODS OF CONTROVERSY

■\lO THE EDIIOH.

Sir, —I take seriatim the statements in the farewell letter of Mr Parkinson, who seems to be inextricably involved. (1.) He says he has not mentioned the Catholic Federation I have now before me-the presidential address of Mr Eudey and the report of the meeting of the New Zealand Educational' Institute, at which-«a unanimous vote of congratulation was passed to the Minister for Education "on his firm stand in refusing' the request (erroneously supposed to have been made) for subsidising denominational schools " Was the institute referring to a request made by the Emperor of China or the King of Siam? I am convinced that Mr. Parkinson knows and knew that the institute was denouncing the Catholic Federation. If ho did not know this, he, as secretary, was culpably ignorant of a matter which, he should have known. Was it not in. the name of the institute he wrote in. reply to me, who had drawn public attention to the matter ? , (2.) He asks why I attribute anonymity to his letters ? I reply that I have nevex- done so. I am afraid tha.fc he is hopeless as a reader or interpreter of the written word. (3.) He writes: "I did not argue the -.failure of Christian teaching jn general, I named only Prussia, etc." | The .very opposite of .this is true.. He argued that "a people may be very religiously taught without being morally edxicated." (Ij) He argues that I am inconsistent because I have welcomed him as a supporter. But is not his simplicity quite refreshing? It was when he was hopelessly entangled ho wrote words which were in themselves in support of my platform, but were meant to support his own contention, which was diametrically opposed to mine. I took occasion from this to follow the example of the institute in its letter through him to me, and extend to him a hearty, though sarcastic, welcome.—l am, etc., ' P J POWER, Hawera, 25th Jan.