GIRL’S RELIGION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 21 October 1924, Page 6

GIRL’S RELIGION.

BISHOP’S REPLY. TO ALLEGED INTERFERENCE. ECHO OF THE MARTIN CASE. (by tblegbabh—ritjsss associationAUCKLAND, Oct. 20. iii tlie October issue of The Month appears a statement by Bishop Cleary on the Martin ease. It is given hereunder in a condensed form. “The object of the statement,” says Bishop Cleary, “is to correct a series of more or less gross printed misstatements regarding my personal contact with and attitude towards what has come to be known as ‘the Martin case.’ My first information about the affair followed upon, a communication to. me on September 23, T 924, by an esteemed Protestant friend of mine, who is also a long time friend of the Martin family. He approached me on their behalf, as one for whom both he and they entertained feelings of respect and trust, with a request for such good offices as I might he able to render to him. “I received statements alleging undue influence (outside of school) by a teacher at the Epsom Girls’ Grammar School (Miss Terry), inclining a pupil of hers (Miss Margaret Martin) towards the Catholic faith against (it was stated) the mother’s wishes, and leading finally to Miss Martin’s departure from her home for aii unknown destination. Miss Martin’s age is stated to be 17 years and 8 months. Active inquiries enabled me to give a quite definite assurance that the missing young lady had not received shelter in. any convent of other Catholic institution. “In the New Zealand Herald of September 25, 1924, I was incorrectly rej ported as having also stated that she was not in a Roman Catholic family. | No mention of a Roman Catholic family reached me in the course of the reporter’s telephoned inquiry, and it was obviously impossible for me to make any such definite statement in view j of the fact that the whereabouts of the talented young lady were quite unknown to‘ me until September 29, 1924, three days after they had been communicated to Mrs. Martin by her daughter’s solicitor. At my request the no doubt quite inadvertent error about a Roman Catholic home was corrected in. the Auckland Star of the same evening, September 25, 1924. . “My second and third contacts with the Martin case took place on September 25, 1924. My part therein has been made th© subject of flagrant perversions of the truth.' At 11.30 a.m. on the day mentioned I attended a meeting in the office of Miss Martin’s | solicitor. I went there on the express | invitation of Mrs.-. Martin, conveyed through her solicitor and her old familyfriend mentioned above, and with the | approval of Miss Martin’s legal adviser. I had neither ■ act nor part in formulating any of the conditions upon which Miss Martin was to return to her home. These were matters between the principals and their friends. “My attitude throughout was one of earnest desire to co-operate, if it should lie in my power, for the restoration of. the young woman to her family. Neither mother nor daughter was present at the meeting mentioned in the last preceding paragraph. The four persons' present (Mrs. Martin’s solicitor and her friend, Miss Martin’s solicitor, and the present writer) arranged there for a meeting between the mother and th© daughter,* to take place at four o’clock that same afternoon. It was considered undesirable to have this meeting in the city, where the two ladies might be incommoded by curiosity-mongers. A joint and repeated request was, therefore, made to me by Mrs. Martin’s representative, to have a meeting between the: mother and the daughter and the hoped-for reconciliation take place in the Bishop’s house at Ponsonby. Miss Martin’s legal adviser joined in the request, and the mother and daughter had an affecting meeting there. It was the first occasion on which I met either of them. “There were also- present the abovementioned old family friend of tlie Martins, two legal advisers, and (by previous request of the parties) the writer of these lines. At that conference Airs. Martin, on her own initiative. set forth in substance the following conditions for her daughter’s return: (a) Free exercise of the latter’s religious convictions; (b) the daughter not to enter upon any course of religious instruction with a view to becoming a Catholic until a month had elapsed, and her then present condition of strain had passed away; and (c) that for twelve months she • should not hold communication . with the teacher already mentioned. The present writer pressed these three conditions upon the daughter’s acceptance as fair and proper, and urged her to return to her mother’s house. The last-mentioned condition Miss Martin, could not. at that conference see her way to accept, but she did so afterwards. A further meeting between mother and daughter took place in the Bishop’s iinof 6, I>onsonb y ! on September 26. 1J24, at tlie united request of Airs. Martin, her two representatives, and Miss Alartm’s solicitor. It was a! strictly private interview between-the niother and the daughter, without the intervention of outside parties. I have 1 no knowledge M what took place there out 1 am informed as follows: That the same evening Afiss Alavtin wrote to her mother notifying her return on a visit. This was mutually confirmed between them on the following mornmg (September 27). and on Mondav, September 29, 1924, the young ladv wa ,® borne to remain there. My part in these conferences has been made the subject of what I must regretfully describe as a series of sheer and seemingly deliberate fabrications JNot one of these deplorable perversions of fact emanated either directly lm “reci:ly lrom any of the parties to- the conferences. Ido not impugn the good faith with which these misrepresentations were -published by the press on the assumption, presumably. lof their substantial armiraev. Some of these inventions are alieady refuted by the plain statements of fact- set forth above. I Two further grave misrepresentations of my acts, words and attitude were corrected in lire New Zealand Herald of September 29. 1924, by Airs

.Vlai'Lin's solicitor at licr rcquest. It gives mo -plea-sure to acknowledge the nigh, sense- oi honour which prompted that lady and gentleman to make such' spontaneous corrections of those nue- 1 emevous and wholly groundless misstatements. Both Mrs. Martin and her representatives returned thanks to the wnter oi these lines for the goodwill and kindly -and helpful feeling shown by him throughout these eon-' lerenccs. What is described a« “a peculiarly despicable perversion oi truth’' is the ioilowiiig published statement relating to the conference at the Bishop’s uouse on September 15, namely, that Mrs. Martin and her solicitor “had to send a taxi to- an appointed rendezvous to-.--bring tlie girl- (Miss Martin) to the couierence” rro-m her unknown abode. The Montli publishes a- statement hereon by Miss Martin’s, solicitor- (Mr. Ji. McYeagh). He says in substance that -at the conference in question he was requested by Mrs. Martin and her solicitor to take their taxi (then. standing at the gate) to oring Miss Martin to- the conference, she having failed to- attend. “The car broke down on the way at tlie foot of Wellesley Street on account of want of petrol,'’ the statement runs. “i then proceeded on root to Miss Martin's place of temporary residence. She consented to attend the conference and we returned on foot to the place where the taxi had come to a stop. The driver was not even then ready to proceed, but after a few minutes' delay he started for the Bishop’s house, having obtained petrol somewhere in the vicinity. On this slender foundation was built up the unjustifiable assertion that the mother and her solicitor had to send a, taxi, to the appointed rendezvous to bring the girl to the conference. "When leaving the Bishop’s house after that conference of September 26, I stated my intention of giving tire daughter’s address to the mother. Ln this 1 was strongly supported by Bishop Oleary, and the young lady’s address was given by me to Mrs. Martin on the following, day.” “No Protestant Church or football club or other voluntary association is bound by or responsible for the unauthorised private act of an adherent or member. For the same reason the church would be in no- way compromised, even if it were established that a Catholic teacher had used unclue religious influence outside school hours, as alleged, upon a pupil, or if she had induced the latter (as she did not) to leave her home, for neither the church nor I, as its local head, nor any dignitary associated with me in the administration of the diocese, had either act «• part in any knowledge of any religious influence alleged to- have been exercised upon Miss Martin, or of cause of her departure from her home. “I have been permitted to- see and peruse a number of documents connected with and arising out of the Martin case. These documents, however, are in no. way under my control. It is no official concern of me or any church, that (as legal opinions affirm and documents seem to. show) no- detailed charges have yet been laid by the boiard against the teacher referred to.

“It is no concern of me and my church that the fresh inquiry appointed by the botard for October 3 was abandoned on account of the teacher's absence on .sick leave and her. resignation owing to her physical inability to attend. These are matters between the parties interested, and the board and. I have no right, to act herein as adviser, much less as dictator to ny of them, but I violate no confidence when, in view. of. the documents perused, by .me, I make the statements that appear hereunder: “(1) If a- fresh inquiry on October 3 had taken, place it would have resulted in some extremely interesting developments. One of these . might well he another inquiry into- the specific, (allegations, of undue .religious 'tifiiience in- no way connected with any Catholic. teacher. “(2) I can further state in the most lefinite and emphatic way that the immediate, cause of Miss Martin’s departure from home had no ■ connection with any Catholic person or with any Catholic institution or with any religious views lielcT by the young lady in question.”