THE POSTAL INQUIRY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17586, 17 September 1917, Page 6

THE POSTAL INQUIRY.

TO THE EDITOa. Sir,—l note with so.mo anxiety one aspect of this case which is dealt with in your columns to-day and to which a leading article is devoted. Regarding tho latter I must confess to a feeling of surprise at tfeo view you express regarding the justification for tho attitude taken up by tho authorities. I would say at the outset, however, that I am not in tho least concerned with tho rival claims to righteousness of contending sects, nor with tho other matter of which one hears occasional suggestions, . i.e., privilege for public servants of a certain religious denomination.. My concern is purely and simply wifli censorship and the validity of its principles from the point of view of the public well-being. Lacking first-hand acquaintance with the actual contents of tho Rov Elliott's letters (tho publication of which may or may not be desirable), ono can only accept what appears to bo tho common opinion of the House, as voiced by various members who might, perhaps havebeen expected to hold conflicting views. And, on t the resumption of so unanimous a view being tho correct ono. one cannot but deplore tho spirit animating the author of the epistles referred to and agree with Mr P. C. Webb that such action should be deemed to como within tho scope of the law quite as much as that much abused thing, "sedition."

But. Sir. I would ask. are not mero sectarian abuse and bitterness as undesirable in times of peace as in the strenuous times through which we aro now passing? Do they not blind us to the more urgent problems which call f/n- consideration? And would not this consideration then warrant any Government, acting in th* interests of the community, establishing an absolute, censorship over all matter passing "through that common medium of communication, the post office? We have been accustomed to regard this institution as available for tho diffusion of all matter; and no sect or political party, however large or small its numbers or influence, has. I believe. ever doubted its right to make use of it as it thought fit. The public have, since the commencement of the war, reconciled themselves to tho existence of a censorship: but if tho principle provisionally* established and extending its opera tkois over so wide a field bo conceded, what guarantee have we that a relaxation of same can bo expected even when tho present exceptional circumstances have passed? May not "the public interest" be a plausible argument for tho continuance of it? I would like, through the medium of your valuable columns, to submit this question for the consideration of your readers, reminding them of tho old adage that "the price of libertv is eternal vigilance."—Thanking you in anticipation of this favour.—l am etc.,

NON-SECTARIAN