Rev. I. Jolly's Letter.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8074, 26 August 1905, Page 5

Rev. I. Jolly's Letter.

(To the Editor)

bis,—Referring but not replying to Mr Jolly's letter in your issue of the 24th inst., which, in as far as its reference to Roman Catholics is concerned, is of course beneath contempt, permit me to express my astonishment that a paper of such standing as yours should allow its columns to be so used in the cause of bigotry as to publish a reference to the members of the oldest Christian faith upon earth of the peculiarly offensive nature affected by your reverend _ correspondent. With Mr Jolly's views and sentiments on the subject of Roman Catholics, infidels, and the reading of the Bible in schools I have no-concern;., nor do I expect any apology from him any more than I would expect harmony to issue from a certain type of animal which expresses itself otherwise than in song. On v the other hand, as one of the Roman Catholics of this town, I do look for an apology from you for allowing that body to be referred to in"your columns as belonging to the same type as infidels.— a ours, etc.,

C. A. Loughnan

[Unlike many correspondents, Mr Jolly did not shelter himself behind a nom-de-plume, therefore we ,were not justified in excluding his letter from our columns. Mr Loughnan will, no doubt, bo interested to learn that in Mi* Jolly's opinion the letter forwarded by "Agnostic " should not have been published, showing at once that in conducting a newspaper it is impossible to please everyone. Mr Loughnan's remarks regarding an apology are ridiculous. Mr Jolly having signed his name to the letter complained of accepted the responsibility and there was absolutely nothing improper on our part in publishing that letter. Mr Loughnan has a poor opinion of the Press if he thinks a . newspaper, without reason, is going to tender an ?Pol»gy, particularly when that journal is being conducted in a strictly fair and impartial manner. Further Mr Loughnan will be interested to learn that a prominent member of the Roman Catholic Church in Palmerston, m discussing Mr Jolly's letter with the editor of this journal on Friday, volunteered the statement that he did not consider we acted wrongly in publishing the letter, and also that he intended replying to it, but changed his mind.— Ed. M.E.S.]