"A TRUTH-SEEKER.,'

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 192, 17 August 1867, Page 2

"A TRUTH-SEEKER.,'

To the Ebitou of the Nelson Evexijjg Mail. Sir —ln your issue of the 9th instant '• A Truth-seeker offers some remarks on the pamphlet on Popular Errors, etc., recently published, and promises to continu c his criticisms in future letters. Where a reply seems called for, as in the present instance, I will endeavor, with your permission, to meet the writer's objections. If the statements in the pamphlet are sustained by the references to God's most Holy Word all further reasoning must be useless. When Christ said to the Jews "The Sabbath was made for man, uot man for the Sabbath," he spoke of the seventh day. In Coll. ii, 36, 17, we find the church blamed for observing the Sabbath. In Gal. iv, 10, 11, we find a reproof of the same character to that church, which applies to the religious observance of any day, week, time, or season. The observance of the first day of the week, or the Lord's Day, is nowhere commanded. Myriads of Jews formed part of the early church, aud these were reproved by the Apostle for clinging to traditionary observances and vain customs. Arc not all these things recorded for our instruction? " Truth-seeker" has, in the last paragraph oi'his letter, misquoted the pamphlet; my words are, " we do not look for patrioiism or loyalty from a traveller —the denizen of another country." His citations from Scripture in this paragraph are not opposed to any of my statements. Yours, etc., The Author of Popular Eruoes, &c. August 12th, 1867. [In justice to the author of the pamphlet criticised by our correspondent "A Truthseeker," we insert' his reply, which must terminate the controversy.—Ed. E. M.]

T^-MR WAITE'S CASE. TO THB ElllTOli OF THE NELSON EVENING MAIL. Sir — Will you allow me space in your columns to say a word about the Sunday night arrest. Mr Waite was not arrested for simply harking in the public streets, but for resisting the constable in the execution of what was his duty, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary. Mr Waite was told before he came to the Trafalgar corner that there would be preaching near there, although he stated the opposite iv court; and when everyone else in the so-called" mob was decent and orderly lie commeuced to disturb the hearers while standing on the footway, which left no other conrse open to the constable than to quiet him. Had lie chosen to bark elsewhere, to any or none, he would not have been interfered with, but when lie resisted the authority of the constable he could do no otherwise than take him into custody, whicii he did for ho other reason, and not at the request of the preacher, as is supposed. I happen to be acquainted with the duty and practice of constables in various parts of the world — England, Scolland, Australia, aud New Zealand — and I can certify that Constable Beattie has done no more than would be done anywhere else. Besides ifc is not likely that our Resideut Magistrate, after 20 years' occupation of the magisterial bench, wonld suddeuly forget both the law and his duly, as is assumed, aud that too iv an unlikely case. Had ifc beeu a respectable digger instead of Mr Waite we should not have heard anything of the affair; no one who has resided a few years in our city would have any difficulty in discovering the wherefore of all this noise about it, or that the head of the offence io in the preuching and the person. The extreme attack on the person carries with it its own antidote. If Mr Waite wishes to display his accomplishments in the brute live, whether by barking or braying, let him do so under proper circumstances, and lie will enjoy the fullest liberty at the corner of the Trafalgar or any other public street. I am, etc., Two Eyes. Nelson, August 15, 1867. [Our correspondent is in error. Mr Waite was not charged with resisting the Police iv the execution of their duty, but with causing a disturbauce iv the street. The real question at issue is, whether the constable was justified in arresting Mr Waite for so trivial an offence, whilst the other person concerned was allowed to go unmolested; a course of action which w*,s endorsed by the extraordinary judgment given ou the hearing of the case by the Resident Magistrate. — Ed. E. M.]