THE ANGLICAN CLERGY AND THE NEW CEMETERY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7645, 24 May 1886, Page 3

THE ANGLICAN CLERGY AND THE NEW CEMETERY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Having published a statement madd by Dr. O'Callaghan, will you kindly afford apace in your columns for mine, and much aa I regret being personally brought into a contest with that gentleman, I think 1 shall be able to right myself, in your opinion, and in that of the public who think it worth their while to peruae the following • Dr. O'Callaghan has imported many side issues into his letter, with which I have nothing whatever to do, but aa regards myself these are briefly the facts :—A letter was read in the Council containing several suggestions or conditions, viz. : Ist, the abolition of Sunday funerals ; 2nd, the control of the Anglican ground ; and 3rd, the collection of the fees. These, I stated, I would most strenuously oppose, and in the course of my remarks I said, "It appeared that no objection was made to the fees fixed by the Council, provided the Church authorities were entrusted to collect the same, so that the chaplain's fee might be added or included." On the 21sfc of April I arranged with Dr. O'Callaghaa as to the interment of J.T., at the same time asking him if there was a minister's fee. Me 3aid, "Yes." I asked how much ? and he told me 10s. On the following day, viz,, the day of the funeral, while sitting in the sexton's office, I asked the rev. doctor it the fee was payable to him or to Mr. Cochrane ? Ha »aid Mr. Cochrane was authorised to receive fees, but that he (Dr. O'C.) would take it. 1 certainly did say that by bo doing, he would confer a favour and save me trouble. In justice to Dr. O'Callaghan, I may state that I never at any time, or in any place, said it was a sum that gentleman had demanded or that it was for hit own benefit. But this I again most distinctly affirm, that in answer to my question, Dr. O'Callaghan said the ohaplain's feo was 10s; therefore, I paid the 103 as the fee ; 10s 1 got a receipt for, and when it was stated in Council that the clergy denied charging a, fee, I produced the receipt, as I would have produced any other business receipt, as confirming my state* ment; and although the doctor conferred a favour by being the medium of transmission, that did not remove the obligation of! the payment of the fee to the Diocesan secretary. It is a very nice distinction to draw between the ministers of a Church and the Church itself. And now as to the receipt in question. I cannot account for the very grave mis-statement of the rev* gentleman, namely, that he signed a receipt, which I produced already written. If he did say so, then, to use his own language, which coming from tha pen of so eminent a divine, must be choice, forcible in expression, and so free from offensiveness, that there can be no harm in my repeating it—" it is a lie." Further, Mr. Editor, I propose to prove it in a very simple manner. Relying upon your impartiality, I am willing to place the receipt in your hands, and you may either call in experts, or leave it with the Bishop himself (who must be acquainted with the caligrapby of Dr. O'Callnghan), and if either of these parties shall decide that the whole of the writing is not Dr. O'Callayhan's, I will, though not a wealthy man, placo in your hands the sum of £20, to be distributed amongst such institutions of the city as you, the Bishop, and Dr. O Callaghan may determine. Dr. O'Callaghan having rushed into print, will he now come straight to the point, and inform the public whether or not a chaplain's fee has to be paid, .is I am satisfied that no undertaker will oiler a fee which is not expected from him.—l am, &c, May 21, 18S6. Hknky T. Garratt.