CORRESPONDENCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9117, 27 July 1888, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

• WHAT WE MUST DO«; - *';h . TO THE EDITOR. , Sir,—l have read with pleasure several articles thathave Lately appeared in your paper on the subject of retrenchment. X congratulate you on the graphic manner in which you have handled jaur subject, and for the honest and truthful ring that pervades every sentence. But wfcat I would uke to know in: What is to be the result of your advocacy? The tone and spirit which pervaded the meeting of farmers and others at Otara, on Saturday last, seemed ,to say that they at least were in earnest in insisting on retrenchment and reform in our system of government; but I fear, as a class alone, they, will not carry sufficient weight to upset the colossal fabric centred in Wellington. i I ask, what are our merchants, tradespeople, and artisans thinking about that they do not join in the movement ? Are the two former content to live in an atmosphere of bankruptcy, and the latter under a rule which gives them not half-time employment, and serves only to support an army of Civil servants, Government officials .and a number of professional politicians ? The only interest of the latter j in the country is th e money they manage tc screw out of it for themselves ; they pander to the worst. passions of the people on the hustings; they believe not what they < say, and are afraid to repudiate afterward, when they meet in Wellington. Let us reduce the numbers of our so-called representatives, and select more wisely in future. . Visit from house to house in our suburbs, and you will find that one half have either fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, or brothers in some sort of Government employ. They will nearly all agree with you that retrenchment in our expense of government is desirable, but they not, or will not, advocate it, for fear that it may throw Tom or Kate out of employment; and so their little log is rolled, and those who roll it for them roll one for themselves as large as they can. I would ask the working man, if it is. not employment that he wants? and how can he nope to get . employment without there' are employers? It is the want of employers that is hurting him at , present, and how can they hope to get employers to come to » country like this, which every year runs deeper and deeper in debt, where taxation is yearly increasing, and its very life's blood is being sucked out by a reckless and extravagant Government. If the artisan and work-ing-man cannot live, the tradesman cannot, neither can the merchant; one is bound up with the other. i Let us reduce our expenditure to our income, with' a reasonable rate of taxation, not handicapped out of the world's market. Let us live honestly in the eyes of the world, and be a by-word no longer. With our beautiful and healthy country, abounding* in resources of nearly everykind, we ought not to be beaten ;in the world's race by any country on the globe. Let our Chamber of Commerce take up the cry of retrenchment; let our ; merchants, tradespeople, and artisans join with them; let us see our leading men, whose names bo far have been without stain, lead the movement, and we shall accomplish with ease what we all look forward to and desire, viz., prosperity.— am, etc., <. ;'J . Charlton Dawson. Ellerslie, 26th July, 1888. THAMES HARBOUR BOARD AND MR. BRODIE'S STATEMENTS. . . TO the EDITOR. Sib,— am sorry that Mr. Brodie, when he attempted a contradiction of my letter in your issue of the 17th instant, did not tell the whole truth. I stated that the demand made upon us was for £36. This I repeat; and this amount agrees with the month's accounts furnished to us by the harbourmaster < and demanded of us by him. Mr. Brodie now says that the amount due to the Harbour Board by Messrs. Bagnall, and " which the Board's solicitor had instructions to sue for, is £91 15s 2d." Mr. Brodie, in common fairness to me, as well as to thfe harbourmaster and solicitor to the Board, should have explained that the by-law under which the greater portion of the demand is made, fixed a maximum rate of Is 6d per 1000 on timber, but from this amount the Board agreed to allow a rebate of Is; in other words, the charge was to be 6d per. 1000, and it was at this rate that the demands referred to have been.. made. It <; was found that the Board had bungled the by-law respecting the rebate, and . i presume they have now gone in. for the maximum demand, though we have no further information on the subject than Mr. Brodie's letter. As to our owing the Board £91,1 know that had we chosen to pay the £36 we would have received a full discharge. To „ put forward such statements is one of those miserable subterfuges which honourable men . seldom descend to, even in support of a bad cause. I leave your readers to judge the value of Mr. Brodie's contradictions of my statements. —I am, &c., L. J. Bagnall. • Turua, July 24,1888. ROMAN CATHOLIC PRESENTMENT OP FREEMASONRY. I ■ TO THE EDITOR. , Sir, Will you kindly grant me a few lines space to reply to the statements made in Father Hackett's sermon, reported in this morning's Herald, in order that I may point, out their trustworthiness. His authorities, M. de Branville, Juj6, M. Hayman,' aha Goffin, are utterly unknown to, and therefore unrecognised by Freemasonry; it is not . even aware of their existence. ; (I speak with some authority, as one of the workers upon the authorised encyclopaedia of the Literature, &c., of Freemasonry.) There are not, nor as far as our records go, have there ever been any such London (or, indeed, English) lodges as " Memphis " and " Philadelphia and if such ever existed,it would be utterly beyond their province or • power to make any declaration on any subject whatever. The English Grand Lodge never " granted letters of institution to the Ver-,i viers Masons " (if there were ever such i ' Lodge), nor have they power to do so ; and no such relationship, therefore, exists between > them as between ' mother and daughter/' Freemasonry prefers no claim to be a relit > gion ;> it simply stipulates that a Mason must be " a good man and true, and strictly • obedient to the moral law;" that he must be ' "a peaceable subject, and conform cheerfully to the laws of the country in which he i abides;" that he shall never "be concerned ■ in plots or conspiracies against Government; > but patiently submit to the decisions of the I supreme Government;" that he must " pay a s proper respect to the civil magistrate, work diligently, live creditably, and act honourl ably by all men." Such are the ancient lands marks of the order; whilst its principles are • "Brotherly love, relief, and truth."' In i short, Freemasonry is nothing more nor less r than an embodiment of the living truths of > " The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man." Father Hackett asks why his b quotations, even if they be the views of indii vidual Masons only, are not refuted; to which I reply, Freemasonry does not know these men; and if it did, it's plain statements above quoted are a ret futation of them. I might add that when 3 the Grand Lodge of France erased the name of God from its formularies, all communica- • tion with it was severed by the Grand Lodge i of England. And now, permit me to ask Father Hackett two or three questions in re- ; turn: Freemasonry, he quotes, "recognises but one Godhow many does the Roman ! Catholic Church acknowledge? "It was > asserted," says he, " that God could not • diedoes the Roman Catholic Church assert that He can ? " The secrecy which shadowed > the meetings and the workings of the society > at once stamped it as objectionable." Is there not such a society as that of the Jesuits? and . have their proceedings been ever open, even to all the members of the Roman Catholic : Church? Lastly, "If the aims and the ends of Masonry were good, why not reveal them ) to the world?" asks Father Hackett, to . which I reply they have never been concealed; they are all contained within the 5 boundaries of this letter.l am, etc., July 26th. A Catholic and a Mason.