CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 10008, 20 December 1895, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE SYNOD ON MORALITY. TO THE EDITOR ' > Sir,—As the mover of the resolution adopted by our Synod against the C D. Act your sub-leader in to-day's issue calls from me a few words in reply. It is the mora necessary I should do this inasmuch as wliilo in the report of the discussion in the Synod you are careful to give almost fully the one speech made against the resolution you dismiss the four speeches made in its favou£ in the fewest words possible. Twenty-four voted in support of the motion and one against. In your estimate all the wisdom and christian charity of the Synod on this question was represented by the one dissentient; all the rest were either ignoramuses or hypocrites, and in any caso were obstructive to moral reform. Perhaps you will allow me to state a few facts to enable your readers to judge concerning the correctness of your estimate. Permit me, then, to say that the majority was composed, not as you assume, of ministers only, but of ministers and laymen. Permit me further to say that included in tho majority were men who for years past have had quite as intimate an acquaintance with the condition of things in Auckland as Mr. Prime has had, and whose judgment on the question is quite as much entitled to respect. Permit me also to say that wo were dealing with Acts which apply to the whole colony, and have to be judged of otherwise than from a local standpoint. _ _ Mr. Prime is an old friend for whom I cherish the kindliest regard, and we quite understand the art as friends of agreeing to differ 011 more questions than one. It is but the barest justice, however, to say thai: judging from his speech in the Synod, Mr. Prime made no attempt to appreciate the standpoint from which all the others in the Synoa hurled their protests against the C.D. Act as essentially immoral and unjust. The logic of Mr. Prime's position is this: He had seen the Act when enforced in Auckland clearing the streets of a certain class of prostitutes; therefore, they must he beneficial, and ought to be enforced again. I suppose the streets of Auckland would have been still more effectually cleared of these prostitutes if a pistol had been fired off at each one of them; would any one base on such a result a justification of murder ? Is there not an underlying principle of morality to be taken into account iu judging of these Acts, whether they are right or wrong? We contend that these Acts ate in their essence immoral, inasmuch as they assume that God Almighty made a mistake when He said, "Thou shall not commit adultery." We are old-fashioned enough to believe that Christ's law of morality is tho only one on which 0. social state can be safely built, and the studied abrogation of that law which is contemplated iu the C.D. Act is an insult to the Christian conscience. You profess to be very much shocked that, as a Christian minister, I should have dared to say in the Synod that the object of these Acts is to make it safe for men to sin. I • venture to tempt further editorial thunder by saying the same thing again, and saying it without fear of successful contradiction from anybody who knows how these Acts originated. Weare not the ignoramuses you take us to be. We have studied this matter in all its bearings for years past, aud your attempt at bluff by parading its alleged benefits in Auckland deceives nobody but the ignorant or the indifferent. I repudiate with scorn your infamous charge that in opposing theso Acts we show ourselves insensible to the terrible evil of prostitution, and that we are doing nothing to abate it. Such a statement is utterly inexcusable, as everybody knows who knows anything of the work of moral reform. By whom are these acts most strongly opposed? Why, bv those who are tho most extensively and successfully engaged in endeavouring to rescue the blighted victims of the social evil. By general admission the Salvation Army occupies a noble preeminence in this Christ-like work, and every officer of the Army endorses the opinion of Mrs. Bramwell Booth in denouncing the C.D. Acts as the " devil's masterpiece." You say that " the late saintly Bishop Hill"favoured these Acts. The appeal to the dead is always unsatisfactory, but for the credit of his memory I hope your statement is not correct. I have thought of Bishop Hill as a chivalrous and nobleminded man, whose Christianity was oast iu a generous mould. _ If, however, I could be convinced that Bishop Hill actually supported the enforcement of a measure so brutal and cowardly and tyrannous as these C.D. Acts he would go down in my estimation to a very considerable extent. Mureover, if this question is to be settled by names I could give you the names of scores of religious leaders much more famous tliau Bishop Hill by whom these Acts are held iu the utmost abhorrence. You cite as supporters of these Acts the women of tho Auckland Liberal League. Against that I put the clear-voiced intelligent protest of the 500,000 women who are enrolled in the Women's Christian Temperance Union. . And what pray is the purport of your extraordinary deliverance on the age of consent? You ought to know that there is already a legal remedy in existence to clieclt prostitution among girls under the age of 111. Why do you not call upon the police to carry the law in this respect into effect? And if there is any sincerity in your professed abhorrence of the social evil, instead of cavilling at what our Synod has done you will support most heartily our recommendation that tho age of consent should he raised to at least IS. That certaiuly does give promise of doing something to abate one of the most awful scourges of the times. Yon may bo quite sure, however, that it is honest and intelligent conviction, based on induction from a » id') area of facts that has led our Synod by 24 to 1 to denounce the C.D. Acts, as in principle immoral and in their application a mockery, a delusion, and a snare.—l am, etc., Wm. Jab. Williams. Onehunga, December 1!), 181)5. THE C.D. ACT. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln reference to the C.D. Act, may I put in a word for the children ? It has been my misfortune to see an incurable ch'ld sufferer in the neighbourhood of my horns grow into womanhood, and if a word lrom such as 1 can help in the smallest degree to lessen the possibility of other such innocent sufferers coming into this world of ours, I feel it must be spoken. We evidently cannot stamp out vice until we can reform every individual member of our community; then surely it were best for the State toregnlaio the matter. There is the moral contagion to be thought of as well as the physical, anil for' the sake of our children let us have this seemingly incurable evil all in one quarter, under police supervision, not; abroad in our midst. We cannot eradicate it at present, th»n we should regulate it until wo can.—l am, etc., ■ A Mother.

MORE RATES. TO THK EDITUU. Sir,l am very sorry to see that the Mayor (Mr. Holland) is going to propose ait additional rate be saddled upon the already heavily-taxed ratepayers. It is a pity the Mayor did not let this be generally known before he was elected for the third term, and there would then have been a chance to nominate some other person for the position. What with one tax and another, direct and indirect, general and local debts, and the disposition in some quarters to undertake works beyond our means, th'i future does not look very promising for the overburdened taxpayer. The great majority of the community seem • xist now-a-days for nothing else than to support an at my of governmental officials. The safe course for our Council to pursue is one of economy, undertaking works in proportion to its means. 1 hope the ratepayers will strongly and unitedly resist any increase whatever in the present heavy rates, and that they will also resist any attempt to raise another loan.l am, etc., Ratepayer. CORRESPONDENCE CONDENSED. Mrs. A. Brame writes from Birkdule, Birkenhead, in reference to the statement by Detective Hughes that she, among other rescue workers had taken unfortunate girls to the Lock Hospital. She denies this, and says that "as to any moral results from the Lock Hospital, they are unknown to me."

Homo of the leading members of the Royal Academy luve been severely criticised and taken to task for selling their creations to advertising firms, and even executing " works of art" to the specific order of " somebody's soap " or " General pills." Punch has recently issued a clever skit on the advertising mania introduced between paragraphs of bona .We interest, and publishes a specimen of what we may expect in the novel of the future. There is (says a London paper) undoubtedly a grievance in this respect. There is nothing more annoying, or more likely to in&ko a mail want to get up and kick himself thau to commence a sub-leader on the Chitral war or lie Salisbury foreign policy, and eventually find himself literally in 9. lather of Seagull's Moonlight Soap. We quite agree with this (says another exchange), and hold sued it practice to be quite indefensible. There is a time and a place fot everything, and there is plenty of scope for advertising without monopolising the reading matter of public interest. There is only on« plea .tf justification, and that is when an article of sterling value and indisputable quality, such as Vanity Fair Cigarettes, is to be brought and kept before the public. Clearing out bamboo tables at half last year's prices; 1900 yards green window Hollands, job, from per yard; Japan Kioto muslins, just opeued.—J. Tonson Garlick,"The People's furnishing ware-, bouse.—[Advt.l