DR. LISTON AND CITY COUNCIL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18276, 18 December 1922, Page 9

DR. LISTON AND CITY COUNCIL.

Sir, —I notice that the City Council, with tho exception of Messrs. Bennett, Knight., and Paterson, have agreed to the rescission of their resolution of March, i 1922. One understands and appreciates I that the world now proceeds (perhaps unfortunately) by a. process of compromise, hut when a principle is involved, then compromise is dangerous to tho whole community. While not wishing to dis- 1 cuss the speech made by t)r. Liston, and trying to look at- the matter dispassionately, these features arc outstanding— that even the corrected speech was offensive to a Protestant, community, ar.d that the bishop, according to the jury, had been guilty of a grave indiscretion. In the beginning was the council justified in passing the resolution? Is there any doubt on this point? If it were justified, are the circumstances so changed that the council should rescind the resolution in toto ? It is quite true that the jury decided that the sjx>ech was not seditious, but it also added that the bishop had been guilty of a grave indiscretion. If, therefore, a speech is made in our Town Hall that is offensive, and the speaker guilty of a grave indiscretion, should tho council "climb down" without receiving some expression of regretfrom the originator of the whole trouble cr an apology for the grave indiscretion committed by him ? In the correspondence there is no suggestion of regret, yet the resolution of March is absolutely rescinded without any qualification. The whole correspondence is not published. Why not? The only explanation given to the citizens is that " it is not mv (Dr. Listen's) intention to resort to litigation • • • •!" I appreciate that if there had l>een some expression of regret, it may be contended that the council would have been well advised to let the matter be closed, but. otherwise, why this volte face? Thank goodness, there are at least three councillors who are still " masters of their souls." The position now >s that, presumably according to the council, as the resolution of March should Ilo t have been passed fas it has now been wholly rescinded). Dr. Liston or anyone else for that matter, is entitled to make a speech similar to liis previous speech, in our Town Hall—whether such a speech would amount to a grave isdiscretion being apparently a matter of supreme indifference to the council. J. F. W. Dickson.