CRITICISM OF A CRITIC.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XLVII, Issue 13141, 2 May 1917, Page 4

CRITICISM OF A CRITIC.

To the. Editor. .. Sir, fimitedi'talcuts :of some men lender it impossible for thein to < be severe without being unparliamentary. So •it is with "Criticus." But. before IHave done with liim I «hall teacli' him how to be severe and 1 ■ parliamentary at the same time. The truth, is, readers, . that this' "gentleman" for the past yearor txvo.has been "top dbg'' in farm audi station, argument. Like .ijiother Alexander Selkirk, ills ''right there is none to dispute." Now that the shali lo\mess ofhis leaming and' the sophistry of his tussock vlqgic haCve been exposed our "champeen"—like the .Sentimental Bloke" on- first .meeting "Doreen" —has completely '"lost, his) block,"dbnc his dash."... With "loss, of block'" lie has lost also, every vestige of 'self-respect and, like most anonymous snipers, has . ignobly sought■: refuge, in the last stronghold of it thoroughly', whippisd opponent- —viz., slander; -more slander,; and still more

In Jyoiir earlier, effusions Crrticus youtmake some attempt•■'■'at reasoning however fallacious. 'ln your latest ebul-' litioii you'-have- -essayed no such, jattempt. You have abandoned 1 even a 6f ' reasoning for Bfllirigsgate, j morel Billingsgate, and) still more Bil- I lingsgate. ;; ;.•■> ;: . -'A- "•■,-, .'" . ? , ■'• ■•■'■" Catholic apologist" and Home) Ruler" forsooth! Your vilification of "the oldest and greatest Chris--Clmreh<on earth stamps you a Mteiv and'reviler *f -Catholicity. Your treatment of "Irish affairs" has shown conclusively 'that- 1 you "are no more a. genuine Home Ruler;thanyour traitorousand'"'!'loyal" leader, Sir Ed. Carson. You entered this discusjshoii in the guise of a friend.. Your and worst exr position of Billingsgate has laid bare J your hafeijd sou! to every reputable reader of-theOamaru Mail. ! Your,"controversial . machinery.—slander, sophistryV itfdl-iritfd-slinging—your utter bankruptcy of argument, save the •.'argument of vile-abustHr-your disregard of the A B C of : common courtesy, brand you as a "critic" discredited jfor alt time in the eyes of. every, respectable member of this community. ; t The cfWehessi of your English education is shown by .your inability to appreciate a well-accepted, meaning of the term- "apologist" —viz., defender by argument;^''.a inieariirig stated! m any standard . English dictionary. . You waSted'Valuable'paper 1 in denying, the assumption of a role which your first article clearly showed! you to have assumed. * ', ~„ m • ~ You appeal to the "]Se -Tomere decree as your sole proof to• «stoblisu the sweeping assertion that Catholicism seeks to override the Empire. 1 endeavored to educate you regarding the right the Church has to frame marria<*e laws for her own subjects—a rigUl which?- any ; Church with a claim tc Divinity arid must have—* right exercised in the past by tn< Anglican -Church, the Presbyter, ai Churoh arid even by the Jewish Church You were, too self-opinionated! to proft bv the instruction.. The idea o "priest" or "presbyteiy" teaching you "Criticus" "some"' "apologist' wa .too humiliating.to your arrogance You repeat the flagrant mis-state ment that "no marriage is legal tha lias not the approval^of the Cathpb Church; whereas states ex pUcitly that Hnon-Cathohcs, whethe baptisedi or unbaptised who contrac among themselves, are nowhere bounj to observe the Catholic form of mar "'fou vainlv imagine that by repetitioi a mis-statement Becomesa true state ment. Shame on, you, I 'Criticus Ih. transparent inadequacy of your nionta capacity—and, that alone—restrains m< from applying to your shameless mis representation an opprobrious MtU Anglo-Saxon word of'three letters. Your "letter"—l promised to be .par liamentary-is headed "tosh Affairs Your predilection for Billingsgate lei vou scant space to refer to insl Affairs "though this is one of the prin S points It issue. I have alreadi Xn rather fully fftfie Rule question. My Potion re mains unassalled because ™«»saitaWe I do not intend to thrash my sti.™ g Now, "Criticus," I have . almosi von. Before I conclude 1 wouia <urge rou to'enrich youi- vocabuK of "Romish epithets' by the fol ;&- helofri'L additions, ru... "Jesuitical cunning,." "pol>i* superstititon," "priestly ■ interference, ana. "noftfoh T>lok" No critic who -spe, ciE in slander can afford to neglect these. Your. "arguments have been sadlv weakened by the unfortunate omission of such spicy specimens— The stock-in-trade of the '.'Yellow humorists'." My chief regret at present, is that I have lost my lovely 10 to 1 hot. But cheerfully and with a sen?© iof deebest conviction. "I dip my hdr to ''Criticus." "Catholic' apologist, "consistent Home Ruler," champeen" exponent of the gentle art of slimy slandering. I wrote in the first, instance, as a 6ense of duty, to rebuke a, superficial and arrogant cntic._ My dutv, is accomplished. He challenges me to a; mud-throwirig contest which.l Worn to accept. This, Mr Editor, is my final contribution to the discussion. I 'thank you for your courtesy in according me so much space.—l am, Ctc '' " D. O'CGNNEI/L. Catholic 7 Presbytery, May 2. [As little further benefit to our readers is likely to. accrue from a further pursuit bf : this'controversy, we deem it advisable to close the correspondenceEd: P.M.] ■"-■."■