SIEVWRIGHT, STOUT, & CO. V. HARRIS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7221, 9 April 1885, Page 4

SIEVWRIGHT, STOUT, & CO. V. HARRIS.

TO THE EDITOR. J?ra,-I hare uo controversy with Mr J. A. 1). Adams, your correspondent of the 6th imt., and think ho might, wish advantage to 11)o craft, have U(t Kieeniasdnry, which 1 sever attacked, ti stand without his advocacy, able though doubtless It Is upon it3 morits, and Mr T. 8. Graham to defend hini'c't. I, however, desire to compliment Mr Adatr.o on his ingenuity in attempting to divert attention from the main points raised iu my lottor of the Srd inst. by raising a eldo issue. For instance, Mr Adams. Gays 1 slightly misunderstood thcropoit I had referred to. On the contrary, if Mr Adams 4111 re-read the report It question, and my letter, be will'discover that the uiisundcretan<ilEg is all hie owu. He (Mr Adam.O says: "Mr Graham did not say, nor la te reported to have said, that he Is r.ot in possession 01. information on the matters brought before him, but ho did eay thai bo wag unaware of the fact that the matter bad boon mentioned In a newspaper." Xhls is n ga'.blcd quotation, but even admitting it to bo correct, lam equally right iu stating that I did not in my letter r.ceueo Mr Graham of making the statement which Mr Adams Bays Mr Grahurn did not make, nor did I tay he was reported to have made it. Thus Ur Adams has, to adept his own wordß, fallen Into tho erior cl "raising or eanfcunding things that, differ" ,by mistaking (or through an abcence of capacity lo understand) the difference between a ttatement made by a person and a reaßOn&ble inference to be deduced from such statement. But Mr Adnuu has fellon into a grave error—ono which, in charity, 1 hipe arose from inadvertenco, uol from intention. Whilo Bomewhat emphatically quoting what (he Bays) llr Graham did eay, he omitted altogether thst portion of it from wbith I drew the ioferenco referred to-namoly, that " ho (Mr Graham) would have the rmtter iiquirod into"- wcrds which, coming officially from. Mr Graham as District Grand Master of KnglUh Freemasons in Otago and Scuthland, cou'd obvnuely have but one moaning—that, namely, which I have already given it, "that he was not in possession of information on the matter brought to hia nollcs." Otherwise, why was inquky by him neccD/avy ? I wish, betoro leaving Mf Adama and tho EubJcoS, to point out one or two other errors into which bie zeal in tho Interests of Maaoury appear to havo b'traynJ him- e.g., Mr Adams attempts to arfjuj, if 1 understand him at all, that the members of the Masonic Order of Rome and Constantino, tor the reason that the Order is not included in the degrees ol what is known as Craft Jlaionry, are not amenable in any w?>y to tho craft tor un-Massnic conduct of wh'ch they may bo guilty in connection with their membership of such Order, and that CrafS Masonry,is not iujuriously affected by such un-Masonie conduct, and that Freemasons Bud Masonio bodic3 as such will tike no cogDisanee of it. The fallacy and monotroa.ty of such a positton requires no argument to reluta It. I will deal with It by an illustration. The Hurl of Carnarvon is Fro. Grand Master of the Grand liOdgo-of England, 11.R.11. the Prices of Waea being Grand Master. Tho Earl ol Carnarvon la also Sovereign Grand Ccramandor cf the Supremo Council of tho 33rd Dogrea for Englacd, an Order as remote from Craft Freemasonry as that of Rome and Constantino. Now, were it possible for the Earl of Carnarvon, in his capacity of ruling head of the Supreme Council, to commit eoxe flagrantly unMisonlc aot dorogatory to thit Council, would such act be passed over in Bilonco by the Grand Master anil the Grand Lodge of England; or rather, would not his removal from the cflice of Pro. Grand Master ensue; and in any caan, would not a slur upon Masonry and a Mifonio scandal bo tho result? Any apprentice Masoii can supply the answer. Pcrhcps it nnyuoS occur to Mr Adams to' ag&iu charge me with "mixing and confounding things that diHor," on tho ground this tlno that tho illustration just given is inaoplioiblo to the present cjso, inasmuch that Masonic morality in England n d In Dunedin may also differ. I make him a present of tho suggestion. lam tempted to praent him alco with one other faint illustration, which is perhaps not altogether, vial a propos. In tho year 1868, the Officer thob Administering the Government cf New Zealand was also Superintendent of the province cf A . A3 Acting Governor this f;ontleman was of courso addressed as "Hia Kxcoloccy/'acdas Superintendent ns "HisHonor." On tho ssnio day a deputation waited on him in. his capacity of Governor to represent and seek redress fcr a grievance, and tho same persons also waited on him in his capacity of Superintendent for a llko purcoeo 'After the interview, on being interrogated by their constituents on tho rosult cf their mission, one of the deputation roplied: " When we addressed ColonclJ W as Governor wo found no traco of 'his Honor,' and wheu we addressed him as Superintendent wo could not dl£covor a vestigS of 'his' Excollenc}I.'" . ~ ■ , . To concluOo, f ardon me for saylrg that my conducli throughout this discreditable affair should afford auf.. flcitnt prcof that 1 have been as deeply interested in maintaining tho fair fivoro of Freemasonry aa Mr Adam i prof esses to be, and that although thore aro black sheep in this, as in other folds, I have notloßt faith iu tho Frocmtsons as a b:dy, but, on the contrary, beliavo that they will do jus'lee to themselves aud to the Order by casting fiom among them those who are unworthy of the name of Froemasona. I had hiped net to bo called upon to trcubloyou ajaiii on this subject, and to avoid a further trojpasa upon your courloay, merely add that for tho future I can correspond with princip-Is only.—l am, &:., J. Hvdk Harris. Dunedin, April 8. :