REPLY TO THE REV I. JOLLY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11046, 25 February 1898, Page 3

REPLY TO THE REV I. JOLLY.

TO THE EDITOE. _ Sib,—The Rev. Isaac Jolly begins his lettee in yesterday's Times by assuming that "* serious moral charge" was made against himsell and tne Rev. J. Gibb in my letter of Tuesday last. In declaring his innocence of such a charge Mr Jolly writes: " I never wag more sincere m my life than when I denounced Me Clarke's amendment . . . a 8 springing out oi distrust," &c. Let this solemn affirmation be taken as given. Isn't it curious that one can be no ready and so sincere in imputing vilo motives to other*, while one is both hasty and vehement in vindicating. the purity of one's own But this by the way. My answer to mv tneud is this: I made no serious moral chares against him and the Rev. Gibb. I was simply dealing with an. idea that you, Sir, Had revived m your remarks of Saturday, the 12th inst — an idea which I had thought had died a natural death on the floor of the synod. My letter was intended to represent what I in synod felt about Mr; Jolly g imputation,- and, if possible, to restrain you, Sir, from again parading in your columns a grave insinuation which had no justification in fact. My saying that " the rawing of the idea of distrust, was -simply regarded as a feeble tactical feint" meant that I (a» the falsely slandered person) saw no other definable reason of existence for it*.and so could only-regard it in that light. I knew that-Mr Jolly had absolutely no-grounds for saying what he did say in reference to the motion I moved. I did not mean, however,: by the phrase " regarded as a tactical feint" that Mr Jolly regarded hit imputation of distrust as I regarded it. I was, and am, prepared to admit that my friend was' perfectly sincere and perfectly honest in what he did and said (As the Her. J. Gibb did not say that my amendment." involved distrust of the northern brethren,' his name, I think, should be left out of the case. He counselled the synod to, avoid anything like suspicion of the northern brethren m what it did, a sentiment which I heartily endorsed.) *

Mr Jolly next acquits me " of the charge of being actuated by distrust in making my amendment"! He does to because S hava stated^that "no distrust existed, in latter or spirit. lam thankful that events have brought us to a clear understanding on that score. My friend qualifies his acquittal, however. If I did not distrust the northern brethren, others did! ? j n! W- t ß°, me who did so- Another, person had definite knowledge of the same sort. Ergo, my friend was safain "denouncing my amendment as springing out of distrust " ! Was not his reasoning, Sir, clear and conclusive ? Still. 1 would venture to suggest that there was a Haw io it somewhere. Nay, it is very doubtful indeed if any one of those Mr Jolly knew to have expressed distrust ever thought of moving such a motion as I did. .••*»•• . »

. Another point. Having acquitted me of the charge of distrust as above, Mr Jolly confeise* ithat he can only do so by being forced to lower his estimate, of my intelligence. This is very serious, Sir. It becomes very much more jgenouß, however, when my friend proceed*, atter* fashion, to prove something awfully like .dianrusb of the norch and " dishonesty in argument," undertaking to do this from the terra ; of my motion !To at once acquit and doubly condemn a man seems a.really brilliant feat." But I will try to explain as requested • . 1. Mr Jolly, first of all, says, "Mr Clarke knowtfwell enough that that amendment was not passed to enable the Northern Church to conserve their financial arrangements, but rather to enable Obago men to continue their arrangements m spite of a majority of the united CQurch, &c. I have no such knowledge; and, like Mr Jolly, I do not hold myself responsible^ tor erery argument or proposal of fellow officebearers. But I do know that my amendment was moved "and urged by me (and I trast was unanimously adopted by the synod) to enable both the Northern Church and Southern Church to conserve their financial arrangements until better arrangements,should be devised. That ■ was the motive of my amendment. It aimed at retaining actual benefits in both churches It was. deliberately intended to keep the way open for improvement all along the line, and to make retrogressive movement as difficult a« possible all along the line. The proposal, tneretore, should commend itself to all, except those, perhaps, who are willing to retrograde. «. a- Cai my "mere confusion of thought" of f dishonesty in argument" makes my friend heartily sorry." What. • after all, is my offence ?. This : I used the phrase " sustentation fund" in my amendment although I knew that tbe Northern Church had no sustentation fund." I plead guilty to tbe whole charge. I told the synod fonr honrg betore I moved the motion now discussed thafc the Northern Church had no etwtentation fund such as we have in the south. Mr Jbllv ditt not support me then! I challenged" &o deputies from the Northern Cbnrch to deny, if they could, what I said, and they sat mute. I knew, therefore, that there was no sr.gtentetion fund in the north. "How, then," Mr JoUt triumphantly asks, "can his Knondment" (which is worded as if a sastentation fund existed in the north) "apply to tha Northern Church ? It does so in the same way as the word " sustentation," embodied in. article 7 long before my motion was frarssd, Spplies to the north., My language, that ie, was the language of accommodation.- Tbe' authors of the article, from both north and south, it legitimate, notwithstanding what Mr Jolly and I say, to introduce the term " sustentation" in framing the article. ''.Vhst wsb I that I should appear needlessly contemptuous in using a less palatable phrase ? Had X dons so my friend might then have had some thoir of cause to impute an unworthy motive. This is my explanation : If Mr Jollr is (till dissatisfied with my way of thinking, I can osiy say. tbat when he moves to strike out the word " nustentation " from the previous park ot tha article in question, his newly discovered concern in re the verbal correctness of my amandrw-rifc, and presumably of the basis as a whele, >iil ha more impressive than it is at present. Mr Jolly asks what I mean by "no (fonterai existed in letter or in spirit " ? He dau^bte \l "in letter" can mean anything. Surely the words do— e.g., if I suspect the motive cf ». ma'-., my suspicion is " a thing of the spirit." "vtfcsn I clearly and publicly express my suspiri'Mi, the expression is a thing of the letter. Suspicion and the expression of suspicion ; .diitrort and the expression of distrust have been oaeljy enough distinguished wherever I have bew). I meant that no expression in my an-.er!drae::t justified the charge of distrust of the north as compared with the south.—l am, &c Hampden, February 18. James Clarke. [This correspondence is now closed,—EV