THE NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE RE MR WOOLLEY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12420, 1 August 1902, Page 3

THE NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE RE MR WOOLLEY.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—A copy of a New Zealand paper forwarded to me contains a resolution passed by the New Zealand Alliance for the prohibition of tho liquor traffic, in regard to statements made by me in a letter to your paper respecting the hostile position taken by Mr Woolley's paper, tho New Voice, to Great Britain during tho Boer war. It is charged that I have been guilty of "gross garbling and misrepresentation," and that the charges of anti-British sentiment and hostility to the British Empire which are brought against Mr Woolley are not ojily without foundation, but "positively tho reverse of fact." The resolution also staler, that the copies of the New Voice to which I referred have been carefully examined, and the charges made against me are based on this examination.

Now let us settle this' matter of veracity. I named some seven or eight issues of the New Voice in which I alleged the evidence was to be found of Mr Woojley's antiBritish attitude. Let the representatives ot the Alliance which claim to possess these papers produce them to you, and I will risk my reputation on your verdict as to whether I have in the slightest degree misrepresented Mr Woolley or not. As a matter of fact, I could have given the dates of several dozen of the issues of Mr Woolley's paper, containing very strong anti-British articles full of misrepresentations of Great Britain, written in Mr Woolley's o ( wn style, and I believe some of them at least were written by.Mr Woolley himself. However, lest the Alliance representatives may not produce the papers referred to, and in case my statements may still be doubted, I propose to prove by indisputable evidence not only that antiBritish articles appeared in the New Voice, but also that Mr Woolley acknowle'dged tho paternity of them. The witness that. I propose to prove my case by is Mr Woolloy himself. In my previous letter to you I alluded to Mr Woolley's visit to Toronto, when, in a letter to the newspapers, I took him to task for his misrepresentations and vilifications of Great Britain. This letter, which contained an arraignment of Mr Woolley's conduct, ho published in full in tho next issue of his paper, believing no doubt it would tend to popularise him with the anti-British and pro-Boer clement in the United States. In addition to this letter ,he published what purported to he an account of what transpired at the meeting, an account which was so grossly untrue that it, coupled with his conduct at the meeting, brought dawn on him the unanimous condemnation of the newspapers of Canada, and although he has been lecturing up and down the States bordering on this country for several mouths past ho has not ventured into Canadian territory, and in this he shows his wisdom. At the meeting in Toronto in question Mr Woolley admitted that the articles referred to in the New Voice appeared there, but endeavoured to disclaim responsibility for them, stating that there were several editors on the paper, and hs should not be held accountable for' all that appeared in it. His published account on his return home of what transpired stamped Mr Woolley as a most unreliable man. I am sorry to have to say so, but that is the fact. Here is what, in his report to his own paper, he alleged he said as a preface to his remarks: "I am inclined to introduce my own part in this meeting with a personal word. I do this in view of certain information that has come to me since I reached the city that there would be those present this afternoon who intend to disturb the meeting because op soke antiBniTISH SENTIMENTS OK MINE."

Now what lias the' New Zealand Alliance, which was so ready to defend Mr Woolley from the charge of expressing or .possessing anti-British sentiments, to say to that admission? That there can ho no charge of " garbling and misrepresentation," I enclose the copy of tho New Voice containing the roport. I also enclose a copy of an editorial from that paper of January 25, 1900, with the heading " American Sympathy with tho Boers," in which, after discoursing in Mr Woolley's usual method about the "appreciation of tho unity of the Anglo-Saxon race." an endorsement is given to a violent condemnation of the " English," of a charge invented for; the purpose, a eulogy of the Boers, and of an apneal for sympathy, encouragement, and help for the latter. I also enclose a copy of an article which appeared in the New Voice on February 28, 1901, which commences as follows:— " During the war in South Africa the friends of Great Britain in the United States, and occasionally some British subjects in the colonies, although never any of our many readers m Great Britain itself,- have criticised this paper for its expression of opinion or statement of fact with regard to the Boer war." This admission with Mr >\ oolley's name on the paper as " editor-in-chief" proves that he was quite well aware how the conduct of his paper was viewed. Not only did Mr Woolley by moans of his paper disseminate unfair and untruthful statements calculated to injure Great Britam during the war, but he positively refused space to correspondents who requested permission to correct them. I enclose you a copy of a letter I sent the New Voioe which was refused publication. I had previously sent the paper a letter of consider' able length which dealt seriatim with a i? n -r. ,r. of cl,i »'g 6s brought against the British Government by a Rev. Mr Hooker, who published a book on the subject whjch was favourably reviewed by the New Voice and advertised for sale at the New Voice ofuce. The letter which I sent was a most courteous, one, the only reference it made to Mr Woolley personally being that he Hail on his visits to Toronto been most cordially welcomed, and that the attitude nl Ins paper was a surprise to his former friends here When the letter was refused publication I sent a letter in similar terms to the Toronto Mail and Empire, and forwarded a copy of the paper addressed to Mr Uooley personally. On these facts Mr V> oollcy founded bis charge which you will Unci in the copy of his pauer which I send you, containing the report of the Toronto meeting-™., *}** I had sent him a threatening letter. The charge did not contain an iota of truth. To those who have not crossed the gram of Mr Woolley he appears as a very smooth-tongued individual, and they find it difficult to credit him with such conduct. It was because I was informed he intended to attack me that I went to his meeting when ho accused me of being .a gin-mill inspector." Some time previously because the -Rev. Francis E. Clark, he father o the Christian Endeavour movement, did not deem it advisable, at the general convention of that body for X ' Ame , r ' c ? l -. t0 have the convention adopt » proJnbihon plank in its set of principles, Mr Woolley hotly assailed the con\ent.on methods, and, if the nublished reports were true, followed up the attack by Mm the Key. "Father" Clark to "a leek wharf rat." The reason assigned for ■is conduct then was that he was aspiring f° be a prohibition candidate for the Presidency of the United States and wished lo nving the Christian Endeavour movement behind him with its support. As an evidence of how Mr Woolley's conduct was viewed here, I may point to the fact that in the Ontario Division of the Sons of Temperance a resolution was unanimously passed condemning Jus action, the mover being the immediate Past Most Worthy Patriarch of the International Division of North America-Mr Thomas Caswell, who is the city solicitor for Toronto. I notice that some correspondents of New Zealand newspapers have arrived at the conclusion that I am. a renegade to temperance pr.nciplos because I have raised this question as to Mr Woolley's fitness to advocate prohibition before audiences of the 1-ritish people. First, let me say on this point that for over 30 years I have been an active member of the Order m the Smis of Temperance, the oldest and most influential temperance organisation in Canada. This is shown in the fact that two successive l'mance Ministers of the Dominion Government wore among its prominent officer* and also that at the present time the Premier of this province is a Past Most Worthy Patriarch of the Order, and that another member of his Cabinet, is also an active member. I will send you with this a copy of the printed proceedings of the last meetin? of the Ontario Grand Division, and you will there see that I have filled some of the highest offices, and am at the present time one of tho trustees of its properties acid chairman of that board. You will also find that I am now one of its four representatives to the council of the Dominion Aliiance for the suppression of the liquor traffic. I may say further that I am now and for 25 years have been a representative to the National Division. The reason I opposed having Mr Woolley loclure Canadian audiences on the temperance question was " that malicious men who think it no impropriety to wantonly slander a nation and its army as a whole are not fit persons to either teach or preach morality to a portion of the people they have assailed." I presumed in wrilintf yon that this view, so generally accepted here, would also apply to New Zealand. At the time when this question arose we in Canada, believing in the justice of the cause of the 'Motherland, were sending our best and bravest men to her support, and many of us

had friends and relatives near and deav to us on the battlefields of Africa, and not a few had given up their lives io maintain Britain's position. Whilo these sacrifices were being made, acting upon the' incitements of the New Voice and like newspapers', a corps of men had been enlisted in Chicago (where the New Voice is published), and under the guise of the Red Cross, as ambulance ir.m, were sent to Africa to enlist in the Boer army and assist in fighting Britain and her sons, New Zealanders as well as Canadians. I do not think, in view of the facts, Mr Woollcy is deserving of encouragement, and particularly as he is a professional philanthropist requiring payment for his services, Sundays as well as week days.

My position as provincial inspector not only is not at variance with temperance work, but is strongly in accord with it. The Province of Ontario, over which my jurisdiction extends, contains over. 2,000,000 people. It has 93 legislative districts, in each of which there is a local insnector, 'within these are 756 organised municipalities. There are 13' cities with from 10,000 to 225,000 of a population. In the larger cities there arc two, and, in tho case of Toronto, three local inspectors. It is my duty to see that these inspectors throughout the province enforce tho liconso law, which, I may say, is very stringent in its provisions. I may add that I succeeded in the position a gentleman who was one of the foremast advocates of prohibitory legislation in tho province, the Rev. J. W'. Ivi'anning, who was up to the time of his appointment a Baptist clergyman. The provincial inspector lias not a personal contact with licenseholders, but controls them through the local inspectors. You will therefore bo able to judge how applicable was the term of " ginmill inspector" which Mr.Woollcy applied to me, and which a correspondent of enc of the Now Zealand papers thinks may have been correct. I hope this explanation may satisfy him and possibly some other doubters. Hoping I have not trespassed too much

I am, etc., ' ■ '■ J. K. Stewakt. Toronto, Ontario;-June 19.

on your patience,-

THIS SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. ' The following testimonial to the value of TUSSICUKA. as a throat and lung cure lias been received from Mr James Wilson,,Waitahuna, of the Railway Department:—"To Mr S. J. Evans, Dunedin. Dear Sir,—For the past five months I have been suffering from a. most severe cough, giving great distress, and have tried many medicines advised by my friends, without the slightest good resulting. About a week ngo my wito purchased a bottle of TUSSICURA at the local store, and I am pleased to state that since taking it my cough lias entirely disappeared, and I can thoroughly recommend it to my fellow-sufferers. You mav moke what use you like of this testimonial, as I give it voluntarily and with pleasure. As I am well known in this district, I shall be glad to adviso any of my friends to take it." Mr Wilson's experiences of this wonderful remedy are similar to those of every person who lias tried it. "Obtaihab'lo from all chemists and storekeepers. '