LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15098, 22 March 1911, Page 5

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

Sir,—Mr J. B. Gallon, jun., has seen fit to withdraw from tho batta into wliioh he entered in response to what he was pleased to call niy challenge. That is, of course, entirely his own affair, and I am quite content to rest on my laurels. I feel sure it will take a good deal of special pleading to convince your readers that there whs- anything in mv last letter to justify him in assuming that I was lying in wait, wrapped in tho mantle of anonymity and eager for his gore. As a matter of fact I endeavoured, with what success I leave your readers to judge, to deal with the matter from a purely logical and' entirely dispassionate (»int of view, and it sec-riis as if I had succeeded, inasmuch as "Catholic" dubs jno no Protbstant—one of the highest compliments a man trying to bs impartial could have paid, to him by so biassed an opponent, and ono who believes that the end justifies the means. I confess I am unable to understand bow my anonymity makes any more difference now than previously, but I may add that had Mr C'allan asked mo courteously to attach my name I would certainly havo done so, for I am neither ashamed nor afraid to foot my sentiments with my signature at any time, and, indeed, I .gave him a very gcod hint to that effect in my last. As ho lias, how.ovoT, decided "to live to fight another day," that, of oour.se, ends it. and I adniini his wisdom.

Tour correspondent "Catholic" hardly merits notice. His letter resolves itself into three things: (1) A disquisition regarding the merits of Ignatius Loyola, which is not pertinent to the matter, though highly interesting to readers of C'arlyle; (2) a ludicrous attempt to disprove "my contention that the .Catholics are asking a secular State, wJicsc inhabitants arc rcostly Protestants, to provide a religious system of education for the minority (the Catholics) and retain a secular system for the rest; (5) another disquisition, in which my credentials are demanded and my orthodoxy questioned. The first, I have said, is not pertinent, _ but the last is certainly impertinent, inasmuch as I am not called upon to make '"Catholic" or any other human being my father confessor; whilst the secoikl is too childish to discuss.

My. credontiuJs are contained in my letter, and consist first in my right of free speech as a citizen of a free.land; second, in your courtesy, as the editor of a froo paper, in granting me space; ;uid third, in some little knowledge of the subject I discussed. Tho impertinence of such a demand as " Catholic" makes, especially from one whose letters betray so little knowledge of his subject, is only redeemed by tho humour of it.

And next comes that guileless correspondent "Child Pilot." The childishness I do not dispute. It stands out in, his amusing attempt to prove that New Zealand is not a secular State by quoting grants made to certain churches in return lor colonisation services rendered before New Zealand had representative government at all. Why did ho not quote the free passes given to Catholic children over our railways and past secular schools? It would have been more to the point. I find, Sir, that there is one effectual way to corner an advocate of religion in schools, be ho Protestant or Catholic. Get him down to bedrock principles, and ask him this: " Why should a State whose constitution and functions are secular levy from all its inhabitants, irrespective of creed, taxation for purely secular purposes und then devote a portion of that tax to the propagation of the religious belief of a section only of such taxpayers?" If it could bo justiiied at all, which it cannot, it would only be for a majority, l'ace 10 face with that question they all baulk. Some dodge it, some run away from it, others argue round it or ignore it. That is what all wreckers do. The Protesting wrecker takes his stand on "might is right," and argues that the majority should rule—a 'doctrine his forefathers defied even to the shedding of their blcodv The Catholic wrecker is in tho minority; hence ho must avoid that plea, and so he cries out that lie has conscientious scruples, and that because that is so the State must put its hands in the common secular purse and fork out a religious gnmt; and we who stand on the grand, common ground that neither .side object to and refuse to allow tho State to bo embroiled in religious contentions have no time for either. If taking that position is a proof of bad Protestantism I cry " Peccavi!" but I remain, I am afraid, unrepentant, unashamed, and not afraid to say that.—l am, etc., Protestant.

THE LAND HUNGER,

Sill,—When, reading in tho Otago Daily Times of the beautiful grassy glades and splendid timber seen by tourists at tho head of Lake Wakatipu, the thought naturally crops up that that land is practically idle. The accounts of tho different, ballots in other places prove that there is a pressing demand for land. If there in so much good land—and land that grows good timber, will generally grow potatoes, wheat, etc., why not put peoplo on the land at Me head o'f Lake Wakitipu wid the country towards Luke Te Ahau. This liMid is probably unalienafrd, and might" bo disposed of to those seeking to settlo as tillers of the ground at a reasonable price. The climate in Ibis part is said to be excellent; there is, or could bo, water carriage to a railway for produce; and the tourists would be 6iw> of comfortable farm houses instead of damp tents to stop at. Thojnagnificont views that visitors enthuse over would lose nothing of tlibir beauty; the funds of thn Dominion would benefit; and an asset; that is available right away would help still further to swell the Prime , Minister's surpluses.— I am, etc., WoitßA. Mav 16.

THE PRICE OF BREAD.

Sin,—" Observer of Labour Tactics" claims the right to criticise us through your columns. Wo would like- to know on what, grounds. We are not a public institution. He sot out in his first letter with an appeal. Now he hae shiftod to his rights. So far us our little business goes, however, we have iro objection to give, him any information ho desires, thcujgh we cannot rccognjso any rights in tho matter.

Wo never attacked the. Master Bakers' Association either singly or collectively, We were- two bakers out of work. To nmko a living wo decided to start in business for ourselves. Wo di<l so. Immediately a gentleman wailed on us ami informed us what price we wore to charge for our bread, otherwise wo might expect lo get wiped out. Wo understood tho gentleman was tho secretary of tho Master Bakers' Association. Though it wns our bread, and we made it, wo oould not sell it. for what we thought a fair prioa! Still we did and continued to do so for many months! As for tho lwnd, tho lees there is said about that the better for the Master linkers' Association. Wo don't mind in the least if it is blowir out to-morrow — We ore, etc., 'r, j if i. «"""*' *** Nb "'S"- v -

THE ROSLYN BATHS PROPOSAL. Siß| —To tho casual observer your local and Mr A. Burnett's letter in reply to mine of Wednesday would show that 1 had ceen effectually disposed of in one hit, but 1 return to the tray a wiser man. I may toll both the Mayor of Hoalyn and Mr Bainett that to tell the depth ot water takes more tliam a. glance. T-ne very particulars they give disclose the poeition, and a few fasts that I can now show—thanks to their putting mo on the rig-ht track—will show chat tilings are even worse than they seem. 1 overlook Mr Barnett's reference to my personality, and will be quite satisfied for your readers to plaoo my previous letter beside his and judge of thoir saneness -with particular refereneo to his £800 and £6000. We have discovered a genius who can save £5200 and get a £6000 article! One thing I do claim is that what I said respecting the nature of the proposed bath was perfectly true. A contract was let and partly carried out; and, again, if it was intended to concrete tho bath at first, the methods employed were anything but correct. The difference in figures between the Mayor of Rosl.yn and Mr Barnett would suggest that Roslyn must havo a number of enthusiastic and generous individuals whom we could very well do with in the city, and of whom I am sure the Public Bat.hs Committee would mako life members of.

Unfortunately Mr Anscombe and Mr Waldcn are out of town, and I was unable to obtain the information I wanted, but I will go this far and say that I doubt if there are any plans in existence for those baths; and, ii not, why is the work proceeding?

Now wo come to' the facts. ■Wo are told that this hath is to cost £500, a-nd will bo constructed- on most, up-to-dato lines. What on earth was the city going to do with its proposed expenditure of £8000? I have again been to the site, and have measured the size marked out that, it is proposed to excavate, and have also' mado sure my measurements were correct, and find that it will ho 115 ft long by 15ft wide. Supposing the kith will be the' usual depth, or, for anigmonts sake, 3ft deep at one end and 6ft at the other, that would mean, an average depth of 4ft 6in. If we now reckon the usual cost of materials, etc., tho cast will work out:—Excavating 1280 yards of spoil at 2s a yar, £128: - 300 yards of concrete at 35s a. yard, £525; 915 yards of compo. finish at 2s a yard, £91 10s. This totals £744 10s. Add to this for buildings and fencing the modest sum of £150;, add 5 per cent, for contingencies and lO per cent, for contractors' profits, and we have reached the su.m of £1008 12s 6d. Now, the above figures aro not my own, but those of a gentleman whoso experience in tho building trado justifies me in trusting in him. Why not bo honest and own that the baths will cost moro than Mr Barnett says (and a bath of that size to be up-to\date will cost double); and aJeo sny that the bath was to bo what I raid, but that it had been found unworkable, and that those responsible had changed their minds? I do not wish to put a damper on tho effort to obtain a bath in llcslyn, but I do not want tho Dunodin public to say a bath could bo built for eucli a modest sum when experts know it would take every penny of the money asked to build a bath complete in every' detail, and a bath for the city will fce a very difforont affair to t>he Roslyn scheme. If .Roslyn builds a bath on tho latest principles I will to amdnij Mip first to congratulate' the borough, and it. will bo the stepping stone for tJia city to follow, but let Roslyn build a bath that will not bear criticism, and it will s;x)il Dunodin's chance for many years. To drag the recent fatality at St. Clair into this controversy is cruel to the poor .mother who has lost her son, but at iho same time who will be the next victim? For the ono fatality how ninny persons havo been brought out of danger by people who have learned to swim in other towns whore the facilities for learning to swim have not been bo- , grudged them'? I hope my letter will not do harm to' the Roslyn baths proposal, for I wish t.h? borough success in obtaining tho best possible.—l am, etc.,- N.

THE CANADIAN THISTLE. Sμ,—lt seems unfair that, while some farmsrs look after this noxious weed and never allow it to seed, others ignore Wioir responsibility, and leavo it for the winds to carry the seed- far and wide and pollato ths district. It is not necessary to travel over the hills from Clinton past. Watnina to discover this.state of things, as patches can be seen from the Main road — I am, etc, Faib Plat'.

" PROHIBITION-A BLUNDER." Sib,—Really the. secretary of tho nolrccnso party is neither a logician nor a thinker he is a sophist and at times descends to the verge of blasphemy." For instance, as to whether our.Saviour did or did not drink intoxicating liquor our sapient secretary quotes scripture, and wlien beaten he jauntily says wo Med not in »ny caso •he "bound by the Saviour's example." And lie mixes up principles which are essentially different. He practically argues that St. Paul meant to force us to become total abstainers for our weaker brother's sake! Of course, St. Paul never advocated anything; of the kind. He taught us to set'a voluntary, individual example, of total abstinence. And only a perverted judgment would say that tho words " Lead us not into temptation" meant the annihilation of temptation. The prayer recognised that we arc endowed with 'freedom of will and individual responsibility. It means that temptation cannot bo forced unnaturally out of existence. It also means that we arc to sot each other a personal example of how to resist and overcome temptation. But I repeat it does not for a moment support the prohibitionists' doctrine of annihilation. In fact, Satan's occupation will be gone when wo individually practice the gospel of self-control and are "temperate in all things." But to relieve us, as prohibition does, from individual self-effort is to emasculate the race..

In my letter last Saturday I showed how we should treat the habitual drunkard and that the State should tab over the liquor business and improvo the quality and the whole environment, and gradually eliminate _ tho intoxicating ingredients o"f liquor without altering the taste much. This, I believe, has been already done by repeated scientific experiments somewhere in Germany. Here, surely, is common ground for action. ■

. Then, by a curious piece of logic which invariably captivates the unthinking, the secretary of iho No-lioonsb party says that because the " better part of one's self savs to the worsor part 'I will prohibit you from indulging m alcohol for the good" of the whole man,' then the better part of a nation may similarly say to the more selfindulgent part ' For the good of the whole nation wo will prohibit alcohol!' " But the eases am not parallel. Undoubtedly each man for himself has a right to subject his lower to his higher self. That is the Gospel plan but that right ceases when he tries willy-nilly to force his neighbour to do the fame. Our logical secretary has yet to learn that a man is king in us own but not in another man's castle and that we hnvo no right to interfere with him unless he abuses his freedom. Them the drunkard who reforms, afraid of backsliding, invariably becomes a red hot prohibitionist. Instead of waitin" until others copy his excellent ?xnmp! ft o °f self-restraint, hf impatiently wants to handcuff tho whole population—a tyrannical act opposed to tho evolution of morals and to tho first principles o.f civil, political, and religious freedom. Prohibition, too, is in a parlous state when it suggests that the liquor of ancient times- was not. intoxicating. The president of tho W.C.T.U. gives excellent reasons why those who abuse the uso of liquor, should bo restrained and put into a reformatory. I still say the" church should separate herself from this bitter political question and dovote herself to the work of spiritual regeneration—in other words to too individual self reformation of the people, which is the only cure for all this ills that flesh is heir to, including drunkenness,—l am, etc.; Jus Divixuit

SURF-BATHING AT ST. CLAIR. Silt,—l am a stranger in your city, and am a firstolass swimmer, having won numorcus contests in different parts of tho world. I think, therefore, I am in a position a> offer a few remarks on tho pastime of bathing, particularly surf-bathing as practised hero. During my.short stay in your city I liavo indulged in a flip at St. Clair, and I consider tho beach not only clangorous, but treacherous in evenway. Should any one got into difficulties whilo bathing, tho lifp-snving line is not Only ridiculous, but practically useless. Moreover, some tho the youths Who engage in this popular pastime focm absolutely ignorant of the first rudiments of surfbathimr. At the same time (hoy ana of tho order of'beings who think tlioy know everything. If the- would only exorcise a iittlo thought and keen within their depths on this treacherous h«ich things would not be so bad; but .so—they cast all discretion to one sid?.—l am. etc.. March 20. SwnniKH.