Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18340, 2 September 1921, Page 6

Katana, according to a statement made by his private secretary, is now receiving an average of about 250 to 300 letters a day. Since the middle of January last to the middle of the present month some 51,000 letters have been received from all parts of the world, including the United States of America, Honolulu, Cuba, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, India, Ceylon, Samoa, Tonga, and Australia. Even a cable has been received from Australia. Every letter sent out by Katana is blessed. When questioned by a Nelson Evening Mail reporter last week, Mr Make, the private secretary, stated that he went through all the correspondence, and during the last six months he had constantly been engaged until 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning, trying to overtake the work. He receives no salary, and gives his services simply for the sake of carrying on the work. After Katana returned home from his North Island tour there was a little budget of 45,000 letters awaiting him. Katana has received 20,000 letters from people who benefited ns a result of consulting him, while many others had received benefit but had not written personally, although their friends had mentioned the faqfc to Katana.

THE IRISH PROBLEM. TO THE EDITOB. gi Ej _Your correspondent “Parmer,” in your issue of to-day, expresses his surprise that we, a British community, should tolerate what he terms “the -vitriolic abuse of the British Prime Minister” by the New Zealand Tablet. . ■ Is it possible that “Farmer’ is unaware that the Tablet -is but repeating denunciations of the British Piime Minister that have been made by well-known leaders of public opinion in England, as well as by weuknown and reputale writers in the public journals and magazines, and in addition by men of all ranks and conditions in Britain '/ When your correspondent defines hostility to

the policy arid actions of the Lloyd George Government in Ireland as “repudiation of British nationality” he writes sheer unmitigated nonsense. General Sir Hugh Gough and General Crozier deliberately oppose that policy, and a host of English public men and dignitaries of the Anglican and

Presbyterian Churches have denounced it root and branch. “Farmer” simply loses himself and his subject when, in the heat of partisanship, he denounces the opponents of the Government’s policy in Ireland as "anti-British.” Must we, then, as residents in this British dominion, support the policy of the existing British Government in Roland? If p°> should trouble arise with Canada, or with Australia, must we, if Britain decides to ml© either by the sword in opposition to right and justice,’ and her own solemn declarations and public pledges—must we, I ask, support her in such o policy, or bo declared anti-British? To-day the Lloyd George Coalition reigns in Britain, opposed by the Liberal and Labour parties. To-day wo slavishly support the Coalition in their Irish policy, and denounce as “anti-British” all who oppose that policy. To-morrow the Coalition ejected from office, Labour takes the reins, and offers Ireland the fullest powers of nationhood and self-government, with a treaty of close alliance as a sister nation. Where would wo then stand as a dominion ? According to the queer national definition of “Farmer” the opponents of the

Lloyd George* policy in Irealnd are now become true British patriots, because supporters of the new British policy in lielandl; whilst lie and all who support the Lloyd George faction are relegated to the ranks of the “anti-British.” Comment is needless. Such ore the contradictions in which those who would stifle free speech and free criticism involve themselves. The Irish problem is the substitution of justice and freedom for injustice and’ the rule of the sword in our dealings with the Irish nation. That substitution is not yet in sight. But the day of the little nations is dawning. May stb sun soon rise in Ireland! —I am, etc., W. D. Mason. Middlemarch, August 30. Sib, —I am not a reader of the Tablet, and was therefore astounded to learn from “Farmer” that such treacherous misrepresentation is allowed to appear in any paper published in this loyal country, the more so sine© we would expect the editor, as an avowed follower of Jesus Christ, to be an example of that humility, truth, and charity which marked the life and conduct of the “Redeemer of the World.” If this is the mental pabulum upon which the Irish people are fed, and if the rev. editor is a type of their mentors, then in all sincerity I say: “God help Ireland.” —I am, etc., By Their Works Ye Shall 'Know Them. Oamaru, August 31. \

Sxv, —In a footnote to my letter in this morning’s Daily. Times you say you thought the “black-and-tans” were “turned loose” after tho war. You are quite correct in your statement, hut what bearing had it on my charge that in answer to Mr Lloyd George's direct appeal thousands of Irishmen enlisted, fought, andl died for the Empire’s salvation, and self-determination for Ireland. When they died they left their homes open, their women folk without defence, after, as well as during, the war. Your second contention is “that there is no single authentic case of the commission of a sexual outrage by a member of the British army . . n in Ireland.” In the first place, I never mentioned “British army.” I wrote “black-and-tans.”, Secondly, I have read the sworn deposition of the expectant mother deliberately outraged in hr own home despite her despairing plea for mercy on the ground that “she expected her child to be born within two months.” I have read numerous other sworn statements of almost equal horror, and I stand amazed. Sir, that you could swallow all the amazing tales of German outrage in Belgium, but the outrages of undisciplined mercenaries in Ireland leave you incredulous.—l am, etc., W. D. Mason. Middlemarch, August 31. [We have received a letter also from Mr

J. Robinson, who, as a member of the Publicity Committee of the Irish Self-Determina-tion League, has rushed to the assistance of Mr Mason in his allegation against the Crown forces—“the undisciplined mercenaries”—in Ireland. A great many charges have been levelled against the forces and, where these have been substantiated, the offenders have been punished. But there has, been no proved charge of sexual outrage against a member of the forces.—Ed, O.D.T.]

Sib, —In Mr W. D. Mason’s letter. in your issue of to-day you are accused of forgetting that Mr Lloyd George “begged Irishmen to fight and die, if necessary, for self-determina-tion tor Ireland as well as other little nations, and .incidentally to save the Empire then in sore straits.” Well, it may confidently be said that had the rest of the Empire played the pitiable part Ireland did in keeping faith with the little nation Belgium, Mr Mason would npt this • day be receiving top price for bis butter—a matter, judging from his letters, which causes him considerable concern. I have no figures by me dealing with the position later than the end of 1917. Later figures would,-- however, but accentuate the feeble showing made by this downtrodden country in the great war, and a study of those I now furnish should for ever stifle any boasting as to Irishmen fighting and dying, if necessary, on British battlefields. At the period referred to th?re were 761,000 men of military age in Ireland, and out of this total she contributed 133,000, or 17.4 per cent., and, allowing for the unfit and those necessary for agriculture, at a period when the Empire was in sore straits, and Mr Lloyd George and other stalwarts were calling back to the colours men in England, Scotland, and Wales who had done their part and had been discharged on medical grounds, to its everlasting disgrace Ireland had 900,000 men available for military service comfortably ensconced in surroundings infinitely preferable to the trenches. At that same period, as against 17.4 per cent. for. Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales eantriuted 70.7 per cent, of men of military age to tho fighting forces of the Empire. And yet this is not all. Worse still remains. The following figures are at once interesting and deeply significant. Tho recruits from each province are: Ulster, 66,674; Munster, 21,079; Leinster, 15,636; Connaught, 5440; Dublin Metropolitan Police Area, 21,412. Thus the portion of Ireland prettily described by Mr Mason as en “abortion” provided 51.2 per cent, of the total Irish contribution. Mr Mason claims that Deil Eireann speaks for 80 to 90 per cent, of the people of Ireland. He must have copied this out of some book. It is not true. That comic-opera executive certainly does not speak for Ulster, which after all is a part of Ireland, and the part it does claim to represent cannot produce an Irish leader. It has to content itself, as tlie late Mr Chamberlain would have said, with a gentleman possessing a foreign name, De Valera. Again, what part of Ireland did the Irish parliamentary party represent in 1917? Surely a fair percentage. This leaven has certainly not diminished, despite Mr Mason’s fanciful 80 to 90 per cent, to the contrary. Let us hear from themselves an utterance furnished by the party to Tho Times. The pronouncement reads: “ Twothirds of the entire land of the country has passed into the hands of the people. Tens of thousands of cottages have been built all over Ireland, in which, at a moderate rent, and with a portion of land, the Irish labourers have been transformed from the worst-housed, worst-clothed, ond worst-fed class in Europe, into the best-housed, the most comfortable, and the most, independent body of labourers in the world. There has grown up in some of tho most povertystricken districts in tho north-we§t, west, and south of Ireland, a new Ireland of happy and prosperous homes. In so far as the local government of Ireland is concerned, it has been wrenched from the landlords, and is now in entire possession of tho people, with chairman and 'members freely chosen by tho people themselves. The tenants in the towns have achieved a charter far in excess of anything ever extended to any city or town of England. Old-age pensions, have brought comfort and hope to tens of thousands of old men and women.” This desirable result was brought about under tho union and under the direct guidance of what Mr Mason is pleased to term “Imperialistic jingoism.” Finally, Mr Mason is quite in error in saying that the Irish who fought and died in the war left their homes and the inmates undefended against the minions of Mr Lloyd George and Sir Hamar Greenwood. The homes and inmates had 300,000 men who preferred tho security afforded by the petticoats of the mothers, sisters, and daughters of Ireland to the risk of the trenches, andl who could well have afforded any necessary protection. — 1 am, etc., Cromwell.