The Referendum in South Australia.

Otago Witness, Issue 2211, 16 July 1896, Page 13

The Referendum in South Australia.

TO THE KDITOK. Sir,— There seem* to be an impression abroad tbaii the people in South Australia who desire to have Scripture reading i<i the public sohools there suffered a savere'dofeat- in May last. A perural of the file of the Adelaide Observer does not, however, confirm that impression. Whan the electors went to tbe poll they had two papers g'ven thsm. Odd containing the names of the candidates for Parliament in their district, and one headed *• Educational Referendum," as per copy at foot of this letter. Bath had to bo dealt with and put inco the- ballot box. The voting in connection with the referendum was as follow* :—

Papers "Yes" "No" Returned Voters. Voters. Unmarked. Question 1... 51,824 17,855— 21,174 i. 2... 19,299 34.P51 36,603 ii 3... 13,428 42.0U2 36,423 There was then a large majority in favour | of. the continuance of tbo present system of education, which is secular, compulsory, and free. Now a voter might very well vote for the continuance of the sjsiem— -that i«, in its mtin features— but nevertheless be in favour of adding to that system nme religious reading or instruction. The moat direct question appears to be No. 2, and you will notioe that th« larger number of • electors did uot vote at aIJ,. which probably : means that they are nob opposed to Soriptural . instruction, or they would htya voted " No," but they did not know of a satisfactory plan of givifig instruction. ! Tnis view is, I think, confirmed by the answer to the third qugstion. It is true , only 13,428.. voted for denominational- echoolsj which are very unpopular in the colonies, but no less than • 35,423 refrained from voting— that is, did not' care to vote " No." I may bs wrong, of course, but it seems to me that this referendum vote showa that the people of South Australia are in favour oE Scriptural instruction or reading, but that they are like the people in New Zealand— they don'fe kaow how the thing can be managed. Probably they prefer a reading book to the whole Bib!e, and yet are not wholly in favour of the Irish book. ludeed, the Observer of May 2 says in an editorial: " The response of the ballot box h?s not bsen in any sense against Scripture instruction for children, but it ha* been uncompromisingly against any insidious form of State interference in matter! of religion," I hear there is a Canadian boob, but I have not seen it. What would you think, Sir, of » national syllabus of extracts for eaoh school day, to ba read from the Bible ?— I am, &c, jj n ly ii, Eefebesdum. (Copy of voting paper used in South Australia.) Educational Referendum. bau.ot paper. I.— Are you in favour of the con- yes :'"*"?' tinuance of the present aye- : : i tern of education in State : : t Schools? No, j : '. 2.— Are you in favour of the Intro* Y es \"'"'\ ! duction of Scriptural in- :...«.: r struction in State Schools : : i during school hours ? m No. ■ || 3.— Are you in favour of the pay- Fea :""": ' ment of capitation grant to ' : : . Denominational Sohools for : : secular results? No. j : N.B.— lf in favour of one (or more) of the above questions, make a cross within the square on such question opposite the word Yes, If not, \o*& opposite the word l * No."