ALLEGED WIRE-PULLING

Otago Witness, Issue 2848, 14 October 1908, Page 16

ALLEGED WIRE-PULLING

THE REV. R. R., M. SUTHERLAND'S . A.CCfrSATtON'. ' EIJSQUSSION IN~THE PRESBYTERY. A HEATED DEBATE. The first business taken at the meeting of the Dunedin Presbytery <tar the 6fch instant was the proof by the Rev. R. R. M. Sutherland of allegations made by him* of wire-pulling on the Jtert of a member or members of the Dunedin Presbytery, and J/bjs occupied the greater part of the morning, and occasioned considerable heat. The Modeu&ior (the Rev. J. Akken), having mentioned the business, The.Rev.. Mr Sutherland said he was very sorry that what he had eaid about wirepulling had disturbed the peace "of mind- of 3O many persons in Well ington. After Jiving had 30 years* experience of the ways and dcrtogs of Presbytery., he said that aH that was necessary to engineer a frxwineeß in Presbytery was to get one or two to take it up heartily. If he got only Mr Gameron •to be strongly in favour of what he wanted (h$ could safely trust the hypnotising influence of his logic and eloquence to carry a majority of the Presbytery in the same j direction. They all remembered what had •happened at last meeting. Xhe_ Presbytery, by a considerable majority, had declared against the Moderator riding that Mr Maolennan'e overture wa3 incompetent, and yet wkhin 20 minutes it wen* back on its own. .decision under the leadership of Mt. Cameron, altSiougih ite. doing co was an outrage against law and order. *-- The Rev. D. Dutton : What has tfife to ido with the matter in hand. You are simply insulting every man in tins Preeby- j tery. The Moderator: I think we shall get through much better if we let Mr Sutherland continue. The Rev. Mr Tenmant: I object to a certain tone in Mr , Sutherland's statement. He is simply representing that we are so many sheep led by a bell" wether. The Moderator : So do I, and co do many »f us. The Rev. Mr Fairmaid : It ia very evident that we had better have this private. We shall be the laughing stock of the public. I beg to move that this be taken an private. ■»■ The Rev. Mr Kiipatrick: I second that. I have no objection to the proof being published, but what is coming out now i should certainly be private. ( The Rev. Mr Hewiteon: A very serious ' charge h«s been made, and has Mr Suther- • Jand substantiated that oharge? The motion was lost. The- Rev. Mr" Sutherland, continuing, •aid the Presbytery had, by a very large nvajority, passed a vote of censure upon .* member during his absence and without givng him an opportunity of being heard in his defence. i The Rev. Mr Hewiteon: Mr Sutherland ' •fconding the motion I I Mr Sutherland-, continuing, said what ! ■fcappenod in tnh« Dunethu Presbytery hap- j

pened to some extent, in other presbyteries. jAH that was necessary was to get one' or Sturo* .pr i^m^h^.be.^bree* in ,ttie' ,P^«S;by- (- :tery to- take up a matter with any ljs»rfck. nse? and you made quite, sure the'thahg 1 would be done. That was his .experience., of ,thif , particular^ Presbytery of Dunedin. Ho based it. upon fact, covered by hie' own experience. • To come to what the Presbytery .asked him to prove, he took it that the Presbytery wanted him to prove that he had not made ifoese statements recklessly and without sufficient warrant, but did not want him to become an informer and prove this, that, and the other minister or elder had done the wire-pulling. The wirepulling, be had said, was behind the scenee— it was private, and the evidence of it was also. private. He was sure the Presbytery did not mean to ask him to betray confidences and become an informer. Several members of Presbytery knew ttie grounds he had for the statements he had made, and were prepared " to say that in their judgnient his sta.teme.nts were warranted. That, as he understood it, was what the Presbytery asked him to prove. If th« Presbytery Wanted to know who the puLlera and the pulled were, it must find them out in some other way. He respectfully declined to betray confidences or to become an informer, and, further, he denied the Presbytery's right to ask him to do any such thing. The Rev. A. M. Finlayson said he 6uvv the evidence, and he was satisfied that id supported the statement made. Whether it was prudent or wise to make the statement was another thing. The Rev. Mr Maclennan eaid Mr Sutherland had showed him part of a letter. He had not asked to see it. He believed Mr Sutherland had evidence. Mx Hewilson : It should be made clear. Is the evidence sufficient for the charge? Mr Maclennan Said he did not follow that the statement referred to the Duned.u Presbytery. He thought it referred to) other presbyteries. Mr Hewiteon : Was the evidence submitted sufficient warrant for that statement? Mr Maclennan: Sufficient warrant of the facts, but perhaps not for the whole statement. Mr Hewitson : It is difficult to get Mi| Maclennan to give an answer to the ques- ! tion. i The Rev. J. Chi&holm said he considered Mr Sutherland had been justified in taking the action he had. The Rev. A. Cameron: Why is it that part of this letter can be trusted to certain members of this Presbytery and not others? — (''Hear, hear.") Are these more competent to judge of the tetter than other members of Presbyfcry? More than that, I ask that Mr Sutherland be called upon to name the parties in this Presbytery. Mr Sutherland wanted those guilty of wirepulling to come out, and I demand the name of the party he is firing at. I have no doubt that he has named this individual in private, and I ineiet he should be namoi hero. -Mr Hewirson: It •« evident that he has been named privately, and has been struck from behind his back. The Rev. W. Scorgio: I move that Mr,

Sutherland hand the letter over to the Moderator. . . . ,' -;Mu'> Cameron^ No}" . that .he, name thg r, person' here. ■ • ..,.-.. „.-,,. ■ , Dr Nisbet said -He took "■exception to the . way these gentlemen had only Deem shownpart- oi the letter, -because it was, he: be* lieved, in answer toa'ietter written, to tha WelKn'gfton Presbytery. . He could not understand Mt Sutherland addressing them as be had done a few minutes before, and hiding ttehind the pitiful excuse that he •would not be an informer. Mr Scorgie: I move that Mar Sutherland, hand the letter over to the Moderator and name the person. Mr Cameron: He has named the person privately, and I more that he be asked for the name, or names, of the parties who were wire-pulling. Mr Kilpatrick : B? is putting Mr Sutherland in an awkward position to ask him to name a person when he is pledged not to do so. He eaid he received the information privately, and is not free to make it public. This Presbytery is asking hfm, with that knowledge, to disclose what, as a matter of honour, he cannot make public. I suggest that the Presbytery appoint a) committee to go into the matter and report. I think it would be a pjty to pass a resolution asking any member of Pxesby~tery to divulge what is a private "matter. I move that a committee consisting of Dr Nisbet, Mr Hewiteon, Mr Ohisholm, and! the mover be a committee to confer with Mr Sutherland and report. Mr Maclennan seconded the motion. Mr Dutton: Am I to believe that it is an honourable part to make use of this information and when it is challenged by persons to throw out a oheck in this way. I resent this personally and as a reflection) upon members of Presbytery, and I cannot understand Mr Sutherland's attitude. He should either not have received such information, or having' made such a serious allegation, should not have used the information to make it, unless he had permission to make use of the naime of tho writer. Mr Tennent: This kind of thing is exceedingly bad for the moral weight of the Presbytery among the community. A person said to me the Dunedin Presbytery just ( kept things in its own way, and that there was no ohanoe for a country minister. I said, " Who told you so?" and he replied, "There is a suspicion that everything 1 »%-• not just above board," and it is information of this sort that gives rise to this. Mr Cameron : If Mr Sutherland has no right in divulging the name to the Presbytery he has no right to divulge it to a committee, and no right to divulge it privately. Mir Kilpatrick's motion was then put against Mr Cameron's, and was carried by 18 votes to 15. Mr Hewitson : I want to know whether Mr Sutherland will name the person he is informed hag been wire-pulling. Mr Cameron : Has the party in this Preebytery involved a right to know that he is the party accused? Surely the party accused has a right to know, if a committee is going to investigate. I move that ac an instruction to the committee. Dr Nisbet: It would bo better to leave the matter to the committee. The com-

mittee will do justice to Mr Sutherland and the person charged with wire-pulling. Mr Sutherland: I adhere to what .1 said - a, little .while, ,age— -that decline to give further information,— <and I- question and deny ".the right of .the Presbytery to ask for further information. I Jhaye. established my, pom*., I made a certain statement — made it in* good faith,— and, I think, with ■ sufficient warrant. I have shown the members of Presbytery the warrant I had. Mr Kilpatrick : The whole matter has been referred to a committee. I rise to a point of order. ' Mr Sutherland: I maintain that I have proved my case, and I decline to give information to this Presbytery or any other Preebytery. I question the right of the Presbytery to ask me to do 6uch a thing, j Dr Nisbet: lam sure there is only one j opinion as to what has passed here this morning, and it is not to Mr Sutherland's credit. The Moderator: If Mr Sutherland declines to give further information I think it may be necessary to take further action. Mr Sutherland: I decline to give further information. j Dr Nisbet: Then I shall retire from the j committee. j Mir Hewiteon: What is the good of it? I Mr Sutherland: I move that we proceed ! with the next business. j Mr Soorgie: Then I put it that every member of the Presbytery stands branded as a wire-puller. ! Mr Cameron: I am not going to sit ' under this business. Mr Sutherland has made a charge, and he has declined to give I the name. lam going to ask Mr Sutherland am I the party. Mr Kilpatriok: I don't think there is the slightest occasion. The committee is going to act. • Dr Niebet : Mr Sutherland is not going I to give us any information, and if the committee does meet it will be to advise the Presbytery as to what further steps it should take. Mr Kilpatrick: If Mr Sutherland refuses to give the committee any further informa- , tion the committee will form its own conclusion as to how to act. | Mr Hewiteon: I decline to act, on tihe ground that Mr Sutherland has refused to give information. The committee, ox certain members of it, then met and were absent from the meeting some 20 minutes or half an hour. At the expiration of that time the committee returned to the hall, and Mr Kilpatrick said he had to report that Mr Sutherland, on being asked to give the name, had refused to do so. He had also refused to givejwy other information. It } had been reported by Dr Nisbet that he ! believed Mr Cameron was the member of j the Presbytery referred to, and it was agreed to confer with Mr Cameron. Mr Cameron had explained that in response to a letter he had written to Wellington, and the commit/tee was of opinion that Mr Cameron should be allowed to make a statement. He moved that Mr Cameron be now heard. Mr Cameron : I would ask Mr Sutherland podnt blank whether I am the party? The Moderator: He declines to speak. Mr Cameron: Mr Sutherland poses as & brave man and stands for truth, and. I hold.

that Mr Sutherland is convicted of oowardica of a most disgraceful kind. The Rev.- Mr Fairmaid: Are these statements going to. .the puljjio? > : -, . : , : ' ' Mr Cameron :" Certainly ; of course. Mr Fairm&.id:''Then I think it isa grea* pity, and T shall withdraw. ■ If that i* to be the -way of things I shall withdraw. Mr Gameron : - I cay that Mr- Suther- . land's actions are those of a coward. Mr Fairmsid then left the meeting. Mr Kilpatrick: Mr Cameron has been called upon to make a statement as to writing to Wellington. Mr Cameron said Mr Sutherland made a charge, and invited those who had been wire-pullers to come out into the open and explain their actions. He was sure he was aiming at him (Mr Cameron), and he had 1 come out into the open. When this book of Mr Gibson Smith's was published, and before he had read it, he received a letter from Mr Kennedy Elliot asking him what he {bought 1 should be done. That letter was shown by him to two members of Presbytery. Mr Elliot had in his letter , tabulated the courses that might be adopted. He (Mr Cameron) placed co little importance on the communication, that he had torn it up and burnt it. He had replied to that letter that he had not read the book, and was not in a position to give a decided opinion upon the matter. But he had eaid that, if Mr Smith was sound upon the fundamentals of faith,/ th«n . he thought nothing should be done. Further, he added that he thought it would be extremely difficult to give a theory of the atonement which would be accepted by, the whole Assembly. He had since asked Mr Elliot for a copy of that letter, and had asked him if it could be considered that he (Mr Cameron) was a wire-puller. In answer to that he received a private ! letter from Mr Elliot which was not to be used, and he wrote acknowledging this. He (Mr Cameron) wanted to show why he wrote and what he wrote. He received another letter from Mr Elliot, in which: the writer said he considered his (Mr, Cameron's) correspondence with him could not be construed as wire-pulling. He (Mr Cameron) wrote again, and received' a telegram in reply that he could not honourably use the private letter, and that he had all he required. Mr Cameron's explanation was received 1 with applause. „„,,, Mr Cameron : Unless Mr Sutherland acknowledges that he has accused me falsely I shall consider him cowardly in the extreme. Mr Sutherland^ I did not accuse M* Cameron at all. Mr Cameron: You had not me in you* mind? , Mr Sutherland : I make no accusation 9*9 * Mr Dutton 6a id he would move that^tha Presbytery, having heard Mr Sutherland's, explanation of his charge, and having] inquired into the matter so far as it waa\ possible, Tegretted that Mr. Sutherland would not give any further information so as to lead the Presbytery to a oleas understanding as to the position. His feeling was that the charge fell to the ground. Replying to Dr Nisbet, the Rev. Mr Finlayson said he did not now think that Mt Sutherland had been~ warranted » making the_ charges he had>