MR MEKALICK AND “BROADMINDED.”

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XV, Issue 4110, 9 December 1911, Page 3

MR MEKALICK AND “BROADMINDED.”

(To tile Editor.) Sir, —Mr Mekalick has launched out rather strongly against the person he has taken for “Broadminded” for the criticism passed on some portions of an address given by Mr Mekalick in the Ballance church last Sunday week. About his address or the criticisms L have nothing to say, but in his reply it is very clear that Mr Mekalick is hitting at the wrong man. I take it that “Broadminded” was quite truthful when he said his name could he ascertained by Mr Mekalick at the Herald office. Undoubtedly “Broadminded” was at the church on Sunday night and heard his discourse, and to me it is amazing that the idea should have got into Mr Mekalick’s head that the writer of the criticisms is a man who was absent from the church on that occasion. Mr Editor, the man Mr Mekalick is driving at never criticised his sermons or anyone else’s, and I thought Mr Mekalick knew that man too well to imagine he would “snap” at him behind his back. Perhaps Mr Mekalick will forgive an old acquaintance for respectfully making a trifling suggestion. If when preaching away from home Air Mekalick would link human frailties and weaknesses with a Baptist instead of an Anglican, some people might take it with better grace. Mr Editor, I have a better suggestion still. There is a lot of evil in the world and we cannot- help seeing some of it. Still, there is a great deal of good, and I for one would rather use my powers of observation in looking for the good points of humanity and ray lips in extolling its virtues than vice versa, though no doubt it .sometimes becomes necessary to pourtray the other.— I am, etc., J. F. HARRIS. Mangahao, Dec. G. •BROADMINDED" REPLIES. :To the Editor). Sir, —On reading Mr Mekalick'* reply one’s first impression is that he is suffering very badly indeed from the very curse against which he is supposed to be waging war. viz., intemperance, only in his case it is of language. [f Mr Mekalick had not boon so careless of ascribing evil lie would have taken the trouble to inquire oi the Editor my private name, which was not attached to niy letter, only in deference to my husband's wish and because personally I do not

care to see a woman's name in public correspondence, and for these same reasons it is still imprinted tliougn available for any interested inquirer. ,M.v first letter stated plainly that I had no wish to be a “snapper" or any of the other-creatures which Mr Mekalick calls me, and which 1 fear, hardly reflect credit on him as a “minister appointed by Jesus Christ," and if Mr Mekalick had cared to obtain my name, as offered to him, he would not have fallen into the error of accusing me of being a partizan of the liquor party. As a matter of fact I consistently vote no-lieepse, and further, have subscribed to tile funds for that cause. So much for Mr Mekalick's quite unnecessary and violent misstatements. 1 stated that Mr Mekalick did not mention the name of "the Church” against which he spoke. That is what 1 complained of. He hid behind an ambiguous phrase. He made a public charge against, a Church and the ministers of that Church, and lie is apparently Uljwilling to say definitely whom he means. Is not- that the action of a “•snapper”? Though 1 sliotthr never have thought Of applying those trims to him had he not suggested them. Let .Mr Mekalick study, and try to follow a little more closely the gentle teachings of his great Master, who ever refrained from imputing evil : and let him reply publicly to my legitimate question, or else I shall still claim to bo LUO \ DERMINDED. I’.S. Having entered my protest against such intemperate language aMr Mekalick's both in and out of Church, 1 shall nob further trespass on your space, but shall expect a definite statement from Mr Mekalick.