MR CAUGHEY'S QUESTIONS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 147, 28 July 1914, Page 6

MR CAUGHEY'S QUESTIONS.

To tbe Editor of THE SUN. Sir, —I will be as concise as possible. Mr Caughley's four catch questions need a full exposure to the sun; "but the earlier part of the letter is easily answered. My experience as an energetic canvasser tells me that every house has not been canvassed. Mr Caughley \s contentment with the Nelson system reveals a theoretical, not a practical mind. It gives the conscience clause to the children, with the result that 20 out of a possible 500 attend for religious instruction out of school hours. He takes no account of man's natural longing for rest —-children, parents, voters, canvassers, he expects to be as vigorously energetic as the Australian parson. Now, I believe that Christehurch" North, with a harvest of nearly 6000 votes, has been thoroughly canvassed by the Women's League; but my own experience shows me that elsewhere the canvassing has been only half done. Under the circumstances, 140,000 is an enormous proportion of 600,000 voters. , I never intentionally asked Bom an Catholics, and in one street I got signatures from every voter, and every one old enough to vote next November. I went over streets that had been canvassed by others, and secured a very heavy gleaning. As far as I- know, no girl has been counted a supporter who will be under 21 next November—(Mr Caughley does not seem to approve of woman's suffrage). I ought to know, as I have recently been getting their names on the roll, and all canvassers reported progress to me, and not one accounted for failure to enrol a voter on the ground that she would not be of age next November. We claim 140,000 supporters. Mr Caughley takes no account of indolent, voters here or in Queensland. lie says 460,000 have not asked for a referendum. Does he expect the whole voting strength of the Dominion to ask for a referendum? He should contrast with our strength the support the pretest against us has received, aud remember that it includes the disciplined block vote of the Roman Catholics. His canvass should have convinced him of the indolence, apathy, and ignorance of voters on this question. J found that many held as true the phrase of his fable, "They all contributed to the food bill, and all things went along well." Then children were provided with a creche while they could cook the dinner. Far from having no notion what they signed for, it often needed a close study of our card to obtain a signature. If Mr Caughley doubts that we shall have a majority of those citizens who will take tbe trouble to record their opinions, let him give us the chance of proving it in the referendum. My question was: Why should six-sevenths of the population toe the line marked by a Church, whose conscience will only accept the teaching bv their own teachers of a Bible authorised by their own Church? I believe in the justice of onr cjiuse. The parent's right is to choose his own child's edu-

cation, especially in religion. Putting separate questions before the electorate would rob the parent of his right. For instance, if the. people, by referendum, rejected the right of entry, and accepted Bible reading, how could the. parent who chose the right of entry and rejected the Bible reading get* his right for his own child* Our scheme gives such parent Ins choice, including the parent, who prefers entirely secular education, and is the only person satisfied with free, secular, compulsory education. So much for Mr Caughl'ey's preface to his catch questions.—l am, etc. KrG J IT. ' July 2.5, JOM.