BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS METHODS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 283, 22 April 1913, Page 8

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS METHODS.

(To the Editor.)

JSir,—-May I correct gravely distorted facts given to the Press some time ago in various forms and now circulated as a League leaflet?

1. "Methods of Organisation" (the leaflet) makes Bishop Cleary accuse leaders of "forgery" and "fabricating a document." The "document" is a statement attributed to the late Director of Education in Tasmania (Mr. Neale) that the Catholic "denomination" there accepts the Bible-ifi-schools system "as a happy solution of the religious difficulty." There were four innocent alternatives to the "forgery" charge. Whydoes the League organiser in April, withhold my numerous published invitations of January-February to test this alleged personal libel before an Aueklanl jury? 2. Tasmanian information, given as "information." without my guarantee or formal acceptance, made it. "appear" that the author of the "document" was •hot the Director of Education. Thus far in November. He was allegedly absent at the time; he officially knew the Catholic objection to the system; he had expressed specified views inconsistent with the "document," which was signed by a secretary and "appeared" to\ represent his view only. All this, published some thirteen times in JanuaryFebruary, was withheld in the League leaflet officially circulated in April.

3. The League leaflet distinctly conveys the impression that I received a cable message on the subject from the present Tasmanian Director of Education (Mr. McCoy) on December 2, 1013. and sonic days later, a letter. Untrue. These were received on mv return homo, about Christmas Eve. This information, repeatedly published in January-Febru-arv,' was withheld in the League leaflet officially circulated in April.

4. The leaflet declares that Director McCoy's communications to me clearly proved his predecessor the author of the grotesque untruth that the Tasmanian Catholic "denomination" accepts the Bible-in-schools system as "a happy solution of the religious difficulty." Inporrect. He credited his predecessor with two identically worded assertions of Catholic acceptance of the Tasmanian system. The secretary admittedly signed one of these, and, in the absence of specific information, he presumedly signed the other. Was this his personal view, or was it written, dictated, or approved by a Director of known opposing views? Director McCoy did not specifically say. Why were "my plain words misquoted or withheld. 5. Further information, said I (January 4, etc.) was "expected shortly," and was to be "utilised in public pronouncement" already arranged and announced. Why was this withheld in a League leaflet officially circulated in April? 6. On January 3, 1913, a League official published in the "Auckland Star" two specific statements definitely settling the authorship question. In next issue (January 4) I thanked the League official "for making so much clear." The League organiser savs Bishop Cleary then "made known" that, from early in December, "he knew his charge to be fiilse." This is an invention. In Janu-ary-February I set right the authorship question some thirteen times from Press and platform. This was withheld by the League in April. 7. Official evidence of undying Catholic hostility to the Tasmanian Bible-in-schools system—and the specific grounds thereof—have been repeatedly placed before the League a.id the public since early in November, 1012. Withheld again! The League U still officially circulating the'notorious untruth that tlie Tasmanian Catholic "denomination" finds that system "a happy solution of tlie religious difficulty!" The league has thus officially sanctioned its paid organiser's deplorable methods. Yet in the same leaflet he makes it criminal to withhold such facts "even for a single minute!" There are honourable men on the League's Executive. Will they now delay "for a single minute" the amende which justice and honour demand?

Copies of this letter have been mailed, registered, to the League's Executive and its organising secretarv.—l am, etc., HENRY W. CLEARY, D.D., Bishop of Auckland. April 12.