CORRESPONDENCE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20108, 15 May 1935, Page 11

CORRESPONDENCE

THE CHURCH AND WAR To the Editor of “ The Timam Herald ” Sir, —A few years prior to the Great War, Mr Frederick Harrison made the taunt, the validity of which still remains: “Christianity, as the morality of nations has visibly failed. It does almost nothing to control the state of epectant war and the jealousies of nations. Have the representatives of Christ done anything to reduce the number of men in arms, or to adjourn the day in which Europe would be engaged in the most tremendous and bloody war known In history?” What is the attitude of the Church to war? Has it changed in this respect of peace and war? To the impartial observer the answer must be largely given in the negative, although we must remember that there are isolated members of the clergy i.e. (Bishop West-Watson who recently made remarks touching on this question'. who do not favour the Church's conventional attitude during a war frenzy or when a war breaks out. Some months ago, to take a single illustration, the Rev. E. D. Patchett, speaking at the Auckland Methodist Synod, made it clear that the extreme pacifist attitude was to be deprecated, and steps must be taken to build up armaments to compete with our national rivals. Now this view may command the respect of many non-churchmen, but with this fact we are not at present concerned. The question is:

“How does the Church seek to justify its attitude towards ‘Peace and War?’ ” “We do not wish for war, indeed we pray fervently for peace,” asserts the churchman. “The Church will never sanction an aggressive war, but it will support war waged in the defence of Right.” At this stage the averagg churchman must be asked to ponder a little more deeply on the precise meaning of the words “aggression” and “defence.” In New Zealand, we have our Defence Department, our Minister for Defence, etc. To be logical then, our supposed enemies, if they are not deceiving themselves, will have a Department and a Minister for Attack and Aggression. Any thinking person must realise that it is almost impossible to draw a line between an act of defence and one of aggression. Supposing New Zealand had been conquered and a foreign rule established, would the Church sanction a sudden aggressive attempt to throw off a hated alien rule? Remember that New Zealand had accepted the terms at the latest Peace Conference (just as Germany had accepted them at Versailles) at the dictation of a League of Conquerors who had forced their will upon her. Perhaps it might be an occasion for the Church in New Zealand to somewhat revise its interpretation of the terms "defence” and “aggression.” Space forbids one to further illustrate this difficulty of drawing a sharp line between these two terms. Suffice it is to say that history bears witness to the fact that each particular Church declares that its country is in the Right and that the rival Power is the undoubted scoundrel. Thus, at the same time we have the curious behaviour of churches in those countries engaged in the war, praying to the same God to slaughter and maim their enemies to the extent that they will be unable to bear the terrific strain any longer, and that they may be brought to due submission, willing to receive dictation from the righteous foe. Hence we must conclude (and further reflection will make this painfully obvious to the churchman) that -.3 Church, while giving its approval to defensive warfare —is definitely sanctioning war. As I pointed out in a previous letter while sanctioning war, the Church is violating nine of the Ten Commandments and is reducing the central theme of the New Testament to a mere farce. For the Church to declare that it is only interested in the saving of individual souls and that it denies its responsibility (in practice at least) for the social order, is to confess its inability to help the world to solve its many vexed problems. Not only is it a confession of weakness, but also an occasion for many to lose their faith in that ancient institution. With the Church (as A. A. Milne points out): “Man must suffer all things rather than do wrong, yet a nation can do all the wrong it likes rather than sufr anything.” Why this unnatural Christian subservience to patriotism? Mr Milne endeavours to ascertain the extent that the Church will violate its principles in order to maintain and promote that narrow spirit of patriotism.

The great Christian Father. Augustine. said, when war did not possess the horrors it has to-day: “War is quite unnatural to wild beasts, much more to man.” Since that time isolated churchmen have affirmed that patriotism in history has been the scourge of mankind. General Smuts has said: “There are only two ways in the world —the way of force and the way of understanding. We have —■-obed the way of force to the uttermost, and we have seen it reduce' the world to a mass of ruins. There is onlv left us this way of understanding, of friendship of co-operation between nations.” Here is the chance for the Church to take its courage in both hands and to lead the world towards a greater international understanding. To-day we are enjoying a precarious breathing space. But are we taking full advantage of it? Armaments and Pacts cannot secure permanent peace but will only accentuate national rivalry and hatred. —I am, etc., NOT INEVITABLE. Timaru, May 13.

MACKENZIE HARBOUR BOARD REPRESENTATIVE To the Editor of “ The Timaru Herald ” Sir,—l would like to reply to the letter of “Verbum Sapienti Sat Est” in your paper of Saturday, May 11. I think this correspondent should make sure of his facts before rushing in to print, as to those who do not know the true facts, his statements are misleading. In the first place, Mr Smillie’s nomination was sent in by his nominators to the secretary of the Timaru Harbour Board, instead of to the returning officer at Fairlie, as advertised. I certainly sympathise with Mr Smillie and his nominators found in which he was placed through his nominators’ mistake, but I cannot understand Mr Smillie, w’ith three years’ experience on the Harbour Board, allowing such a mistake to occur. When Mr Smillie and his nominators found that a mistake had occurred, they rang me and asked if I would consider resigning and contesting the seat against dim and I did what very few men would have done under the circumstances —I told Mr Smillie I was quite agreeable to accede to his request provided I could get the consent of my nominators. Either Mr Smillie or his nominator (Mr Fraser) has misled your correspondent. I immediately sot in touch with my nominators and they consented, provided the poll could be taken on the same day as the county elections. Mr Fraser was aware of these facts, as it was from his house that I rang up and received the consent of one of my nominators. Mr Fraser rang the returning officer at Fairlie, and asked him to look up the Act to ascertain if the election could take place on the same day as the county elections, but was informed that it could not be done in the time. Mr Fraser immediately communicated these facts to Mr Smillie, who said that I had tried to meet him in every possible way, and asked Mr Fraser to convey

his thanks to me for the sporting offer I had made, and that I would take the seat with his very best wishes. I feel that the attack of “Verbum Sapienti Sat Est” on me is quite uncalled for, and shows very bad taste on his part. He says that the ratepayers have had no chance to say who should represent them on the Timaru Harbour Board, but I would like to ask him whose fault is it—it is certainly not mine. Probably had he been Mr Smillie’s opponent he would not have acted as honourably as I have done. Presumably he is one of the “hit and run” type as he states: “I do not intend to enter into further correspondence on this matter,” and I consider a man who would shelter behind a nom de plume is not worthy of recognition, but so that the true facts should be placed before the ratepayers I have condescended to reply to him.—l am, etc., . D. C. KIDD. “Single Hill,” Burke’s Pass, May 13. CONTROL OF FOOTBALL To the Editor of “ The Timaru Herald ” Sir, —My attention has been drawn to your report of Monday night's meeting of the Management Committee of the South Canterbury Rugby Union’s meeting, wherein it is stated that the secretary of the Celtic Club (Mr P. H. Kyne) wrote stating that he had received instructions to notify the Union that the club’s third team would not take part in any match which was controlled by Mr H. Lawson. This, I think you will agree, sir, is a matter for both the Referees’ Association and the Referees’ Appointments Board to take up, and I trust that at their weekly meeting, they will fully discuss the matter, and refuse to allow any of its members to officiate in any matches in which the Celtic Club's teams are engaged, unless an immediate apology is forthcoming. If action of this nature is taken, and the Celtic Club refuse to make the "amende honorable.” it will then become a matter for the Union to decide, where it is trusted that they will be as firm in their attitude as the Association.—l am, etc., EX REFEREE. Timaru, May 14.

THE JUBILEE CANCER RESEARCH FUND To the Editor of ” The Timaru Herald ” Sir, —As you are no doubt aware it has been decided by the Government of New Zealand that The Royal Jubilee Gift Fund raised in New Zealand, as a mark of loyalty and affection to our King is to be devoted to the purpose of cancer research in New Zealand, and the money raised by the appeal to the hearts and pockets of the people is to be administered by the New Zealand Cancer Campaign Society. It is gratifying, therefore, to note that now on this very special occasion of the King’s Jubilee, the Government has decided to contribute £SOOO to the fund and has organised a Dominion-wide appeal for further donations in support of Cancer Research. Posters, circulars and other publicity propaganda are being extensively distributed, broadcast appeals are to be made over the radio, and the editors of all newspapers are to be asked to lend their valuable aid in bringing the merits of the appeal under the notice of the people. The Committee of the Canterbury, Marlborough, Nelson and Westland Division fully appreciates the fact that the people in that division have already responded very generously to previous appeals for cancer research, realising the most urgent necessity to provide

the means to assist in the great work of research, to find the cause and cure of this deadly scourge to humanity and of alleviating the suffering of those who are attacked by this deadly disease. The Canterbury, Marlborough, Neslon and Westland Division therefore earnestly appeals for donations especially from those who have not already subscribed to the funds of the Cancer Campaign and also from those who, though they have already subscribed, feel, that they would like t. do something more for Cancer Research as a mark of their loyalty and affection to His Majesty the King. Schools are not to be asked to contribute. Contributions may be paid into any Money Order Office or sent to the Secretary, New Zealand Branch, British Empire Cancer Campaign Society (Incorporated) 212 Lambton Quay, Wellington, or to E. H. Wyles (secretary of the Division) Box 824, Christchurch.—l am, etc, H. T. D. ACLAND Chairman of the Canterbury, Marlborough, Nelson and Westland Division, British Empire Cancer Research Society (New Zealand Branch). Christchurch, May 14. THOUGHTS ON THE MAYORAL ELECTION To the Editor of “ The Timaru Herald ” Sir,—Your correspondent “West End” is wrong in concluding that the Labour candidates were responsible for Mr Benstead’s defeat at the recent Mayoral election, for, the figures clearly show that had he received all the votes polled by the Labour candidates, he would still have been defeated by one vote. But had the Labour candidates not been in the field, at least some of their supporters would have voted for Mr Satterthwaite, thereby increasing his majority over Mr Benstead. So, whichever way one views this subject, it is perfectly evident that Mr Benstead was doomed to defeat from the very commencement of the contest. “West End” is also wrong in stating that two Labour candidates were engaged in the contest. Only one Labour candidate entered the arena. The other was an Independent. Now, what actually happened was this: When it became obvious that the unemployed intended to support Mr Benstead at all costs, notwithstanding all the reasons urged why they should support the Independent, a man of their own class, instead 600 electors or more, who had intended voting for the Independent, fearing that Mr Benstead might top the poll, by the Independent withdrawing votes from Mr Satterthwaite, decided to choose the lesser of two evils, by making it certain that Mr Satterthwaite should win. To achieve this, they transferred their votes from the Independent to Mr Satterthwaite, and in this way secured his re-election. But, had the unemployed supported the Independent, instead of Mr Benstead, matters would have turned out very differently, for the figures, at their worst, would have hpprt u rmvriv imo + pltr oc f/Vllr\wc*

Total for Mr Satterthwaite . 2369 . thus leaving 1168 votes to be shared between Mr Benstead and the Labour candidate. This analysis, which is as nearly as possible a true reflection of the voting for the Mayoralty, indicates that, in supporting Mr Benstead the unemployed supported the wrong man. It is the opinion of the present writer

that Mr Benstead has little hope of ever becoming Mayor of this town, and still less of being its Parliamentary representative, as “West End” would like him to be, for from Stafford onwards, if I mistake not, only once has the sitting Member been defeated, and that defeat was inflicted by the gentleman who so worthly represents Timaru now.—l am, etc., SOUTH END. Timaru, May 14.

been approximately as follows — Unemployed vote 1300 Transferred votes > 600 Candidate’s own vote . 500 Total 2400