FATHER PAUL RE THE EDUCATION BATE.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2104, 1 October 1875, Page 3

FATHER PAUL RE THE EDUCATION BATE.

(To tho Editor of the Evening Star.) SlßJ—rl have on more occasions than one given my humble uiite of praise to the brilliancy of your Siar; on this occa sion I am simply following a like principle. In a recent article on the above subject your Star seemed so dim and cloudy, lacking its usual light, and exceeding so much its generally well defined proportions, that- the reflecting rays it shot forth gave ifc a, singular comet-like appearance. . JEver since I cannot see the original ia that defined position I formprly could see it in, principally on account of%«,.«£tail',' attached to it. Well, sir, I have resolved to cut off that tail with

the hope of enjoying the pleasure of seeing the favorite fetar again as I have hitherto. ou, I presume, in dealing "with this subject have based your ~* arguments upon the sound sense of the logic you make use of in condemnation of Father Paul's conduct. For this purpose you point out to the Cross the following syllogism ;—" Thus Father Paul is told to pay a legal tax, Father Paul illegally . (i.e. in defiance of the law) refuses t« pay this legal tax, therefore he is a victim ! " Then you say, Shades of Aldrich can these things be P Indeed, you need not appeal to any such "shades," for your conclusion is quite " shady " ehou.gh. \ou will observe that this so-called'syllogism (with the conclusion ironical), is not logical. Why? You say F. P. re used to pay. just so; but this did not make him a victim —certainly not; but beipg compelled to pay made him a victim. Hence it is F.P. refused to pay, and being compelled to do so, then he is a victim. Having pointed out the error in that instance, which I admit is but of very trifling moment in comparison to the false premises upon which your syllogism is based* I will now proceed to show you from your own words that your logic on the subject is neither fair nor reasonable. In. reference to the Education rate you say "that in the opinion of many, ourselres included, the tax is arbitrary and unfair." Then if, as you admit, it is "arbitrary and unfair," it is unjust, and being legalised, it is therefore on the same principle, a legalised injustice. Hence a legalised injustice is an unjust law, and every honest and conscientious man should resent and resist every such law.; therefore in doing so exactly Father Paul and Mr Wallis have become victims t<s this iniquitous tax. On your own principles, that is how you should have reasoned on the subject, especially as you know that arbitrary or despotic unjust laws, it matters not whether they have been local or general in a country, have been the ruin of empires, and the cardinal curse of nationi.-

In illustration of R P's conduct you jay :—" Suppose a person of sedentary habitss who cared not much to take his inralks abroad, chanced to have a good front of his own house, &c, and content therewith, why should he resist pajiiig a rate levied by a highway board, 4c, eren if he did not approve of it ?" I am really surprised-that you should hate put thesubject in that manner, as a moment's thought might have shown you that placing the matter in that style was jnot only disingenuous, but also very unjust. -The question should be asfollows :— A. B. and C. require a road made past their premises. D. is a constituted authority and says to them you must make that road. A. therefore makes his portion of it, but D is, not satisfied wi'h that, and again says to A you must help B and C in making*their portions ; but A declines to do s©, as he considers it unjust to require him to do any more than his proportionate share. This exactly is the position in which Father Paul was placed in* and £or acting consistently therein has been made a victim to injustice. At present I will make reference to only two other in your article. You say, " The flock tcTwirom the rev. father sets himself up as an example of how apostolical maxims, &c, should be carried out,, will doubtless take care &c. that he will have bis wants again supplied/&c." This may be a tribute of praise to their zeal in that respect, but on the other hand; I look upon it as being. a coarse allusion—characteristic of the writer's want of social intercourse with the general intelligence of society. As to the "bit" of gospel you have given us in your concluding remarks, even if I don't profit by it, I will not find fault with any person because he may wish to revel in the pleasure of recalling to mind his old haunts. However, I must say that I have.before now heard such scraps of doctrine as that preached in places where they were, as in this case, neither edifying nor appropriate.—l am &c, Thames, Sept. 27th, 1875.