The New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1879.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume VII, Issue 326, 18 July 1879, Page 13

The New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1879.

*v

A REVIEW.

SERE has been daring the past week, an election contest in this city ; and it is curious to note the attitude of the city daily Press towards the principles of the candidates. We refer chiefly to two of the candidates. It is not important to delay in considering the case of the third. Mr. Stewart, the successful candidate, declared himself an advocate of compulsory Bible reading during school hours in the * public* schools. Mr. Rbbves, the defeated candidate declared himself the opponent of such reading, Mr. Stewart i& the advocate of sectarianism of the most odious type, a sectarianism that would compel all teachers even Jews, Catholics, and other non-Protestants, to teach Protestantism to all who are willing to accept such teaching, and to all who can be frightened or cajoled to accept such teaching. Mr. Reeves was opposed to this, but he would not on any account touch the present godless system of education except in the event of some future improbable contingency. To all intents and purposes Mr, Stewart is a Protestant denominationalist, and Mr. Reeves a pure secularist.

This is in reality the state of the case. It will be said we know that we do Mr. Stewart an injustice, and attribute to him whet he has not said. But we shall easily show that we do him no injwstice whatever. He is the nominee of the Bible in Schools Association, whose demand is that not only shall the Bible be read by all teachers in the publio schools, but also explained j and he is the avowed advocate of the re-intro-duction of the old Otago system under which teachers in all schools were compelled to teaoh prayers, read the Bible, and explain it, and under whioh Catholics were frequently compelled or cajoled to read the Bible. What does this prove ? Precisely what we stated above. No doubt Mr, Stewabt towards th« end of the contest and when hard pressed by a troublesome question said that he would not compel teachers who objected to Bible reading to read that sacred volume. But the value of this admission may be estimated from another statement made by him, that he would leave it in the power of the various committees to decide whether the Bible should be read in the schools or not. What, then, is the meaning of saying that teachers who object should not be compelled to read the Bible, and at the same time advocating the right and the power of committees to compel them to read it ? Why of course the meaning is that teachers objecting to read the Bible must resign, or be dismissed. And this is the political wisdom and spirit of justice displayed by our new member. The Legislature is not likely to be much the better for the common sense or genius of Mr. Stewabt. What is to be said in reference to Mr. Rbbveb' policy and principles on the education question. He is simply a secularist opposed to Bible reading in schools, and would not touch the present education system, except in the eyent ot JaWfcßihle being introduced into them. In such an event ' "he would, whilst retaining the present system plug the Bible, superadd to it a provision for such as are unwilling to send their children to Government schools, Mr. Reeves, then, is a secularist, and an upholder of the present godless system of education. Mr, Stewart is simply a sectarian of the narrowest kind, a sectarian who wishes practically to hand orer all public schools and public endowments, in Otago at least, to the Presbyterian body, to the exclusion of all others. This is really the state of the case. And under such circumstances what has been the course pursued during this contest by the daily press of the city. For a considerable time this press has gone in, Itead and shoulders, for secularism, would not even listen to any proposal in the direction of denominationalism, Latterly, and for a short time, the Morning Herald had somewhat departed from its first tone and advocated sectarianism in the direction of Presbyterianism, But until this contest the other two daUie? had kept steadily hammering away a$ #w gecularigt*'

anvil. No sooner, however, does a candidate appear who says that if secularism be abandoned he will be i* favour of doing justice to the denominations, that is it reality, to Catholics, than these two papers turn right abott fa«e, abandon all their previous professions, desert their principle*, and call on the electors of Dunedin to vote against the secularist, and in favour of the odious sectarian. This is another illustration of what we have always believed and said, that for the most part the loudest and most truculent advocates of secularism have principally in view, not the promotion of education, but the injury of Catholicism. They do not care anything for secularism, except in so far as it supplies them with a ready instrument to gratify their blind hate of anything Catholic. Here we find them abandoning their principles and strenuotsly supporting an avowed sectarian in opposition to a secularist wko said that in the event ot sectarians pursuing with effect « certain policy he would be in favour of doing justice to denominationalists, and to Catholics amongst others. So much for consistency, honour, and honesty. The Evening Star is particularly sore because the petition adopted by the late Catholic aggregate meeting complained that the present education system inflicts an injustice on them by compelling them to pay taxes for what it not only of no use to them, but also a positive injury. The new theory of the Star, a theory, however, which it only applies in the case of Catholics, is that between the Government and its subjects there can be no place for injustice. According to the Evening Star, Catholics suffer no injustice on the score of taxation for a system of education which oppresses their consciences and rifles their pocket because such taxation has been ordered by the majority, or the Government which is supposed to represent the majority. This is certainly a new principle which if carried to its legitimate consequences would forbid the repeal of any law on the score of injustice and legitimise every species of iniquity. Truly bigotry is blind and inconsistent.