THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1905 REV. F. W. ISITT AND FATHER HAYS

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 15, 13 April 1905, Page 17

THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1905 REV. F. W. ISITT AND FATHER HAYS

HE Rev. Frank W. Isitt is welcome to space JJM jFjSy in the ' N.Z. Tablet.' He deserves, in the •^ |id< fi'Ost place, to be ' hearvd for his cause, 1 and, \A*X±s in tine secon ' d piace, he has that further jpSvajftK claim to consideration which is due to the courteous antagonist who goes into the fl&kfrY a-rena with pneumatic gloves upon his hands amjd disduftis, like Frere's genilemiam, tto neejdlessly ' give the lie, piull noses, stab a^id k,ick.' • In the domnTunicatiott which ap'poars over his name in another part of fohis issue, he makes only a 'pas-sing reference to the bogus ' Catholic ' address from Wellington to the Rev. Father Hays, w\ho (as we learn from the daily tpaipers) has come to the Oolony to enter upon -a campaign uirtder the auspices of the New Zealand Alliance. It is well to bear in mind that this whole controversy was started by our reverend friend. Trusting, not wisely but too well, to the statements of persons who Uid not .'deserve the confidence he reposed in them, the Rev; F. W. 'lsitt recently placed tihe Cathlblic body in a false position before the country by asserting that onfc /ctf the troupe of Alliance lect'tre^s (the Rev. Father Hays, to wit) was comfng to New Zealtontf 'in consefqj>ence of a«i ajpfeal ' from a large tody of our co-areligiiolmslts. This statement was promptly sent tingling over the electric wires to every end of the Oolony. Now, we sihoMld have l)ailed i;n our duty as a Oatyholic joiiHaftlisit had we allowdd such an assertion to pass without challenge or contradiction. In the first place, it was nothing less Uhan a faßrication, and its authors themselves no ldnger Sefend it. In the second place, we could not let an unfourided story go forth to the world that la large body of New Zealand Catholics could be guilty 'of ftinjging at their co-religidnists throughout the Colony Uhe cowardly and trumped-up calumny which was oont&fneid in that pseudo- Catholic ' address to Father Hays. And, in the third place, silence on our part would have tandda to place in a false light before the /public the attitude of the Catholic body, as suoh, in regard to the fiorthcoming political campaign of the Prohibition party throughout New Zealand. The Rev. Mr. Isitt'* sj-totementis pla'cdd us with our backs againsib the wall, ao far as this. matter is concerned, and forced us, in self|defance, to speak* out- upon a subject in rtegard to ' whi€th -we sihtotuM prefer to have b\eeri du l ni,b. But we cannpt, allow the position, of the' Catholic body to be misunderstood or miscotaiceived even to spare the feelings of our Prohibitionist fri&nd.

Sildnlce has a tomgue that sometimes wags eloquently, though no aou-rfd goes forth. And in the reticences of qux reivepredld frieind's latest commiuhicatian some will find even more significance than in his written speddh. There may 1 >be <a merit in the Italian mott>o : ' Volto scioltio, pqnsieri stretti ' ('An open countenance, and closed thoughts '). But we think tihe Catholic Wady were entitled to something better than Me ' melody of tihe closed moWtih ' wjien, -Wirdugh us, they askedi— lcfng after tjie eJeiveintlh hdur had passed— lor some auitjhoritati\e ajiid 'definite informiatitja as to whether Father Hays was really coming to New Zealand, and as to the nature of tihe campaign which (it wtas alleged) he vHas to coWdiuct here. ' For reasons which we do not preteitd to fathom,' said we in our issue of Matfch 30, ' Fathor Hays and bis friends of the New Zealand Alliance have, since t<he forthcoming campaign was mooted two years ago, kept the facts relating thereto from the knowledge of Uhe responsible heads of the Catholic Cfouroh in this Oolony. The Rev. Mr. Isitt is aware that they have been studiously flouted and ignored. 1 Here, in all reason, is a cirduin stance for whJtah our reverend frianld migjht naturally be expected to have offered some explanation. Why, then, does ' the coJd chain of silence ' hang over his nan ? There are twio other cirounis'tartces which serve to deepen the mystery tihat enwraps this strange business. (1) For a lqng time (past the Prohibitionist party ha<ve had clear and dofjnite information as to the movements and plains of Father Hays. Halls were hired, printing done, committees anointed, long series of lectures aruangod, dates fixod. How is it that the Kpv. Mr. Isitt did not, in the ciroumst^mces, take the Catholic public into 'his confidence when writing to their organ in the press ? (2) But theire is. Another thing which (to use the woeds of Alice fn Wlojnjder ljamd) makes the affair lodk ' cirrfoser anli cmrioser.' Between March 23 and March 30 the Catholic Bis.haps of New Zealand received their flrlst only comntunwations from Father Hays. We know the whole oonte^nts vof at least three out of four of these. They are brief— not to say curt— uiotes. The goofl Father did not even inform our Bisibops that he was coming to New Zealand. He merely said : 'It is my rntqntian, if my health continues to improve, to visit New Zfclala^d.' His visit was thus st<atieti tb be strictly conditional, and depending on circum stances) purely personal to the Rev. Fatfref, of which olulr Prelates, in t*he atpente pi any Purtaher communication from him, oourd have no knowlq(djge. He gave no intimation whatsoever reganding his en^gement with the New Zealand Alliance ; and he neither sougiht, nor even hinteti that he desired, the co-operation of tihe responsible heads of our Church in this Colony. The first intimation thjfcb >our Bishops received tbat Father Hays had definitely decided to visit New . Zealanil was the newspaper report of his laifdirog at the Bljuff. We, for our part, quite fail to understand &he motives of this mysterious and lang-austaindd reticence towards the mitred chiefs and natural lcadclirs of our Faith in New Zealand. The Rev. Mr. Isitt amd Faith(Jr Hays may have an explanation to offer. If so, oir columns are open to them. This whole (fuo^tion has been raisad, mot by us, but by the Rev. Mr. Isitt. For us, the mysterious reticence with which the Qathollc bqdy ihas Hieen treated fn connection with tnis affair is— taking all its cifcumsitainces into account— a riddle as deep as the Aelia Laelia Crispis. We frankly ' give it up.' .• In the course of our editorial remarks in our iss)ue of Marcjh 30 we satd : ' The general public can hardly be "blamed for the widely prevalent suspicioin that a crusade cacried out almost on the eve of the general elections, arid financed by what is, perhaps, the keenest, bost-Mnit, and most energetic political organisation in New Zealand, can harfily fail to have a strong political and party tendency. , In all- the circumstances, the Melbourne " Age ' of Match 11 may well be excused for, its statement th(at the coming camJpaign is "in connection

with tJhe triertnial local option poll in October next." ' Our Pitfhibitiotnist friends are, of cqurse, entitled to keep their own counsel as to the nature of the campaign whiqh they naive invited Father Hays to conduct tjhrou'ghaut New Zealand. Thtat is their own business. But if 'bo-omes very mluch our business when their RdveroUd Secretary appeals to us to embrace ' tihis great op.partiu»ity ' a/nd fall in and march abreast witih the Proiwlbdtion ranks when the band begins to play. We are then entitled to know what manner of camjjaipjn tins is to l»e. Is it to be in intent or in effect, direttly or irtdirectly, a .political movement ? Is Father Hays to be merely a ifawn— to be played for his proper value— in a political game ? And in what way is his mission to be separated in friteint and in effect from the political campaigns whidh are to be conducted by the other paid lecturers of tjhe New Zealand Alliance ? The Roverewl Secretary *>f the Alliance keeps his shell slUut upon the points alrda'dy raised by us in tihis connection. And many, no -doubt, will read a lesson from his closed lips an"d cteerni tf-^at his silence has a tongue. T ( hey will probably fb|d a fluirtfher s-ignincajnee in the maraner wi whioh all tihe Alliaince lecturers are lumped togetner, las aiming at one general ftoliftital purpose, by a Sidney Protestant clergyman, the Rev. R. B. S. Hammond, who is a noted temperance worker and who recently made an extended taur through New Zealand. In the course of an interview aadorded to a representative of the Sydney "Daily Tetegratfh ' (Mafldlh 30) he stated that he was ' tfhrown into the No-license movement ' in tlhis Coio-ny. ' "JJhe elections,' s^ard he, ' are to take .place about October, and tihe temperance reformers are already preparing for a vlfjor-ons campaign. Tftiey have decided to spend at least £3000 in propagating No-licOnse principles, artd ate enlisting tihe sorviccls of Mr. W. G-. Woolley (the American lecturer who was in Sydney not long ago), Mrs. Harrison Lee, Father Hays, and others.' For oir part, it p^i^les us to see how siuch an essentially political organisation as the New Zealand Alliance cauld contrive to coriduct a temperance ci'usa.de, at the e\e of the general elections, that would not have at leatt a decided political effect or tendency.

When the Rev. Mr. Isitt appealed to Catholics, through our columns, to co-operate with his party, candor required that we should set forth in prLnt— as we haiQ 'already stated verbally to him and others of his felLow-leadars— one serious obstacle to such co-apenation. It lies in ' the extraordinary violence— • not to say savagery— witih) ,w,hit)h a number of the loading aidvccates of Prohibition attack the Catholic Church and body ; the ostentatious ofiensivoness with which they head every no-P<Jpary movement ; the shameful Manner in whiiA UM|ny of tibem lend themselves to the filthy cam.puigns of inx^sitars like the Slatterys and of degraded gaolbiPds and fallen women like Margaret Shepherd.' We k^ow tfltat all this is deplored by our reverend " friend, the Secretary of tne New Zealand Alliance. O si aic omnes ! Tine lacts stated above are, unfortunately, too notorious to dony. And we are prepared to voudh for the effect wthich they have produced ujpon the minds tof largo boaies of Catholics throughout this Colony. It

is quite Reside the mark for aur reverend friend to plead tihat Orajnigemon might as well decline active co-oparation with tihe Pfldhibitialnists because of his broaxl-min-dad views on tihe question of Ireland's grievances. On this— or, indeed, on any question— tihe Rev. Mr. Isitt could differ witih Orangemen or others inoffensively. B\it it would be a very different matter if a number of the Prohibitionist advocates throughout New Zealand treated the Brethren of the Saffron Sash as they treat Catholics— seizing every pretext for attacking them, arid importing from beyond \&ie seas the worst class of im-

posters arid criminals to volley all manner of prurient filth at their wives, their sisters, their daughters, and 'l^ieir clergy. Under auoh a course of treatment, the fellow Pup wohiW soon show its teetjh. The Rev. Mr. is well aware how sensitive CatJholics— arid especially Irish Catholics— are in regard to the honor of their

wornem, and, above all, of those w*ho Qonseterate their -virginity t(o Cflqd and devote their lives to wofcfkS) of piety, charity, and education. Brutal insults levelled ag'£?nst them are not easily forgiven nor soon forgbtten. It rmay We "tihiat tshe prominent Prohibitionists who org^ntead or joined in such oampraigjns of coarse vilification in Dunedin and elsewhere did sio ' not as Prohfbitianistis, but as citizens.' The man in tne street whose feelings have been outraged will probably regard this rloa as sioanewfoat of ' a metaphysical sophistication.' He wilr remember that the Prohibition party have allowed tth-eix organisation throughout the C.cAony to be in part captJured, and in many places in part captained, by mon who look xfpon Cat/holies as outside the protection of the Ton Commandments. If the Prohibition party •ase content to bear the odium of tjhis, it -IJ3 their own affair. Our prelates and clergy deplore Wife' a»d alhuses ,of the drtnlc traffic as earnestly as any. But they do not see eye to eye with the Prertnbitidnists as to what constitutes the remedy. And tTiey can hardly, in all tihe circumstances, be expected to give a ready absent to a l n invitation to hobnob on political platforms witjh tihe bear-leaders of Margaret Shepherd and the Slattorys.