A BRACE OF FAIRY TALES

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 37, 14 September 1905, Page 3

A BRACE OF FAIRY TALES

OUR BISHOPS, 'THE ADULT CATHOLIC VOTE,'

AND THE OLD 'STUFFINCi' STORY

The ' Outlook ' (Dunedin) is the Presbyterian-JVfetno-dist-Coinjglpeig)a,tioinalist organ of New Zealand. Our acquam'taince with it covers nearly eijght years. During that period it has been generally eminently 1 fair in its treatment of the creeds for which it does not profess to caiter, an,d for a non-Catholic religious paper, singularly fro<3 from the ' odium theologicum.' These happy results were, no doubt, due in a great measure to the sound traMitaofis established by the scholarly and fairminded Rev. Dr. Waddell, whose gifted pen (although no lon'gpr actinig. J&d'itorially) still occasionally adorns the coliumms of tthe "* Outlook.' The lines on which he conducted our Protestant contemiparairy hare, so far as othieu creeds are concerned, been generally followed by his smccessioT. Rut tradition says that even good old Homer wont nid-nid^nodding at times, and it may possibly naivej Ween a sihnil'ar oversight that allowed tihe ].iift)li^a'ttoiru o>f a slipshod, semi-illiterate, and eviltempered article in the editorial columns of the ' Outlook 'of J.uly 22. Its notable lack of literary quality stamped it njf» the work of a writer whose hand wast a sfcranfg^r iH "Uh'o editorial department of our local re-li-

gious. contemporary, and its strong animus agtingt Catnolics was evidenced by the nicknames— painful and frdqiuent and free— which it flung at them, andi by the nunAjcr of calumnious imputations which it made against them by direct statement or by implication or innuendo. We dealt with some of its direct statements , m mo following communication, which was Our First Letter on the subject, and which was unavoidably held over till t'ha issue of August 12 :— Sii,— l haive been for aver so,\en years a reader of the Outlook.' I gladly acknowledge the general spirit of fairness whioh it has during that period manifested towards the creeJs for which it, does not cater I therelora roajdj with deep and pained surprise the editorial article in your issue dated the 22nd inst., which contains many strong and unmerited statements regardine my co-rel igfiouists, and is marked by the free use of the offensive terms, 'Papists,' ' Popish,' < Romish,' etc. Fon the present I beg to direct your attention to tho two following, assertions :— 1. You state, as a sheer matter of fact, that the Caifliolic prelates of New Zealand (also referred to as tiro Archbishop and his creatures ') 'bargain with political parties 'for the ' disposal of the Catholic vote. Tins statement I know and declare to be in every part contrary to fact. y 2. Again you say : ' From every district we learn that anointments vn the PuWic Service fall to Roman CWhas »amt,o far in excess, of their proportion of Hhe population.' My personal experience of such statement's as Ihiis extends over seven years I have noticed pa) that they appear , most frequently before an.d diuffwiK electoral campaigns ; (b) that they are generally so. vaguely worded as to make investigation, of their truth or falsehood diffioult or impossible • (c) that on the raio occasions on which specific offices", or sets of oflioos, or workshops, etc., of any particular department were named, the stories of ' packing ' with I apists ' generally turned otut to he untrue I have over and <r.er again, oven in the columns of the daily I ress, challenged the authors of such, statements—some of them candidates for Parliamentary honors-to produce t'he-ir evidence in point, and to join with me in fecurung the formation of representative and responsible citi ens to rnvestd.nr.atc- the matter, so far as Dun-e-Un and. other centres of population were concerned In e\ory cn*e my challenges were declined. I halve repeatedly picss-cd for the publication of an official return of t'ha religious v'J lief s of pniblic servants, based on the latest ren&is papers. This was done in conscduenco of a similar clamoi, in New South Wales, with results of a striking nature, which, no doubt, are well known to you. Ha,vnui failed to Wnnpj certain, plaltform oraitors to mcift mo in any way, I cairied out a lengthy series of invest forums in e\cry Dart of ibc Colony in 1901-2 with the s'ui of 'active, and, I bolie\ c, thoroughly tr/ustwortihv local, committees. The result s of these investigations were in minute detail wee'e by week in the ' Tablet.' They went to show (a) thaji Catholics were almost unrepresented, so to speak, in several •State departments , (b) that, vith the exception of one port, of the law and justice branch, Catholics were re-T.resonte-d numerically in the Public Service far below thmv prooiwiiion to total population, while in tho matter of relatne pay they were enormously below their moic favored fellow-employees and officials of other faith's. The bt.rden of proving this charge of ' stuffing ' naturally rests with those who make the charge. I feel sure, therefore, thpt you will, as a matter of common fair r,lay, srbpnit to me the details regarding public apno-intmenis which you have heefn receiving ' from every district ' in New Zealaind. This will enable us both to properly test the value of the information siup1 lied to you. Tf, in addition, to this, you will join with me in having; the story of ' stuffing ' .investigated, so far asi Dwnedin is concerned, I can safely promise you results Hint will be decidedly interesting to' your readers. T feel that for the present I must not make further inroads upon your space. — T am. etc., EDITOR ' N.Z. TABLET.' July 20. 1 Outlook ' Comment Summarised. On this letter the ' Outlook:' commented to the following effect : '(I) That, on the question of Manguage,' if it erred it erred in good company, as the ' Tn'hlet ' editor qnioted approvingly an extract from ?n nrticle by a Protestant writer, Mr. G. K. Chesterton, in which he refers to the Church of Rome ns the ' Pa.pacv.' (This, by the way, is not, and never baa Ibeen regarded by Cat holies as a term of offence, and was 'newer included by us among the theological

slang wotfds comlplained of). (2) The ' Outlook ' also quoted three extracts from the ' Tablet ' in which the calumnies of Mr. Michael McCarthy and Dr. Robertson Are Spoken of as ' fairy talss,' ' misinformation,' etc. ; an|i onr imitative description of the Rev.' Pierce Carey's fee-fow-ftim No-Popery shriek on a Melbourne Orange platform d|uring< the last dog^ays. (3) Oiu>r contemporary comelulded by Quoting, at tihird-hand, some allt&oJ extracts from the Melbourne ' Tribune,' in reference to the terms cf reference for the late b'iLtt.Mn-jx'hools plebiscite in Victory 'In Victoria,' .Rayr? the '(milook,' 'we Ibfelaeve, t(!;e " TiiiUi.n3 " occupies the same position as does the " Tablet '>' in New Zealanl, amd in both oases their articles may be regarded as official and authoritative.' The 4 Outlook ' regards the articles as -• dictatorial ' towards Premier Bent, and concludes that tlhieyj accurately indicate the policy cf the Catholic Church there. It assumes that -the ' Tablet ' believes in it 3 heart in the same line of action — only that its niitoir ' is| rather more cautious and wary than the editor of the Victorian " Tribune." ' (This is, we beliene, the fitrst' occasion on v»hich_the ' Ta'lct ' w?s accused of lack of the coi'rae;e of itf convictions. But in the same articles the ' Outlook, by way of compensation, no daimt, makes it a grie/ance againyt us that we aro too outspoken). The ' Tablet's Rejoinder. Sir,— (l) In your issue of July 22, after having made tine altogether incorrect statement that 'the adult Catholic vote ' in New Zealand ' is in the h^and of the Arehtjisfoop awd his creatures,' you adid, as a sheer matter of fact, ' With this vote the prelates fcftrg^in willi political parties.' I replied, ' This statement I frnow and declare to fee in every part contrary to fact." You, Sir, must toe well aware tihuik in all discussion a gratuitous'assertion is logically met with a gratuitous denial. On the face of it, my denial is at least as good as youT assertion. In point of fact, it is a good deal better. For, in the first place, I speak from knowledge , and, in the second place, it is a principle of British law and of common fair \ lay that even the men whom you contemptuously refer to as ' the Ardhlbushop and his creatures ' shall not, until adequate proof is forthcoming, bo deemed guilty of selling that which is neither legally nor morally theirs, as if they wore a gang of thieives disposing of ill-gotten goods to a professional ' fence.' The evidence for your accusation should ble clear and cogent. Thus far not so much as a scrap oil it has been advanced by you. Instead of sustaining your specific accusation, you pile on a fresh agony of unprexven charges and unworthy innuendoes. 1 shall, at the proper time, claim the right of being heard on these fresh accusations. For the prcs-cnt I await your evidence as to the time, place, and nature of the alleged bargain and the ' political parties ' with whom it was carried on. Surely you were jestin^'when you- sfcidi of the ' Tablet ' and the ' Tribune ' (the latter the youngest of the Catholic journals of Viclori.i) that * their articles ' may bo taken as ' official ' pronouncements !• Are the ' Outlook's articles to be regarded in this light ? (2) You\ also said in your issue of July 22 : 'From every district we l?arn that appointments in the Public Service fall to Roman Catholics in a ratio far in excels of their proportion of ths population.' I have already indicated in general terms the widely different lessons of the searching investigaiirns conducted during twelve months by the ' Tablet" and its local committees in nclarly ' every district ' of New Zealand. Their detailed evidence regarding ' appointments in the pubilic service ' was published week by week for all the world to see and test it. I have called for the wholly incompatible evidence which you halve received •' from every district ' in the Colony. Where is it ? You have not so much as mentioned the subject in your last issue 1 ! Botn yonir n c sortions, as thov stan>i,, are sumaiently met by the old legal maxim, ' Be non a.pptarcntibus, et de, non existentibus, eadem est ratio ' j^vhich may toe translated : fc Tl-.e evidence tftat is not forthcoming must bo treated as if it did not exist.' A pfajnee at the ' Tablet ' of Augjust 17, or at any pood English dictionary (the Bncvclopaodic, for instance vols. 9, 10,, iand 11), should satisfy you as to the ofiensiveness of tfre terms ' Papist,' ' Popery,' a,-vd 'Pomish,'' to which I b>ave specifically taken exrantio'n. It is one thin-of ixi fling; at a Christian creed old-time theological nicknames that were coined as terms of more offence. It is oblviously quite a differem't thing to an»)ly such all too mild terms as ' extravap»,9.nt enthu& : »^t,' ' oft-ex-posed,' c fairyi tale,' etc., bo arvvessors -who' have been repeatedly convicted of rpckl(\ssly inakin» false and inimri'Ous st&'tenvenis against pfonle who differ from them in relijejious l#eliof. I h'avc made this ctiaire-e pr^in'st. Dr. Robjcrtson ; also against No-Popery McCarthy, whose

fierce denunciations of Catholic doctrine and worship Mere, tno doufat, learned in the strongly Protestant institutions in which he was trained. 1 am prepared to substantiate my case against i*oth, either in or out of your columns. For tiie rest, ii I advance an accusation aigain/st any mail, or any body of men, you may rust assured of my readiness either to substantiate it with &\d<qq\ iate proof or to frankly withdraw it. I claim no credit for this. It is only what even a self-respect-ing i-ogaju would do.— l am, etc., EDITOR ' N.Z. TABLET.', August 10. The ' Outlook ' comment 'opened with a kindly but quite unmerited compliment to the ' Tatdet ' editor. for ' that skill in controversy for which,' it says, *■ he is co deservedly renowned.' It then goes on to say : 'We can scarcely pay the •'•' Tablet " editor a higher compliment than to declare that were we in the unfortunate position of being chargpd witfli any offence wh«n the evidence was strongly agjainst us, we should count ourselves happy in having him! as out advocate. The letter to which we call attention is a masterpiece of its kind, and may well serve as a model of polite letter-writing upon polemical subjects. We envy the " TWbiet " editor his sutayviter-in-modo and fortiter-in-re style of penmanship.' The ' Outlook ' then goes on to say : ' The " TaJblet " editor holds an impregnable position in ( demahdjing) what he knows cannot be furnished by anyone outside Roman Catholic official*' circles-.' It holds, however, that 4 a weak point in our tactics is disclosed in our statement that our articles are not the ' official pronouncements ' of our Bishops. (We may hero state that only those items isi our columns are the ' official pronouncements • of o.ir Bishops, or of any one of them, which are on the face of them official, or which are expressly stated to be official. ' The articles ' of the ' TaJblet ' cover wide/ ground, ) from household economy— oh which our Bishops are not likely to make ' official pronouncements' ' — and ' Down from mythology, Into thayology, Troth ! and conchology '— and other subjects that happen to crop up week by weak). The •' Outlook ' rather rashly concludes that, as we disclaim an official character for our articles universally taken, our information, as to the alleged sale of * the 1 aycrult O^thiodic vote' nuay not be firsthand and trustworthy. Bart it declares that it ' gladly accepts ' the ' TaJblet ' editor's ' assurance that, to the best of his knowledge, -tfie Catholic prelates of New Zealand have .neven indulged in political bargaining.' (The expression, ' to the btesit of our knowledge,' was not, of coiurse, used' by us. Our denial was absolute). It quotes at yeeonid4ii\nd' from some articles in the Melbourne ' Tribune ' on the plebiscite questions', which the Rev. Mr. Nicholson finds ' sufficiently dictatorial.' ■' We submit,' says the ' Outlook,' ' the following proposition, which the ''Tablet" editor's trained legal mind oannot fail! to 'grasp : T>he 'quotations from Mr. Nicholson's letter fully sustain the charge of " political bargaining," in' sa fair as the Roman Catholic Chuxch in Victoria ia concerned, and that it is fair to assume that with a similar issue before the Roman Catholic Church in New Zealand the same tactics will be adopted. 1 Our Last Shot. Sir,— Absence from Dunedin has prevented an earlier reply to certain editorial matter , in yoiux issue of Augaist 19. I thank you for your kindly references to my last oornmtumicaition. They are, however, undesesr\ed. I merely urged you to extend to ' Archbishop Redwood and his creatures ' (as you call our prelates) the elemjemtary principles of fair play Uhat every court of justice in Christendom, and even in civilised pagandom, extends to the thief or footpad that is placed upon his trial. You have! haled ounr Bishops before your court on a charge that is about tantamount bo one of political corruption— namely, striking bargains with 1 politician pattiest ' for the disposal of " the ajdwlt Ca'bholiw vote 'of New Zealand. A plea of mot iguilty' has been entered for them by me. I know, moreover, with complete certainty, and have twice declared in youir columns, that your accusation is in every detail devoid of truth. iVnd on such matters you must a'dniit tihat my knowledge, even at its worst, is better than yours, even at its tfc>st. It was your duty to furndslh, on demand, not alone information as> to the nature of -the crime alleged by you against the Catholic bishops, buit likewise to tender evidence as to the date or dates on which* it was perpetrated, the names of the persons witih whom the alleged corrupt bargaining ' was carried on, and all the other

essential circumstances of your accusation. Where is your evidence ? There is not so much as a scrap of it ! You even grant that I ' hold an impregnable position ' in demanding it., for you neither have any evidence in hand nor can you procure so much of it as would be visible under a compound miscrosoope. Instead of attempting to .establish your specific indictment against the Wshops, you fall black upon the mossgrown ofld fallacy of ' proving the wrong conclusion.' You quote at second hand— *anid, incidentally, gravely misrepresent— some allegedly • dictatorial' snipipets 1 from articles in a Melbourne Catholic paper (the ' Triform© ') on Itoe drawing up of the qluestions that were put to electors at the recent Btble-in-schools plebiscite in Victoria. And then— apparently in perfect seriotusness — you ask me to admit that these second-hand and unofficial texts ' fully sustain a charge of " political bargaining " so tar as the Roman Ualholic Ohurch in Victoria is concerned, and that it is fair to assume that, with a similar issue before the Roman Catholic Church in New Zealamd, the same tactics will be adapted !' You seem to forget that in the very same article you were good enough to give me credit for a measure of commonsense and even fox considerable skill ia the art of reasoning ? Now (1) your specific charge against the Catholic Bishops of New Zealand is retrospective, not prospective. You halve made a positive statement that they are in the habit of striking l&rgains with political parties for the sale of "the Catholic vote. (2). Realising that you are jtjiuite unable to Sustain this accusation, you now make another oi a different kind. You asjk me to discuss the academic Question : Is ilfc fair to assume that, in conditions which do not exist, have not existed, and are not likely to exist, our prelates will, some time or other in the future, offer ' the adult Catholic vote : ' to the highest bidder among ' political parties ?' In the new issue which you place before ■ me you fall into another fallacy— that of undue assumption. But this must stand over till your previous indictment has been determined. (3). ' Initium doctrimae dennitio nominis,' says Epictetius. 'Right definition is the first condition of right discussion. It is of the essence of a bargain that it is an agreement ox stipulation or contract beeween two parties. Mo number of journalis/tic solos, however bpisterous or ' dictatorial,' can constitute a fclargain, much less a bargain for the disposal of votes. (4). I have before me all the 1 Tribune ' articles from which your second-hand quotations are taken. There is not in even one of them anything! that would even remotely suggest a bargaining for wtos. Your ' authority ' holds that there are ' dictatorial ' expressions in the ' Tribune ' articles. That is a matter of opinion. But the highest note in them is as the silvern speech of the Fair Damosel by comparison with the intimidating Bible-in-schools| official documents quoted in the ' Melbourne Age ' of August 8. And the ' Tribune ' articles are not, of course, official pronouncements. (5). Even if you were to prove up to the hilt your accusation of ' political bargaining. ' against the ' Tribune,' it obViooisly would not follow that ' the Roman Catholic Church in Victoria,' and much less ' Archbishop Redwooid and his creatures, ' gave ' t)he adult Catholic vote,' for a consideration, to a political party. I append ah illuminating extract in point from a letter just received from the Archbishop of Mel|b>ourne. Again, you said : ' From every district we learn that appointments in the public service fall to Roman Catholics in a ratio far in excese of their proportion of the population.' I have twice asked you, but in vain, to subhrit those returns -to me for inspection. Where are they ? And why, on this subject, is your mouth sewed up ? Surely this tell-tale reticence) is not the attitude of a man who trusts his evidence amd dares to submit it to the tost of criticism! and investigfetion.— il am, etc., EDITOR ' N.Z. TABLET.' August 23, 1905. The following is 'the extract from the letter of the Arch-Mishop of Melbourne referred to ajbwe :— 1 The form of the questions ' (for the Victorian Bible-in-schools Referendum) ' was really suggested 1o tne Government of Victoria (1) by the form adopted! in South Australia, but (2) still more by the form submitted to, and passed by the Legislative Assembly of Victoria a few years previously. You may remember that when a\ Referendum was demanded some years ago, it was proposed and carried in the Legislative Assembly, couyded with these three cfues-tions. Subsequently the whole scheme was thrown out by the Le-

gisjlathe Council, not on account of the form of the questions, but because the Referendum in any form waa not acceptable to the Upper House. Mr. Bent staged expressly that he was, in the form of the questions, following these two precedents. ' I£ow, in' regard to my action and the action of 1 the Catholic representatives, we simply had no port in determining tee questions. •. . Beyond the ecclesiastical news which appears in the " Advocate," I have no* part in shaping its contents or policy. In regard to the " Tribune," I have no part in regard to ei-ther contents or policy.' A Parting Word. The letter quoted above appeared in last week's 1 Outlook.' It was followed by the following editorial footnote : ' This correspondence is now closed.' No editorial comments on our oommunicatAon have appeared, in either last week's or this week's issue of our local religious) contemporary. We have to thank the editor of the * Outlook ' for the ample opportunities allowed us fou the treatment of these subjects in his columns, and for the many courtesies extended by him to us during the discussion.