THE NAPIER ' DAILY TELEGRAPH '

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIV, Issue 25, 21 June 1906, Page 3

THE NAPIER ' DAILY TELEGRAPH '

AND ITS MISSING 'CODE OF MORALS'

In its issue of June 11, the Napier ' Daily Telegraph ' replied ' to the challenges in the ' Tabtet ' of June 7, by a lengthy and fantastic leader on— the sphericity (or roundness) of the earth ! A drowning man will grasp at a straw or a bubble on the surface of the water. And this comically desperate mode of evasion seems to have been suggested to our Napier contemporary, by the fact that, during the recent Wellington controversy, the l Tablet's ' editor incidentally placed the Council of the Churches, in regard to moral science, on the same mental level as the Flat Earth Society in regard to geographical science. Gnjy that and nothing more ! At the clpse of the Napier paper s amusing article there is a paragraph which refers to the ' Tablet's ' • special challenges to the "Daily Telegraph ".' But the nature of our ' special challenges ' is not specified, or even hinted a.%. fVluch less are they accepted. The substance of the ' Telegraph's' concluding paragraph is sufficiently indicated in the course of the following reply, which was mailed to it for publication on the 14th inst. :— Sir,— The vague and generic term "gambling" is defined to be " playing or gaming for a stake." The word covers actions as widely divergent as drawing lots for the owneuship of a chocolate cream, and the snaking of an ancestral estate upon the Derby. I have time and again denounced all manner of " gambling " that constitutes excess, illegality, irregularity, or abuse. But at the same time I recognise that there are forms of appeal to lot Or chance for the possession of a stahe that are in themselves harmless, and are permissible under conditions which were amply indicated in tho course of my recent controversy with the Council of the Churches in Wellington. You make no such allowance. In your issue of May 30, you denounce " gambling " as without exception or qualification " a social scourge " and " a grave moral evil." In your issue of June 11 (which I recehed to-day, June 14), you describe " gambling "as "a curse and a crime." And again you mane no exception, limitation, or qualification. On thM contrary, yrAi expressly declare that you " recognise no distinctions " in the immorality and criminality of playing or gaming for a stake. It thus follows (according to your "principle") that the child who draws lots with straws for the ownership of a "glassy" or an inch of liquorice is guilty of as high a " crime " and as " grave "a " moral evil " as the oft-quoted Juggins who staked his vast fortune in the gambling-hell of Monte Carlo. For you 11 recognise no distinctions." And you represent me as a human " Satan leading en " or inciting to " crime" and " moral evil " because I do recognise a distinction —because I denied the assumption of the Wellington Council of the Churches that Catholic church lotteries (the whole and sole question in dispute between me and them) are in their nature and in all circumstances whatsoever immoral. I goaded the Church-Council at last into an appeal to the Written Word of God, which they ( but not Catholics) declare to be the " only rule of belief and conduct." They lost their case on appeal to their own principles— to an authority which is received, though in somewhat different senses, by them and by us Catholics. And now you step into • their shoes. You, like them, assert that every form of appeal to lot or chance for the possession of a stake is criminal and immoral. The burden of proof is upon you, -as it was upon them. But there is this difference between you and them. You reject the Scriptures as of no authority here. And you say you " moderns " have instead " a code of morals" of your very own which "settles" the question. In the " Tablet " of June 7 I issued what you describe as "a special challenge to the 'Daily Telegraph.' " The principal item therein was my challenge to you to " set forth and establish " the " moral principles " on which you base your condemnation of every form of " playing or gaming for a stake " as " a social scourge " and " a grave moral evil." To the presemis moment you have not so much as •■' set forth," much less "'established, " a solitary moral principle bearing#upon the issue between us. Why did you not take up my -challenge in your issue of June 11 ? Surely this is not your conception of the spirit of " plain speaking " for which you give yourself credit ? Or is your " code of morals " so frail and delicate that you dare not tale it out tf the incubator and expose it to the cold blast of my hostile criticism and " plain speaking " ?

In the courfc of my "special challenge " to you - I pointed -out certain matters in which you hafl done me an unintentional injustice.- <1) You represented me ml^«^ rgU J Ug S?.* G( L d must be regarded as approving methods of settling the possession of anything desired by lottery machinery.' • (I emphasised by capitals two, words "anything desired "). (2) You say tfcat a-Tal- 0 I + i? £• m the Wellington papers '• states the case for the divine sanction of gambling as follows ". (And then you give a long and mutilated extract). I offered a reward of £5 to any person in youi office who will prove either of these statements to the satisfaction of a tribunal to foe agreed upou by • you and me i?n P / r .?v Of T Ol ir bo !? st{Lte ™ c « t 8 the reward would be £10. (3) I offered a further reward of £5 to any person in your office who succeeds in finding the word gambling in the -extract which is alleged by you to" be the • Tajblette " statement of " the case for the divine sanction of " gambling." I hereby repeat these offers in the terms set forth in the " Tablet " of June 7 p 19, now in your possession. In your article of June 11 you did not so- much as mention either these or any other of my " special challenges." Is this the attitude of one who has confidence in the strength o! his position ? I have at least five further " special challenges" to issue to you. And, for your comfort, I wish to state that three of them will refer to your expressed or implied misrepresentations o f Biblical fact and teaching. But for the present, the chief issue and the chief concern is your " code of morals " which is to " settle " the question. lam prepared to " settle " with it— if you permit me— as soon as it has broken its sliell —Yours etc., ' EDITOR " N.Z. TABLET." June 14.