THE NAPIER ' DAILY TELEGRAPH '

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIV, Issue 26, 28 June 1906, Page 3

THE NAPIER ' DAILY TELEGRAPH '

ITS MISSIN-Q «GODE' ON • GAMBLING '

The Napier • Daily Telegraph ' of June 19 published our reply, a copy of which appeared in last week's issue ot the c is. Z.. Tablet.' To our letter there was appended an editorial footnote which made the following evasive pleas : (l> lhat we were wrong in saying thai the ' Telegraph ' recognised • no distinctions in ihe immorality and criminality and playing, the game for a stake.' (The last six words, were misquoted by the ' Telegraph. 1 They should read : ' playing or gaming for a stake.' With this correction our statement was absolutely true). (2) The ' Telegraph ' credits us with attributing to it a statement to the effect that it takes itse.f to ' constitute the moderns.' (We did no such thing; it merely took itself to be one of * the moderns' whose • code of morals ' it speaks of, but dares not to place on exhibition). (3) It gives a vague and unproven denial to our specific and proven charge <?f having mutilated an extract from the • Tablet.' The charge is repeated hereunder. (4) It declines to accept our challenges to proof of its Quoted statements, and its agnostic ' code of morals ' is still in the incubator. The following reply was forwarded to it for publication on June 22 :— Sir,— The evasive editorial footnote to my letter in the ' Telegraph ' of June 19 makes it necessary for me to state for the third time the fundamental issue between us. That issue is your- assertion that ' gambling ' is, without qualification, ♦ a social scourge,' ' a great moral evil,' ' a curse and a crime.' From beginning to end of your two leading articles there is not so much as a sentence, phrase, or word that indicates any distinction, exception, qualification., or limitation in your condemnation of ' gambling.' And • gambling, 1 as you know, is defined to be ' playing or gaming for a stake.' You represent me as a sort of ' Satan ' because Ido recognise a distinction. I have condemned many forms of ' playing for a stake ' as immoral, and on grounds which I know, and have stated, and am able to 'detfend. But I hold that certain other forms (and specifically, church art-unions) are in themselves harmless, and are permissible under conditions which were duly set forth by me. You say there is ' a code of morals ' above or beside that of the Bible, which settles in ycur favor the matter in dispute between us. Well, the whole Imrden of proof is upon you. Why do you shirk it ? 1 have already twice pressed you to '.set forth ' and ' establish ' the ' moral principles ' or ' code of morals ' that damn all forms of resort to lot for the ownership of a stake or prize. But you have done neither. The reason is very simple. You cannot do so. I know the sort (or sorts) of ' code of morals ' that you contomplale. It could stand the fire ot reasoned criticism aleut as long as a snowball could stand the glow of- an electric furnace. You will speedily discover this if you take your * code ' out of its wrappings of cottciv-wool, set it in the open in your columns and give me an opportunity of switching the current on to it. When we haive done with your missing ' code,' I propose, if you permit me, to take in hand certain other very positive statements of yours to which you apparently attach considerable importance. Here I should naturally close this letter. But the grievously misleading statements which you have made from the very outset regarding me, have compelled, and still compel, personal explanation and protest. It is high time for a clergyman in a gravely responsible public position to speak out when, ' in all seriousness,' you most unfairly represent bim to your readers as a 'Satan leading on ' people to ' grave moral evil '• and * crime.' This is precisely what you did in your issue of May 30, when you published an extract which ' was (presumably through hasty leading or inadvertence) mutilated in the manner specified and quoted in the' Tablet '. of June 7, now in your possession. I twice made the specific misrepresentations arising from this mutilation the subject of three challenges to you and your whole staff. This was the promptest and most effective manner of besting your conviction in the matter, and of setting myself right with yewr readers. Not one of my challenges has been accepted. Nay, you have even notified me that I must net 'shower' more challenges .' around ' you. The smallest schoolboy, among your readers knows what all this means. But that does not absolve you frcm the obligation of according me, in this matter, the . honourable amende of- an honourable man. ' Even an inadvertent stab hurts. It may even injure. And I shall, . as often, as. I may "deem it necessary, continue to adopt the most effective means, of repelling dishonoring accusations, even though (as you intimate) I shall

have to pay advertising rates for the right. For the rest, a perusal of • niy words and yours should convince you that I . have in no instance misrepresented -the fair meaning and purport of your utterances. Why do you persist in compelling these personal pr< tests and challenges ? Is this your only way of escape from the difficulties in "store for you if you take your ' "code of' morals ' out of its glass case and expose it to- public inspection and analysis ? Let the light of day at it, arid we shall soon see whether it is a Koh-i-noor or a worthless glass bauble.— Yours, EDITOR, * N.Z. TABLET.' Dunedin, June 22.