The Napier 'Code'

New Zealand Tablet, Volume 19, 19 July 1906, Page 9

The Napier ' Code '

It is never too late to learn. Old Swcedlepep-ver fancied for eighty years of lmi life that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband anti wife. Then he was persuaded to hear a sermon, ami found that they were nothing but cities. Up to a certain roint the Napiei 1 Daily Toleigraph ' imagined that there was an antibiblical (and presumably agnostic or materialistic) 'code of-morals ' which made e^ery Hnd of resort to chance for a stake or prize (and, specifically, church art unions) ' a social scourge ', 4 a great moial e\il ', ' a curse and a crime '. The 'Telegraih' knows better now. Like Sweedhnepper, it has learned its lesson rather late. But it hasf learned it. And that., after all, is the main thing. It was happy—and enthusiastically positive— until challenged to produce its ' code '. But when it went to fetch it from its locker, the ' code ' had melted 1 like fairy gifts fading away.' And thus it found itself in the sad plight of ' Old Mother Ilubbard, Who went to her cupboard To get her poor dog a bone.' 1 When she went there, the cupboard was bare '. The 1 Telegraph ' cannot find so much as a thread or fibre of a code. Therefore it cannot produce it. Much less can it accept our challenge to establish the details, the sanction, the standard of its vanished ' code '. ' Mental education,' as Karaday says, ' has for its first and last stop -humility.' But in the ' Telegraph's ' lapse from the^cano'ns of journalistic caution, we have a striking instance of tiie over-cpnfidence and aggressive dogmatism that so often accompany defective training—and lure their owner to a fall. There were two chief issues raised by the ' Daily Telegraph '—(1) the fundamental one, which is referred to above ; and (2) a charge levelled against the Sacred Scriptures of having ' commanded ' unjust slaughter and ' sexual barbarities ' in war. On this latter subject it issued a defiance to all and svndry. It is more chastened now, and in regard to this, as in regard to the • code ', the ' cold chain of silence ' now hangs over its columns. It has probably been searching the Scriptures and learning how grievously it has misrepresented them. We four times, in succession challenged our Hawke's Bay contemporary to produce its ' code '. Our

fourth challenge appears elsewhere in this issue. Our fifth (.containing the substance of these paragraphs) was despatched -to it for publication on July 11. - But the 4 code ' is still missing. Nay, our contemporary can no longer say ' code ' nor ' morals ' nor ' gambling ' — in regard to these terms it is suffering from what physicians call aphasia, or loss of speech. In order to escape from the awkward position in whi.h it has been placed, the ' Telegraph ' now invites us to carry on the controversy with some anonymous correspondent who signs himself ' Ajax". But U) me controversy between the 4 Telegraph ' and the ' Tablet ' was started by the 'Telegraph.' It is still being continued (in the usual evasive fashion) by the 4 Telegraph. And, so far as we are concerned, it will be carried on between us, and between us alone, right to the close. The ' Telegrapa ' should, we submit, either fight its own battle or frankly lay down arms and quit the field. From "the first, it has been palpably — even painfully— unable to sustain its end of the discussion. And oven its slowest-wittod reader has sufficient sagacity to connect that obvious fact with the ' Telegraph's ' desire to induce us to shift our attentions to an opponent who is ashamed to show his face. We absolutely decline to abandon the pursuit of the unprovoked aggressor in this controversy in order to follow up a masked fihbu£i'_erer who has crossed the frontier of the discussion. An ob\ious course lies .open to the ' Telegraph ' if it really thinks that its anonymous friends ha\e contributed anything useful or pertinent to the discussion. It has simply to errJbody the useful matter in an editorial article or footnote, as representing its official view. We will then deal with such matter upon its merits. But we qfcite flail to see what comfort it can get from the man in the Grecian mask — unless he lias ' set forth ' and 'established ' that mysterious ' code of morals ' which utterly anathematises Catholic art unions and any and every resort to the arbitrament of chance for the ownership of a stake or prize. Dem He its ' code ', we would (if a-wagering intent) lay Lombard Street to a China orange that the ' Teleg r ajh ' proprietary and staff have ' gambles ' in life and fire insurance, and that some at least among them stake money on the chances of the Stock Exchange. Well, we shall continue to press our Napier contemporary for the missing ' code ' until it is produced, or until the closure is applied to the controversy.