The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1910. 'OFFICIALISM RUN MAD'

New Zealand Tablet, 24 March 1910, Page 461

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1910. 'OFFICIALISM RUN MAD'

♦ - HE phrase was used some weeks ago, if we W" II 6\(l remember rightly, by an irate member of the |jo/ Otago Education Board in describing a cer■JyJii ~yf tain action of our New Zealand Education Department, but the applicability of the description is by no means confined to the occav /jglfc'jr sn on which it was employed. In this matter ' gr? of muddling, unintelligent, and sometimes mischievous officialism we in New Zealand have enough to put up with in all conscience. It is one of those cases where * appetite grows by what it feeds on,’ and the tendency to pettifogging red-tapeism in some of our State departments has of late patently and visibly increased. We can still, however, lay to our souls the consoling unction that in this particular matter we are not as bad as some of our neighbors. We have not, for example, in all the ranks of Dominion officialdom, a single member who, in capacity for meddlesome and vexatious interference, could hold a candle, to one Mr. James Gray, ex-Methodist minister, who is dressed in a little brief authority as Secretary of the State Children’s Department of South Australia. This gentleman appears to belong to a class of busy folks who are like the hornets never busy except with their stings. We do not know how long he has held his present position, but of late years, as a-result of the apparently settled policy of this gentleman, Catholic charities and institutions have been harassed and worried, and nagged-at and criticised, and pestered with pin-pricks, till a point has been reached at which patience ceases to be a virtue. So long as the Secretary of the S.A. State Children’s Department keeps within his

legal rights he lias,'of course, to be obeyed, and in the past he has, as a matter of fact, been carefully and scrupulously 'obeyed; ' Thou hast seen/ says King Lear, ' a farmer's dog bark at a beggar? . . . > And the creature run from the cur There thou mightst \ behold the great : image of authority: a dog's obeyed in office.' But the obedience due to office does not extend a hair's-breadth beyond the limits of its legitimate authority. In some of • his later demands, Mr. Gray, in the opinion of high legal authority as well as of most reasonable and fair-minded people, has egregiously exceeded his legal powers; and the Archbishop of Adelaide has quietly but firmly defied him. ' ;...--'";■' ''.'". - * . The past history of the dealings of the Secretary of the State Children's Department with various Catholic charitiesrelated by the Archbishop in a pamphlet published in September lasthas been already commented on in these columns, and we confine ourselves therefore for the present to Mr. Gray's latest vagaries. These have been described by Archbishop O'Reily, tersely, forcefully, and straightforwardly, but at the same time in a dignified and studiously moderate way, in a second pamphlet just issued. Out of a number of petty and utterly unjustifiable annoyances inflicted by Mr. Gray we select two conspicuous specimens. The first had reference to the Girls' Reformatory at Kapunda. Mr. Gray objected to the appointment of an aged and entirely suitable priest as resident chaplain to the institution. The absence of a resident chaplain meant that the Sisters and inmates would have to make a six-mile journey every Sunday in order to hear Mass. In view of the grave inconvenience caused by Mr. Gray's interference Archbishop O'Reily, freely and voluntarily, of his own motion, decided to close the Reformatory. The inmates were accordingly transferred to another Catholic institution, and the building was in; due time dismantled. .'.. . - * ■ - ■ ■ ■ . "■■-,.: -.:. Then followed a vexatious sequel. In accordance with law it was necessary that a proclamation should appear* in the Government Gazette notifying the fact of the closing. It wouldone would have thought been a -simple matter to frame a proclamation which would have complied with all essentials, and would have stated V the actual facts in a plain and inoffensive way. But that apparently is hot Mr. Gray's style. Section 26 of the S.A. State Children's Act provides that 'the Governor may, on the report" of the Council, if dissatisfied with the condition or management of any private Reformatory School, • or private institution, by proclamation abolish it as a Reformatory School; etc' Mr. Gray professed to feel himself compelled by his reading of the Act to have a proclamation inserted in the Gazette to the effect that the State Children's Council was ' dissatisfied with the condition of the school, and that the Reformatory had therefore been ' abolished.' A proclamation so worded obviously conveys a painful imputation regarding the management of the institution, and Archbishop O'Reily promptly protested. In addition, his Grace consulted an Adelaide legal firm of high standing, who, in a lengthy considered opinion entirely disagreed with Mr. Gray's reading of the law, that an expression of l dissatistion' was necessary. As a matter of . fact, ■ there never has been a word of complaint against the institution. It has always received praise in the annual report of : the State Children's Council, and the Secretary had himself stated, in a letter dated September 14, 1909, that 'the council has a profound appreciation of the work done at St.; John's Reformatory.' Mr. Gray admitted that the ' dissatisfaction' referred to in the proclamation was purely 'formal.'- 'ln other words' —as the solicitor's opinion, expresses it—' there is no dissatisfaction at all, but it is thought necessary to tell his Excellency the exact contrary to what is the fact.' ~. .'. # vSince. then Mr. Gray has broken out in a fresh place, and in a manner still more wantonly and glaringly offensive. This time it ' is the Orphanages that are ; victims ■;■ of .■ his rampant officialism. -An Amendment the State Children's Act already referred to provides that every person (subject to certain exceptions) ' who, not being licensed as a foster mother by the council, shall receive into his or her charge or custody r any child under the age of seven years to adopt,; rear, nurse, or otherwise maintain for gain

or reward, such child, apart from his or 1 her parent ';• shall be liable to a penalty. In one of the Catholic Orphanages —known as the Goodwood Orphanage—-there are 71 children provided for, 19 of them being under seven years of .age. Of these 19, there are 8 whose relatives-send small weekly payments, averaging 3s 8d per head. Not one penny of this goes to the benefit of the Sisters, who, of course, give their -services absolutely gratis. Mr. Gray, howeverwho appears to regard himself as an authority on the Law as well as on the Gospelcontends that the Sisters are taking the children for gain or. reward,' and he has called upon all the Sisters of the Goodwood Orphanage to take out licenses as foster-mothers under the Act or submit to immediate prosecution. The Archbishop again took high legal advice, ; and was assured that ' there is no justification whatever in law for the contentions advanced. . . It is clear that the Sisters do not act for gain or reward, but work in the cause of religion and charity, without gain or reward.' His Grace thereupon . sent a courteous note to Mr. Gray, intimating that he had instructed the Sisters both at Goodwood and Largs Bay neither to make any application for a license nor to regard their institutions as being in any way under the supervision of Mr. Gray's Department. Mr. Gray retorted by what amounted to a public threat of prosecution, and to this Archbishop O'Reily made the following dignified and uncompromising reply: 'Our Sisters give their lives to the h saving of the children under their care. They give their lives unrequited, moved purely and solely by love for their little wards. Expert legal advice assures them that they are under no legal obligation to take out foster mothers' licenses from the State Children's Department. . They respect the law, and are willing to observe »t. But they are unwilling to accept on questions of law Mr. James Gray's ruling. Mr. Gray threatens to prosecute. He may prosecute as speedily as he likes, and as amply. The Sisters will face his prosecution with equanimity.' There, for the present, the matter stands. The Archbishop of Adelaide deserves the thanks, not only of South Australian Catholics, but of their co-religionists throughout Australasia, for the firm and unflinching stand he has made against what looks-at this distance be little less than ' officialism run mad.' As we have said, we appear, in this matter, to be somewhat more fortunately circumstanced than our South Australian neighbors, but even in New Zealand—judging by the number of protests from local bodies—there is a growing tendency to centralisation and red-tapeism on the part of some of our Government Departments. In South Australia, as in New Zealand, a clear distinction must be drawn between the Government and, the official. In most cases, Governments have a fairly cordial appreciation of the work done by our charitable and philanthropic institutions, and are willing to be just, and even to some extent sympathetic in their attitude. It "s the official who is the stumbling block and rock of offence. So long as he keeps within the four corners of the law we must, of course, render to Caesar the tribute due. But when, in his desire to cripple and ham-string private institutions, he grossly exceeds his powers, his encroachments must be unhesitatingly resisted. He is, after all, not the ruler, but the paid servant, of the people; and in teaching such an one his true place Archbishop O'Reily has at once set an example and rendered a service to the whole community. _