Notes

New Zealand Tablet, 1 June 1911, Page 1010

Notes

The Dunedin ‘ Sailor’s Rest ’ Mr. W. Belcher, the newly-elected Chairman of the Otago Harbor Board, who is nothing if not downright, ha.) been expressing himself with great freedom regarding the Dunedin Sailors’ Rest. Mr. Belcher is evidently not altogether unbiassed in his estimate of the work done by the institution; but, as secretary of the Seamen’s Union for a great number of yeafs, he ought to be able to speak with some authority regarding its unsectarianism.’ We take the following from the Otago Daily Times report of the proceedings at the Harbor Board’s last meeting: The, Secretary of the Dunedin Sailors’ Best wrote asking for the annual donation towards the work at the Sailors’ Best. The Chairman said it was the solicitors’ opinion that it would be illegal to make a donation to the Best. Mr. Barclay said ■ that public . bodies sometimes . did things that were not within the four corners of the law. It had been customary to donate a sum to the Sailors’ Best —a non-sectarian institution —and he would move —‘ That the usual grant of £2O be voted to the management of the Sailors’ Best.’ Mr. Walker seconded the motion. He did not think the solicitors’ opinion would hold good under the new act. Other members expressed the opinion that the proposal was within the law. * The Chairman said he considered it was wrong and improper that the funds of the board should be paid to an institution, of this description. These people? were not doing the good that a great many people were under the impression that they were doing, and, for himself, he knew of no good being derivable from what they had done. It was said the thing was unsectarian, but he said it was sectarian from top to bottom. It was an institution where prayer and hymns and other things which were purely sectarian were ladled out. There was another institution one started by the Rev. Curzon-Siggers— practically took away from these people all the clients they had previously, and that institution was not asking for any contribution. He would vote against the motion. ‘I. don’t know what your religions are, nor do I care,’ he continued, ‘ and I know these people never go out of their way to try to .rectify or remedy a great many of the grievances that men labor under when they are on board ship. As a matter of fact, they condone that kind of thing when they know it is being done. X will never give my consent to a penny-piece of public money being given to an institution of that description.’ Mr. Keenan said, after hearing the remarks of a practical man like the chairman, he would move as an amendment‘ That the letter be received.’ The amendment was not seconded, and the motion was carried. Inquisitive Anonymity Wherever meetings are hold to arrange for a visit from' the Irish delegates there almost inevitably appears in next day’s papers, with all the regularity of a pre-arranged programme, a communication from an anonymous inquirer who wants to know why the delegates are coming to this country, and what they want with ‘ ous money.’ One such, who turned up at Oamaru last week, has been quietly but most effectively settled by Mr. P. J. Duggan, who, in the most gentlemanly manner possible, intimated that if the correspondent would ‘ establish his right to use the phrase ‘ our money for,’ by stating over his name the amount he has contributed to any appeal in support of the claims of the Irish people for the restoration of their legislative rights,’ he (Mr. Duggan) would be only too pleased to give the fullest possible explanation of the why and wherefore of the envoys’ mission. * The following is the full text of Mr. Duggan’s letter, which explains itself. It is addressed to the editor of the

North Otago Times. Sir, — the absence of the permanent chairman (Bight Rev. Monsignor Mackay) I was honored by being chosen to preside at the meeting of the Irish Envoys’ Reception Committee and sympathisers on Monday evening, hence I presume, that your correspondent ‘‘Curious” applies to me for information as to the objects of the present mission (I do not like the term “propaganda”), of those of the accredited representatives of the Irish people and of the Irish Parliamentary Party. Although as a rule I do not deem any matter placed over a nom de plume worthy of much notice, yet on this occasion I thank “Curious” for giving an opportunity to place before your readers the immediate need there is for aid at this present juncturethe final stage, we hope, in the long struggle to obtain Irish freedom from the Imperial Parliament. The cost of elections (charges of sheriff, returning officers, etc.), are borne by the candidates. Two elections have been held within a short time, and, as the Irish Parliamentary Party are in the main men of but moderate means, these costs are more than their limited means can afford. A few days ago Mr. Hazleton told his -audience at Palmerston North that when contesting the Dublin South seat at the last election, he had to pay £350 and his opponent another £350 to the High Sheriff towards the official expenses. At the same meeting Mr. M‘Nab stated that a friend of his had to pay down £450 before his nomination would be received, and this sum was followed by an additional £9OO to satisfy the entire official costs. The foregoing facts answer query No. I —the only one in which the public are at present concerned. If your correspondent will establish his right to use the phrase “ our money for,” by stating over his name the amount he has contributed to any appeal in support of the claims of the Irish people for the restoration of their legislative rights, I should be extremely pleased to recount many “wrongs that need righting” under which Ireland yet suffers. And, admirable in many respects as the present Irish land laws are, I should also be able to show that much must be added before they can be deemed perfect. Amongst others is the compulsory resumption of the* arable and pastoral lands from which the people have been driven to the barren bog and mountain side. ‘ As to the motive that prompted the appointment of the gentlemen named, I beg, in order to set “Curious’s” troubled mind at rest that they were chosen solely in consideration of their known freedom from any narrowness, either sectarian or national.—l am, etc, P. J. Duggan.’ The Delegates at Christchurch In an article altogether admirable in tone and spirit—and all the more admirable by comparison with some of the half-hearted shilly-shally stuff to which we have been treatedthe Lyttelton Times thus introduced the Irish delegates to the Christchurch public:—‘The people of Christchurch will have an opportunity to-night to hear the ease for Home Rule expounded by three of its most capable advocates. Mr. Hazleton, Mr. Redmond, and Mr. Donovan will address a public meeting in the Theatre Royal, and we hope that everyone who wants to know what local selfgovernment for Ireland really means will make a point of listening to them. A great deal of rather tiresome rubbish has been appearing in the newspapers on the subject ever since the delegates announced their intention to visit New Zealand, and probably there are.lots of simple folk who have been led to believe that there is a conspiracy on foot to bring about the disintegration of the Empire by handing Ireland over to some enemy of the nation. This bogey has taken many different shapes during the past thirty or forty years, but it has been always paraded for the same .purpose. The Unionist statesmen at Home, whose very title is a challenge to the good faith of the Irish people, are not so npich concerned for the Empire as they are for their own political power. We hear nothing of the disloyalty of Ireland until an election is at hand and then it is made an excuse for the continuance of every social and economic abuse that afflicts the country.’ ♦ Happily, we have no such question disturbing the public life of New Zealand, and the people of the Dominion can weigh the case for Home Buie without any party prejudice. 1 hey know what self-government is to themselves and they realise that without it their political conditions would be intolerable. Their widespread sympathy with Ireland appeal is not due to any weakening of their affection for the Mother Country, but to a firm conviction that the Irish people can be safely trusted with the powers they enjoy themselves. The delegates have come here to ask quite frankly for financial assistance in the battle that is so nearly won, and to explain incidentally how the money will be expended and what it Will achieve. They are seeking nothing, however, from people who do not honestly believe in their cause. Those who imagine that Home Buie will mean the renunciation of the Union are under no obligation to subscribe. Their plain duty'between them-

selves arid their conscience, indeed, is to refuse to part with a single penny. But the great majority of the people, who have already expressed their sympathy with the movement, owe it to themselves and the faith that is within them to make a ready and generous response to the appeal of our visitors. Ireland has done so much for the Empire in every walk of national life that' she • should not have to ask twice for the help she needs.' We give elsewhere a full account of the enthusiastic and highly successful Christchurch gathering.