Notes

New Zealand Tablet, 11 September 1913, Page 34

Notes

The League's Misstatements The Dunedin Evening Star, commenting on Mr. Caughley's address, inter alia remarks: ' The most effective passages in Mr. Caughley's address were those in which he directed attention to Canon Garland'sprinted assertions in relation to the working of the much-belauded New South Wales system. Not only has the inaccuracy of these been pointed out more than once, but even after the misstatement has been grudgingly admitted to be such the old assertions are restated and reprinted. We commend, in all seriousness, the more glaring of these discrepancies to the consideration of the executive of the Bible-in-Schools League. Surely the cause for which the League are working does not need support of this nature. Mr. Caughley was also effective in his answer to the oftrepeated assertion that the League do not want and will not have religion taught in the State schools. "All we want," affirms Canon Garland, "neither more nor less, is the New South. Wales system adopted by and planted in New Zealand." "Then, if this be so," replied Mr. Caughley, giving his audience chapter and verse for his statement, " you must have religion taught in your schools." We are afraid that the evidence does not bear out the asserted non-religious nature of the New South Wales scheme. Nor did Dean Fitchett come prepared with any serious refutation of Mr. Caughley's contentions. In his brief, spirited, and earnest reply he contented-himself with a contemptuous reference to the value of statistics, and stated in ringing tones that as the Bible-in-Schools League had a,majority behind them they intended to get what they wantedwhich is

hardly, we imagine, what so able a controversialist,- in his more studious hours, would care to defend. There are some things and some domains where majorities must give place to justice, to reason, and to conscience. The address of Mr. Caughley last night should do much to clear the air.' A Referendum Parable \ As intimated elsewhere in this issue, Mr. Caughley, at his meeting in connection with the Bible-in-Schools question, touched on the .agitation for a referendum, and illustrated the absolute unfairness of such a proposal by an apt parable. The Bible Leaguers, he remarked, want a system introduced. We don't,' they say, ' compel anybody to take it; it is free to all to take or leave it. There is a conscience clause, and if a parent sends a written notice asking for his child to be exempt it is exempt/ * ' Once upon a time,' continued Mr. Caughley, ' there were a number of birds in a field, and all contributed to the food supply—being a chummy lot. One bird was appointed master of the flock. A peculiar thing about them, however, was that three-fourths of them had long beaks, long legs, and long necks, while one-fourth had short beaks, short legs, and short necks. All wanted food. They found a difficulty over the way in which the food ought to be served. Finally the three-quarters of long-necked birds decided to lay their heads together and ask the head bird to serve the food up in long-necked jars, "suitable to their build and disposition." - The short-necked birds, of course, were opposed to this proposal as it would debar them from taking nourishment. The long-necked majority affected virtuous surprise, and criticised the shortnecked minority for preaching "a dog-in-the-manger policy." The master bird said: "If you long creatures get long-necked jars, what about flat plates for the others?" Thereupon the long-neckers said amongst themselves: '' We are three to one; we will have a vote on this. It is a democratic way. We can think of nothing anyways fairer." The short-bills protested, nevertheless, that the proposition was grossly unfair. However, the astutely judicial long-bills arrived at this critical juncture with a conscience clause for the relief of the short-bills. They said, with complacent unction : We do not compel you to take the food out of the long-necked jars. Oh, no: we have a beautiful conscience clause, specially provided for the occasion, which gives you the privilege of going without.' That is a homely but accurate parallel to the principles embodied in the League's proposal for a referendum.