Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 9 October 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

Teaching the League a Lesson The Bible in State Schools League/whose deplor"able methods of controversy have made the name of .the, organisation almost a by-word amongst decent , citizens, have at last been brought to heel, - though it required nothing less than a! definite threat of legal proceedings to awaken them to a sense of their duty. Some short time ago the Rev. P. W. Clarkson, a clergyman engaged in lecturing on behalf of the League, made a grossly defamatory statement regarding Mrs, A. R. Atkinson, of Wellington, a prominent member of the Women’s Christian Temperance organisation. The statement, which was made publicly in a lecture delivered at Ellerslie, was as follows: ‘ That Mrs. Atkinson, of Wellington, when one of the deputation to the Prime Minister, told a deliberate lieknowing it to be soin representing that the whole of the W.C.T.U. were against, the proposals of the Bible-in-Schools League, when only three out of nineteen branches were against it.’ The matter was taken up by the National Schools Defence League, and brought under the notice of Canon Garland and the organising secretary, with the certain prospect of legal proceedings staring him an the face if the League failed to make ~ a proper amende, duly ate the necessary humble pie. In , a letter to the National Schools Defence League, Canon Garland, after admitting ‘ that the recital of the facts in your resolution is substantially correct as to what actually occurred,’ proceeds to say: ‘ln justice, however, to the lecturer, it is fair to state that he never intended to reflect upon the lady personally, of whom he writes to me in terms of great respect. Although devoid of such personal intention,. the words, in my judgment, as used, do reflect upon the lady’s veracity. I, therefore, in the name of the executive of this League, unreservedly express our disapprobation of such a charge, our entire and sincere regret that anyone advocating our cause should have made, however unintentionally, such a statement, and hereby tender a full apology to the lady whose name was mentioned. I have taken steps to have this apology made known in as full a manner as possible in the place in which the lecturer made his statement; and I am also requesting him. to address to the lady personally'the regret which he. has expressed to me for the annoyance she has been caused.’ * This apology is at least complete and unreserved, though the stilted and elaborate humbug in which the writer tries to convey the impression that it is possible to accuse a lady of ‘ telling a deliberate lie, knowing it to be so,’ without ‘ intending to reflect upon the lady personally ’ or without ‘ reflecting upon the lady’s veracity,’ will not escape notice. The attempt in no way deceived the members of the National Schools ' Defence League, who acknowledged receipt of the Bible League’s apology in the following caustic resolution: ‘ That the organising secretary of the Bible-in-Schools League be thanked for his letter, and for the unreserved expression of 'his executive’s disapprobation of the charge in question, and for their full apology therefor. This executive fail, however, to see that a charge of deliberate lying cannot have been intended to reflect upon the lady personally, or is compatible with the great respect professed by the 'accuser, or can have been made 'unintentionally/ but accept the letter as an assurance that the lecturers of the Bible-in-Schools League will in _ future be instructed to express their respect for their opponents in a less unconventional fashion.’ Anti-Gossip Legislation The public man who sets himself in dead earnest to eradicate or even to materially abate the plague of gossip, tittle-tattle, and calumnious small talk which is such a fixed and constant feature of our social life, is up against a tough proposition; but the object is such a transcendently praiseworthy one that good citizens

will wish success to every attempt in this direction however imperfect they may be. It is amazing what an amount of mischief can be done in a community through idle uttered often lightly, without malicej and from sheer thoughtlessness. ' ‘By the tongue/ says Cardinal Manning, ‘ men may weaken their whole inmost soul; for verily it “setteth on fire the course of nature, and itself is set on fir© of hell.” ‘ A cruel story, says ‘Ouida/ runs on wheels, and every hand oils the wheels as they- run.’ The latest anti-slander legislation is announced from Wisconsin, where Governor McGovern has just signed the Tompkins Bil pro- • viding a penalty of a heavy fine or imprisonment for gossipers. The Act provides that anyone who, in the presence , or hearing of another other than the person slandered, whether he be present or not, shall maliciously speak of or concerning any person in such a manner as shall impair his or her reputation for virtue, or expose him or her to hatred, contempt or ridicule, shall be punished by a fine of not more than 400 dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. A somewhat similar Defamation Bill has just passed its second reading in our own House .of Representatives ; but its provisions are directed more against written ' than against spoken slander. The defect of most of our anti-defamation laws is that they are not put into operation except in the graver cases, and consequently do not touch the constant stream of vicious small talk which in the aggregate works more evil than the more glaring scandals. * A determined attempt to deal with this less conspicuous aspect of the evil was made a couple of years ago by the worthy burgomaster of Hattersheim in Nassau. Because of the amount of scandalous gossip current in his district, this sturdy German issued a formal decree forbidding such defamation, and establishing a black list for notorious gossips. The Burgomaster’s decree was in these terms: ‘ While the men are hard at work away from home the women waste their time talking scandal and quarrelling. The children are brought up all wrong, and the household is not properly looked after. The husband gets home tired and is given an entirely false account of the day’s quarrel. Then of course he has to “protect his wife” and run off to the police, the local court of arbitration, or the nearest solicitor. And that’s the kind of place in which the husband has to seek a real “home.” It is perfectly useless to tell this sort of woman to stick to her real sphere, chase the scandalmongers out of her house, and look after her. children and her husband’s comfort. Wherefore, be it known that the police have stringent instructions to place the names of these litigious and quarrelsome people on a list in order that the house owners and lodgers may be , warned against them !’ The scheme has much to commend it, but there is no reason why the list should be confined to women. Men are able to do quite their share in the matter of tittle-tattle and tale-bearing; and in any black list for gossips ample room should be —for it will certainly be required—for the male . variety. I.W.W. Intolerance ‘ Liberty, equality, and- fraternity ’ has always been supposed to be the motto and the watchword of our social and industrial revolutionaries; but in practice the recognition of the rights and the display of the virtues embodied in the words have been strictly reserved for those who in all points agreed with the professors of ' violence and upheaval. In former times for those who differed there was the guillotine; to-day, the guillotine, indeed, has gone, but the apostles of revolution still exhibit their peculiar notion of ‘ fraternity ’ by repaying any of their fellows who dissent from their industrial creed with, the extremest forms of intolerance and intimidation. An illustration in point is furnished by an incident which has just occurred at Baltimore, and which is recorded in the Philadelphia Catholic Standard f and in other of our exchanges. In the United States, as

®ur readers know, there are two large rival industrial organisations— Industrial Workers of the World, or 1.W.W., which stands for the general strike, sabotage,, and revolutionary Socialism, and the . Federation of Labor, which seeks to right industrial wrongs and improve the workers’ conditions without recourse to violence. The other day— at the suggestion, it is said, of their priests between 100 and 150 Catholic members of the I.W.W. in Baltimore who were employed in the High street factory of the firm of Schloss Bros, and Co. withdrew from the I.W.W. and joined the Federation of Labor. Thereupon the I.W.W, leaders —the industrial representatives of ‘ liberty, equality, and fraternity had the colossal impudence to go to the head of the firm (Mr. M. Schloss) and ask that all the employees who had seceded from the I.W.W. should be dismissed ! ■* According to the statements mad© by the members who left and joined the Federation of Labor, the priests had told them that > the teachings of the Industrial Workers of the World were inimical to the doctrines of the Catholic Church and the principles of morality and that they were in duty bound to sever their connection with the organisation. It is stated that these priests were informed that the members of the Industrial Workers took an oath that placed obedience to the organisation above Almighty God and the Constitution of the United States. As we have said, the I.W.W. leaders went to Mr. Schloss and demanded that the Catholics who had left their ranks be dismissed. This Mr. Schloss peremptorily refused to do. It was then suggested that he remove some of these Catholics from the High street factory to others and give them lower positions. Mr. Schloss said he could not punish any one of his employees for following the dictates of his conscience; that religious beliefs and political creeds were not to be interfered with by him or any other man in a position of responsibility in the firm. The I.W.W. representatives then gave word that they wanted to hold a meeting to take action on the matter at 2 o’clock in the afternoon, saying they would return to the High street shop at three. The men were told that the firm could not permit business to be interfered with in this way. The recalcitrants then decided to walk out and hold the meeting in spite of the refusal of permission. When the one hundred men left the factory the doors were closed behind them, and they were told that they need not return. * The natural comment on the incident is supplied by the Baltimore Sun. ‘ No better illustration,’ it says, ‘ of the dangerous character of the Industrial Workers of the World could be furnished than is found in their demand that certain members who had left the organisation on account of religious scruples should be discharged by their employers. Fortunately, their employers had the manhood and good sense to refuse compliance with this extraordinary demand. It will bo a bad day for this country when men can be prevented from earning their bread because they are true to their religious convictions and because they place conscience above the orders of labor agitators.’ Archbishop Mannix on Home Rule Many of our dailies are still a little nervous on the subject of ‘ Ulster,’ their perturbation evidently arising from the fad. that they take at their face value the exaggerated and highly -colored cables with which they are supplied. So far as the actual utterances of the ‘ Ulsterettes ’ are concerned, they are for the most part fair subject for laughter. Who, for instance, could take seriously such an utterance as the following, which was solemnly cabled out to us a day or two ago: ‘Lord Londonderry, who presided, was greeted with ringing cheers when he remarked: ‘We await the signal. We can to-day say to the Government, “We are ready; you can strike when you please.” ’ It is urged by many of our dailies that in the interests of peace and good order every effort should be mad© to effect a compromise; and the abstract desirableness of a settlement

by consent cannot, of course, be gainsaid. But when one party to the dispute says that it will not abate its resistance to the 0 Government of Ireland Bill though it were ratified by the verdict of twenty general elections what opening or'* inducement is there for conference or compromise Speaking some little time ago in the House of Commons, Mr. John Redmond, on behalf of the Irish Party, announced not for the first time that they desired to come to terms with “ Ulster.’ But the Irish Leader added: ‘But, Sir, I must be quite honest. There is another side to this question. Twentyeight counties will not permit themselves to be intimidated by four, and, in the last resort, the cry of hon. gentlemen above the gangway, We will not have Home Rule,” will be met - by the answering cry from the rest of Ireland, “ We will, we must, and we shall have an Irish Parliament, and for an Ireland one and indivisible.”’ That is the irreducible minimum; and in view of the past sufferings of Ireland, and of her long struggle for justice, it is not an unreasonable demand to make. Almost without exception the big city dailies have discussed the Home Rule question broadly, tolerantly, and sympathetically ; (and their utterances are entitled to the fullest measure of respect. The same cannot be said of some of the journalistic lesser lightssuch, for example, as the Wairarapa Daily Times, which devotes more than a column of its editorial space to cock-and-bull stories about the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Gaelic League, and the Commissioners of National Education, who are accused of altering the Ten Commandments ‘ to conciliate the Nationalists ’ because they are promulgating a version of the Decalogue which was officially adopted in Ireland—with the full consent of Archbishop Whately and the other Protestant members of the Commission — far back as 1837 ! The whole article is marked by a scarcely disguised tone of bigotry and bias, happily rare amongst our New Zealand papers. In view of the fact that Home Rule is now on the eve of accomplishment no New Zealand Nationalist need allow his equanimity to be disturbed for a moment by such vaporings, which may he fittingly treated with silent contempt. , * ’ That Home Rule is now inevitable and well within sight is attested by men whose competency to judge is beyond all question. The latest witness is Dr. Mannix, the recently appointed Coadjutor-Archbishop of Melbourne, whose thoughtful, well-informed, and weighty utterances on public questions have already made a marked and highly favorable impression on the Victorian public. Speaking the other day at Ballarat, his Grace, who is quite a recent arrival from Ireland and entitled, therefore, to speak with special authority, remarked: ‘He felt that he would disappoint many.of them, if he made no reference to Ireland and her outlook. He believed that Ireland was on the eve of a triumph after her long struggle. He was glad to know that the people of Australia were sympathetic with Ireland in her claims and demands. He had promised Irish members of Parliament that whenever he had an opportunity ITe would thank the people of Australia for the sympathy that had always gone, from this land back to Irelandsympathy that was not barren, but which carried along with it the sinews of war. No doubt there were clouds in the political atmosphere at present, but unless all the sane prophets were wrong, Ireland was at last going to obtain control of her own - domestic affairs. People told, them that Ireland could never get Home Rule because “Ulster” would never consent. “Ulster” never consented to anything which meant giving up monopoly and privilege. Ulster would never consent to Home Rule, but once the Bill was passed he thought he was safe in assuring them that the rifles and the drums would never be "Beard in Ulster, much less beyond its border. All the talk of which they heard so much ‘in Australian papers about civil war in Ireland if Home Rule was granted was moonshine. The Provisional Government would go to pieces as soon as the Home Rule Bill became the law of the land.’

. , So entirely is .the certainty of . Home Rule ; now recognised in Nationalist circles that prominent members of the Party are speculating as to the exact date on which the Irish Parliament will be called into being. Mr. T. P. O'Connor, M.P., in a special article to Reynolds's newspaper, declares that the Irish Parliament" will come into existence in December of 1914, and that by January, 1915, it will already be making new laws for the Irish nation. Professor J. G. Swift Macneill, writing in the Westminster Gazette, places the date a little later—somewhere between February, 1915, and June, 1915. Splitting the difference between the two estimates, it may safely be assumed that Home Rule will be formally and definitely inaugurated not later than April, 1915.