CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS

New Zealand Tablet, 11 October 1917, Page 31

CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS

Writing t.o the New Zealand Herald under the above heading on September 25. Dr. J. Giles, a retired magistrate and medical man, and one of the most highly-respected citizens of Auckland, thus comments on the despicable Howard Elliott accusations ;—• “Those who are not fond of meddling with dirt may well feel disposed to consign to oblivion the outrage to public decency that has lately been connected with the name of the Rev. Howard Elliott, now that Mr. Isitt’s noble reply to the Auckland Baptist Ministers’ Association has been published. But, unfortunately, Mr. Elliott’s supporters, having an uneasy feeling that the position is not quite satisfactory either for him or for them, actually try to get him out of this mud puddle by pleading that, though his letters were bogus letters, the accusations, contained in them against Roman Catholic conventual institutions were not bogus accusations, but that Mr. Elliott believed in them; and the Wellington Ministers’ Association declares itself 'satisfied as to his “bona fides,’’ and that he is convinced that there are facts accordant with the statements contained in the letters.’ And yet they never point out to him that his plain duty as a citizen and a man of honor—let alone as a Christian teacher is to produce his evidence or withdraw his statements. It is astonishing that these Christian ministers fail to see how much worse they have made the case. For a bogus charge might have been withdrawn under the wretched plea that it was only ‘bogus,’ and not meant to do real mischief, but onlv to draw the censor. But even this miserable avenue of escape is repudiated, and we are left face to face with the proposition that any slander is justifiable if the slanderer believes it, and that he is in no way bound to carry the matter beyond the point of dark and covert insinuation. How can we meet those who defend so gross an affront to the 'ethics of gentlemen, and the code of civic honor and morality better than by repeating Mr. Isitt’s sentiment: ‘We prefer to bear your condemnation than to be guilty of your spirit?’ That is mild, but it may serve.”