ST. JOSEPH’S CONVENT PIPE: RECENT NEWS= PAPER CORRESPONDENCE

New Zealand Tablet, 14 April 1921, Page 18

ST. JOSEPH’S CONVENT PIPE: RECENT NEWS= PAPER CORRESPONDENCE

A letter from Mr. J. F. W. Dickson, chairman of a •R.A. meeting held in Auckland prior to the destruction .7 a ?. St Josephs Convent, Grey Lynn, appeared in the Auckland Star for March 31, in the course of which the writer repudiates certain statements made by Bishop Cleary reg , mg the possible origin of the fire, convenntly over looking Dr. Cleary’s main contention, viz., the mo++ enn ® roadcast of scurrilous and abominable printed matter as calculated to inflame the ill-balanced to deeds of violence and destruction. “If Dr. Cleary can prove then T n am Wr ° ng i n x my assertion (writes Mr. Dickson), land Hospital Pay th "■ of 450 to the Auckreplied M B fdlom!°i April h his lordship Bishop Cleary

f l Tw 6 skater instinctively spreads Ills feet when he president If T" * "”• r J ' P W ' Dichon. loopl Lei. 1.- ,J a sectarian political association, evidently feels himself upon thin ice. Although a lawyer, he spreads out oyer various extraneous topics; he makes several mi“S Lnd £ 't'-U affMtinK >">• words in your issue of March 2S, and still more significantly he .™ the plainly stated real issues. He therein- m m p 2 planil^' statement of the causes of ' the ' .L S ° far ’ 7 COl^ m .v incendiary convent fire ‘at Gw T “T clearly-proven sacrificed the lives of 22 sSs alid piSf Marly Z' KrSi a^“Si" assertions as to the “aconciW’ J * clenr ’ s P oclfic (as published) were chieffi ° tllGr°forcions” publications nS << , 0e: * (a) A mass of “»troOf phenomenaHnd * he der, and unspeakable shame” /m “c - ' -i callous ,nm tacks” on convents (c) Tim' eflW Similar platform at*‘agencies which I In! n V pffect that the anti-convent lated to ,i 1 have already mentioned” are “calm nunds,” and which they actually did LLl' r ' xr i f f’l,!^ places in the TJnitpd Lw<u. produce in specified are clear-? Tt statements S ? d Irela " d - ™cse which is also expressed *in ™ I°mmon 1 ° mmon byman experience, fective) prohibition of snoh u f ? nd , ln . tho foufte rf ; during the latter part of tile war In the N ‘‘"’ ? en,ad which Mr. J p W n;„i f i Jn ™e same issue m Boynton, S.M,'’ ilreported" 'I I f* Reared, Mr. J. V. the dangerous character „ to . h + a ™ strongly , condemned shamefully prostituted” „°! P ™ lted stuff .” by which a class and sectarian strife,’ My e , ngaged 111 “stirring up of the incendiary conveni a • statern o nt of the causes all respects- it is verifiel l^ r<? 18 con ? Pi e tely sufficient in it hoMSj the field. No XLs™^ CXpe,ienC^ Mr. Dfcksoi™m, Zls hi® att' y aVamcn of W statements, denies that the P.P.A tieket^’l 11 -°" tw ° slc, . e isRI,PS - He before the fire realh'- m it '? mSS, ° n meeting the night did). He also denies that « T d c "l"' ents d , never said it into ‘ part of » camniSn i - m ® et,ng collld b <> ‘'construed small part,” but 1 it JS T'T f onve " te -’ ” 0 said “a W. Dickson should Uttife ti st lb” lawyer Mr. J ' p. less unless he proves these + ia * • t 118 argument is valuecustom) no violent oMlmi''°i t,lln « s - That (contrary to Catholics, such as in 1,1 eveh was used towards the meeting in question v 4 lll 'l )al . aace J d minds; and that connected, with the stnudVim ISO atcd event , quite inland Catholic womanhnnd * g ca!r, paign against convents in fact, witnessed tm? gencrall >;- oar Town Hall has, tions, the local memory ‘off’” ? ‘"J 08 *! . e * treme exhibidangerously vivid fb/ uv °j whl . ch remain still were invited to that meetiL public advertisement, people the vehement, ex-parte t 0 hea / ( fe? onS otll er things) Escapee.” This 5 5 7??? of a Convent meeting; and whetbor? t l- , ofbcia . l agenda of the ing’Tjvasfilly; transacted o^ V > tl . bll ® mess :of ' the " meetthe meeting,' in so ffir ; ® that advertisement made fc, so tar, an anti-convent meeting. . , It, could

therefore be “justly construed” into “a small part of a campaign against convents.” In that true and obvious sense of my actual words, I shall at once accept Mr J f • W. Dickson’s offer of £SO for r the Auckland Hospital, (c) Ho eagerly disclaims attacks upon convents at that meeting, of which he was chairman. Does this mean that he disapproves of such attacks? If he disapproves, will he say so publicly? If he approves, or remains silent, what is the value of his disclaimer? And, in either case/-how do>s he reconcile his above-quoted denial of a “campaign” with the two declarations of his Association’s organiser, in your same issue, that that sectarian organisation is engaged in a “campaign” against convents? As part of that same “campaign,” there appears, in your very same issue, a violent, ex-parte tirade by that oiganisei against convents — unnamed, of course, as usual. It leaves us cold when we consider four things: The speaker’s customary platform fervor (to put it very mildly); his quaint notions of “evidence” (of which a senes of striking illustrations, known to Mr. Dickson have been appearing in the press); the upshot of certain sensational allegations against an unnamed Auckland convent; and the results of investigations of such stories regarding Catholic and Protestant institutes for women in Australia. As Mr J. F. W. Dickson has funds available for -public chanties, 1 suggest that he offer some odd sums of £SO to test the accuracy of my public statements as to the character of the anti-convent “literature,” the “platform attacks, and sundry more or loss allied campaign matters which have been brought pointedly under his and the General public’s notice. On my part, I am now in a position to place before Mr. Dickson a series of formal money offers amounting to a total of some £2OOO, for the benefit of our disabled soldiers, for a public justification of statements made under the various forms mentioned in the last preceding sentence. The next move is Mr. Dickson’s.— am etc., ’ ►MTeXRY AV. C PEARY, Bishop of Auckland.