LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1330, 6 January 1912, Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

AN OPEN LETTER. To tho Venerable Archdeacon Harper, , Wellington. Venerable Sir,—On 10th December, from tho pulpit of St. • Teter's Church, you launched a series of charges of tho gravest possible character against the leaders of tho No-License movement. Referring to them, you said: "In tho name 6f Jesus Christ we havo untruths, or shall I say' only half-truths? Wo have misrepresentations, wo have slanders, wo have malice and bitterness, we. have insinuations of worse description in tho name of Jesus Christ." And you also referred to the name of Jesua Christ as having been,' through tho action of the same men, "dragged, in tho dirt and besrairked with ' intolerance, malice, hatred, untruthfulness, and. slander." You will .probably agree with us that severer language could hardly bo used. Malice, hatred, untruthfulness, and slander aro directly chargwi, and there is tho added suggestion of hypocrisy in the use that has been made of (ho name of* Jesus. Christ as a cover for these ugly and utterly un-Christian qualities. As the accredited representatives of tho No-License party, it was impossible for. the Executive, of the tfew Zealand Alliance to ignore your charges. The leaders of our party value their reputation for truthfulness, hopour,, and sincerity just as highly as you value your own. Had any one of them been named by you in connection with your charges, or oven unambiguously indicated, wo are advised that he. woula have had a remedy in a Court of law. J The generality of tho charges deprived ui all,' hdwover, of any such remedy, and we accordingly called upon you to justify' at the bar of public opinion the language which you had used or to'withdraw it. You have'elected to do neither. Your answer to our original request was a curt acknowledgment of the receipt of the letter. To our second written request for > some fuller statement jrou have replied by telephone that you nave nothing to .add, ■ The opportunity of meeting specifically tho charges which you made in general terms is, therefore, dented to us. Our leaders have been attacked, but they aro unable to dofend themselves, because you refuse to state either who are the offenders or what they have said. They have been attacked from a Christian pulpit, and tho charges published broadcast over the land, but thoy aro as helpless as though the tongue of .private or anonymous slandor had made-an attack upon their honour. On reflection, you will perhaps see that your procedure is possibly the crueller method, sinco tho generality of your language gives'you all the advantages of priyacy, while tho publicity of tho occasion, the sacred calling of tho acouser, and tho sanctity that belongs to tho pulpit, combine to make 'injury as deep and as far-reaching as possible.

Wo have no desire to retaliate in kind Upon your harsh language. We are quite content to leave the issue to tho impartial judgment _of the public. Yon nave made a series of sweeping and grossly dishonouring charges against men who, for no personal ends and at a great personal _ sacrifice, are giving tho best that is in than toa cause which they believe to bo of God. Asked to justify these charges or to withdraw them, you have declined to do either. The public must judge whether it is the reputation of the No-Lioense ;leadets or your own that suffers in consequence. We are, ■■■ ■ • Yonrs faithfnllv," W..J. COMRIE, Chairman of Executive. . JOHN DAWSON, . ' r Secretary. January 5, 1912. THE TRAMWAYS TROUBLE.

Sir,—l have; heeri commended by a number of business "men for the letters I hiive written bi'.'WH ?, s : th® Council fiasco, "but in so'ind quartors- iny previous letter?, were, misinterpreted, aid, with your" permission, X would like'to just put the matter .again as it* appears to me as[a ratepayer and'a business man. I venture, to'say that no one could read the-report, of yesterday's meeting '.vithout realising- that the whole affair i? a hugo ;bungle and a disgrace to Mir (it,y Council, ... When I refer to the City Council, of OQiirse,..it is understood that I on y refer to those members who assisted in perpetrating such a hngo blunder in the controL of the rity's bi:siness. While not dealing with the merits or demerits of the case, it seems to' mo the position is this:— (1.) Inspector' Fuller was charged with 'want ol tact." This'was purely a departmental matter, and '.should never have passed Mr. Eichardson. ' (2,) : The council bungled" the bnsin<s3 by takingany notioo • of., the -union's representatives without. having first gone through ilr. fiichardson, and - committedan unpardonnble act in making public a confidential document in connection with a most important branch of the city's undertakings. (3.) The tramways union did wrongly in', threatening the strike, but-withdrew, this ■ threat on tho understanding that they .wert to lay charges against Inspector Fuller, presumably with reference to his "want of tact." On reading the report-of the m«eting one is forced to the conclusion that the matter is a very serious one, and affects the character and conduct of one of tho city S employees. The question I would like to haw answered is this: Is the City Council a competent body to adjudieate itrthe case as it is now presented by the Tramways Union? Every rightthinking ratepayer will, agree that they are not, for, looking at tho position from an unbiased standpoint, half the present council vnted for Mr, Fuller and half against him.. This is. unsatisfactory to both, parties, and, as tli<j matter .has now. become public, I consider that it should bo referred to a Court of Justice.—l am etc., ' H. G. HILL. January 5.