LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1721, 11 April 1913, Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

» A CHARGE OF UNTRUTH. Sir,—ln your, issue ot' yesterday 11 paragraph appears in reference to the costs in the Stagpoole case. I regret that tho campaign of slander which litis been carried on muter the aegis of tho New Zealand Educational Intitule in reference to this mutter should ecessitate tho usa' of~ your coliiiuiis to ho extent 1 ask for, but it is only right hat the great body of teachers who are oncerned in this matter should know the act. I refrained last year from replying o a virulent attack' in your correspondnee columns from Mr. l'arkinson on myelf in connection with this natter, ami his apparently emboldened him to write o newspapers iu Wnnganui and Palmerton in the same strain, Eurlher iniiiuations oil the matter were also niado n tho. annual report of the executive of he institute, presumably prepared by the anio gentleman. The time has arrived, owevcr, when publicity is necessary, and . intend to do my best to use it. Your paragraph states: "No attempt las been made to use a technical defect 0 escape liability." Let me state first rliat is relied upon by the New Zealand Education Institute as a "technical deect." In making out the order for costs he Magistrate, at the request of Mr. itewart, counsel for the New Zealand iducational Institute, inserted tho wolds 'known as the Now Zealand Educational Institute" as the body by whom the costs mist be paid. The institute's solicitor Mr. Myers) contended that tho order houkl have been made payable by Mr. itagpoole, and then the institute would lave been liable, but, as that had not teen done, thero was no liability on tho lart of the institute to pay anything. Ho old the board, however, that thero was 10 intention to repudiate tho whole of lie costs because of that defect, but that f certain charges allowed by the Court n its scale of costs—tho three assessors' ces of ,El 5 15s. each and pry fee of .£2 is. 1 day, tho latter I had not asked for— vere abandoned by us the balance would ic paid. At first, the board decided to itand by the order of the Court, but as ;he only two amounts in which our side vas concerned—our assessor for .£ls 15s. ind my fee—were not of great importance, [ asked the board to waive the point, and iettlo on that basis. . But no sooner did Ur. Myers know this than he wanted an)thcr pound or .two of flesh. Ho first lsked that the payment to the Clerk of :ho Court for copies of tile evidence bo ibandoned, and subsequently that some if tho expenses allowed by the Court of witnesses bo also struck olf. In further iroof of this, tho following paragraph appears ill the annual report presented to:he New Zealand Educational Institute ill January last:— "The Court awarded costs and fees JC2O7 9s. 4d. Owing to an error of the Court' in making Uik order for costs against the institute"—remember,' tho order was made thfit way at tho re- . quest of counsel for the institute—"instead of against tho this order cannot be enforced, and it is quite within the option of the institute to pay or not to pay all' or any part of it. The executive considers that, to preserve the good name of the institute for fair dealing, all the costs might fairly have been Allowed should be paid. Expenses and allowances to the amount of .£B9 9s. Id. have, therefore, been passed for payment, while certain fees, not authorised by the Act, have been disallowed, and certain •expenses of officials which seem to be put down at an excessive amount have been held over for further consideration." Does not that indicate that, because ot "the error of the Court iu making the order for costs against the institute" an attempt was. to be made to'reduce the amount to be paid to .£B9 9s. 4d.? And does not the fact that, under threat of exposure by an action in the Supreme Court, the, institute actually paid over ■£1-10, show that the statement contradicted by you "that ani'ondonvour lias been made to use a technical defect" to defeat the order for costs is an absolutely correct statement of- the case. And is it not incorrect for you to state that "the institute'has how paid the co-its,; ; less thr items objected to"? The items objictfd to, according to the report of the institute's executive, totalled .£llß, yet only ,£G7 :k was-the total abandoned by ,the board, and even of that latter amount .631 10.-, was for the Magistrate and the.institute's own assessor!—l am, etc., - ' " PEED. PJKANI. [We have omitted from this letter some vigorous expressions of opinion concerning. Mr; Parkinson's actions in connection with the Stagpoole eaio which are immaterial to the point under discussion. As to the actual terms of settlement arrived nt on the question of costs the matter,.ws believe, was arranged privately, and wc are not in-possession of the details. Wc have no doubt, however, that Mr. Pirani's figures .are corrcct.|) MRS, PANKHURST. Sir, —Your article expressing approval of the monstrous sentence which has been passed 'upon Mrs. l'ankhurst must fill every right-minded mau and woman in the community with surprise and indignation. -Mrs. l'ankhurst is known the world"over among intelligent persons.a: a woman who has devoted her life tc righteousness, and who is revered bj more men and women than any woman oi the past or present. Yet she is tortured and imprisoned lor agitating tor justicc to women and children. Men such as Kir Edward Carson, Mr, E. E. Smith, M.P., and Mr. Bouar Law. M.P., who have counselled their follower.' to acts of violence entailing danger ant the loss of human, life .and also' destruction of. property, and who. openly conimii high treason by arming a volunteer force are not condemned by you, nor are tliej arrested and imprisoned by the Govern liient. These men have a constitutions means—tho vote—of redressing their griev ances, women have no such means, anc are denied in, British Courts the justice that is granted to men. Your article oi the " i'oung Turkish Party" shows tlnv you see and read "Votes for Women.'' Why, then, did'' you quote a statement ii a cablegram instead of tho words Lon Eobert Cecil used in speaking of tli betrayal of women in the House of Coin moiis? "It is all very well," Lord Kobert Ceci said, "to denounce the militancy of mili tant women; conceive what any body o men would have done if they had beoi treated'-ill the way women liavo been. 1 would not have bten a casual outrage; i would have been an insurrection. . . Yo.u would certainly have had riots." II was opposed to lawlessness, but holdin that' view as strongly as he did, he nls held that they had no right to tren women in the provocative and treachci ous'way in which tho House had treate them. , The following quotation from a descrij tion of tho treatment Mrs. Druinmond n ceived when leading a-deputation, whic Mr, Lloyd-George had promised to n ceive, is given by Mr. W.s H. Ncviuso (tho famous war correspondent):—"Tit policemen seized Mrs. Drummoud, an drugged her with brutal roughness alon tho pavemeut. Iu vaiu sho protest!: that she would walk quietly if the ceased indicting further pain upon he Tho Government .supporters" (Mr. No inson is a Liberal) "whom I have d< scribed—the shop-boys, bullies, tapster traffickers in women, and universal loa crs received them with the yelling der siou that, is tho coward's invariable tr buto to the brave." Can one wonder tin sensitive women refrain from constiti lional deputations, and that when tl protests nt 20.(100 meetings which wci held by the W.T.I'.U. in 1912 were i; liorcd, other means were adopted of drai ing attention to the injustices to whic women are subjected under British laws There are millions of women in Br tain who look upon Mrs. Pankhurst i their saviour from degradation, who wi be aroused to rebellion by this unjust ai vindictive sentence. When a man of i dependent means, who enticed two litt girls of eight years til' ago to his room ami assaulted them is only fined .1:10 ai Iset free to repeat such crimes, can oi wonder that mothers and decent men a indignant at the sentence passed upt ill's. Pankhurst for protesting again such injustices to women and ehildre The men whom Mr. Neviuson deserib will no doubt rejoice at the removal ono who stands for the abolition of tl While Slave traffic and the sweating women workej'j. and who upholds in h person the gentleness and sweetness the highest ideals of womanhood. 'J those who arc'struggling in the sea economic and moral -lavcrv, Mrs. Pal: hurst is as u light shining iu lli-o dar ness.

All li ne iT'funuei's lmvo bc;'ii alju-ctl by the labbk', wlm l'car tliu ilawu uf a higher life. A'o tine wlm has tri.'ii .m Icihhvii Mr-. or inidcr-laniiM tho ri'n<sons for the bittfcr lo volts for uohkmi, but knows that this latest persecution will help the cause. The IWKU en which her sentence appeals proves lu all thinking people I lie need and ctiieaey ol' militancy. 'L'\yu new Hills for suffrage were foresliadouTil. and (here is still another one to lie introduced by the Unionist party l>.v .Mr. Arthur Ki'.U'our and other leading Unionists it' the Government again kill the Liberal Bills. . Ulr. ftevinson, in his arliele, slates that: "The mother of Parliaments is now branded in the eyes of Europe as the model of perfidy." i'ive times since llllla the Prime Minister of Kritnin has made and broken published pledges lo women. If he had broken one such pledge to men he would have been limited from office nnd branded dishonourable. So. loosely is honour guarded in the British Parliament, that we find Mr. .p. ]■;. Smith, M.l'. (a leading Unionist), condoning Mr. Asijuith's perfidy in these words: "It was because these pledges were given partly in levity, partly in indifference, partly without any realisation that the issue was a living one, or was to be practically tested in the near future. It was only within the last two or three years that anybody who had given a pledge on. this question had really thought there was the slightest chance of a measure passing through this llouso or becoming law. No pledge given before that time mattered at all." That' militancy has made—as it 1111(lon'btetll.v lias— nouanrnblu members of the House of Commons realise that a pledge given, oven to women, should bo fulfilled, is justification for all, / and more than all, tlio "bell-ringing" which has been done by the "W'.T.P.U. Before militancy, according to Mr. P. E. Smith, there was no sense of honour in tlie British liirliamenl. According to those who study its action, there is still very little sign of its awakening. Mrs. Pankhurst is meeting with similar treatment to that which Florence Nightingale, 'Elizabeth fn, Josephine Butler, and the'pioneer women doctors were subjected in their lime. Nowadays monuments anil stained-glass windows bear testimony to the honour that is done to these noble women, none of whom suffered for such a universal cause as the. one which is represented by Mrs. Tank-' hurst. Surely you must acknowledge that only women of tho very liighest type, would faorifico health and comfort and suffer imprispninent and torture for the sake of their sisters, who are unable to help themselves. Mrs. Israel Zangwill's remark that 'prison was becoming tho only place for respectable women'at the present time" is being proved truer every day. Should the Government mnnn»p to murder Mrs'. Pankhnrst, they will raise a fiiv that will burn until every woman in Britain is free. Their own women supporters are resigning by thousands from the Liberal Federation as a protest anainst. Mr. Asf[iiitli's broken pledge. Without women's help the party is doomed, as all the intellectual and work at elections is done by women. Mr=. Pankhurst and the other marfyrs 'will be avenged in the near future, awWlwa who were ready to blame them will be courting their vote and interest.—T am, ONE WTTO UATES VIOLENCE TO AVOMKN.