LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1785, 25 June 1913, Page 9

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. Sir,—Your comment on a 'letter, signed Jluis. J. Cooke, . published in The Dominion 011 June 11, is evidently based >n incomplete iniorination, as to tne laets )f tho case. As Mr. Cooke states, I iliowed conclusively at the meeting, in Wellington, 011 May 9, that the ISiuie-in-icliools League lias not "frankly corrected :he inaccuracy," and that the new edi;ion of the leaflet contains the same false irgunients as appeared in the original eatlet, based on the admittedly incorrect statistics. Let me give a very brief outline ot the 'nets about the leailet, since it is quite j'vident that few people understand how inreliable, misleading, . and subtle are nany of the statements," evidences, and n'ethods used by the Biblc-in-Bchcols League. , „ (1) The league in this leaflet altered the leading of a column of official figures roni "children enrolled" to "children instructed." If this were all. no one would lave complained, because children enroll'd are children instructed. Yet Canon .iarland, as .organiser of the league, persists in treating this as "the" error m ;ho leaflet, and all liis references and cor•ections are' confined to this heading. He las not acknowledged, frankly or othervise, "any error but this of the altered leading. (2) .Now, the altered heading was nierey the peg 011 which was hung a followng paragraph, containing three argunents,. based 'on the .altered column, purporting to show, not only that "chiliren enrolled" were "children instructid," but that the 31.423 Konian Catholic ihildren in the 3000 State : schools of 2\ew South \Vales were "visited and instruct:d" by. their priests, under the system of .•eligioiis instruction advocated by the eague. ' This is the real error for which :he altered heading was merely prclaration. This false argument was thrice stated in different-.ways in the paragraph following the figures...... ~, (3) Now, iiote the alleged 'correction n The Dominion of March 27: Canon 3arlaiid asks us to state that Ins atten;ion lias been drawn to an error in a set if figures published by the Bible-m----schools League, in which a column ot :hildren attending the State schools ot N.S-.W. is .described as 'children 111stnictcd,' which should read; 'children enrolled."' Note that the, leailet. is not ;ven mentioned... The figures had not appeared in The Dominion. lhe 'leaflet iittd not been challenged in Xiiij Dominion. This - alleged correction did. not appear iii any of; the half New Zealand papers, including the Wellington 'Post" . and the ."Lyttelton Times, 111 ivhich the leaflet. Was challenged, lliere Lhe "correction" would have been seen to '}3 utterly ridiculous, inadequate, and ihwortliily evasive. Anyone reading the Correction in The 'Dominion would wonlcr why "children enrolled" in the schools should not' lie called "children instruct?d." TU6 real error was that the 31,420 iliildren enrolled were in the leaflet not merely as "children instructed" but. as "children visited, and instruct=d" by their priests in the State schools. I'liis vastly different error is,not mentioned in . tlie * "correction" iii The Dominion. It is not acknowledged frankly 3i- otherwise. ,It is still circulated by tho League. .. . (4]. Now os to the "correction of the leailet itself. .When I urged in the "Lytteltcta Tillies" that libt only was.tha column heading incorrect, but that the three arguments based on these figures in the' paragraph which followed-, were also false, Canon Garland, iii a reply in tlib "Times" of May 7, 1 says: "Surely Mr. Caiighley ctiii see that tho accident which put the' words 'children instructed' for 'children enrolled' at the head of the column was the cause of the, paragraph bains written as.if, there- were 31,423 children instructed"—i.e.," by their, priests. Of course, Mr. Caughle.v had seen that, and hail pointed it out repeatedly. Now Canon. Garland admits that but for the ii.correct- heading the paragraph following w'ould not hfive been written as if 31,423 children had been instructed by the priests. Therefore We expect to fiiid that in the new and ."corrected' 'edition of tlis lc.ifiet the paragraph referred to has been out out. Not at all. As a matter af fact,, tho argument following the-'col-limn is uulilushiugly reprintc-d in the new leaflet word for word, with exactly the tunc figures, 31,423,. as befote. The secoiid ' statement could .not possibly bo retained, but the League rather'than frankly strike it out, alters it into a trite sentence, utterly useless for any purpose whatever.. The third argument is reprinted word for word as before, and still appeals to "the above large figures," viz., 31,423, to keep up the same false argument as before. (s)i This is the extent of. the "frank admission and correction" of the league's misstatement, and frctiii it, we may judge whether regret or chagrin was the result' of the detectioii of their "error." which, wc are told, was accidental; Aii admission of the real mistake (see (2) above) and ah holiest withdrawal of thi paragraph which the altered heading, "eaus:d to be written;" might liave helped us to believe in the "accident." .We must, however, point out that that accident had. to happen seven times running in compiling the said column from seven different gazette;, each of which had the correct lifcadihg. Further, the false rtrgiiiherits in the sections of the leaflet that I'have dealt with are in harmony with the arguments running through tlk preceding and following of the leaflet, to which I hnve not referred. Both'Of-these preceding and sii.cceSding sectioiis contain untrue Statements of the same import as the section I have dcall with. Iu tho new and corrected edition tho leaflet contains 110 fever than fm other untrue statements besides the one: I have critioised. • ■ , I think, Sir; that 111 the face of these facts, the league stands convicted, of tryin" to forward its cause by miseadin? Hi° iiublic and also stands oondeimiei: for its utter unwillingness to mate proper Mends when their fault is shown s'he correction of many other misstate. -I am, etc., j o ilN C.-UJG-HLEY. Christchurch, June 14.-

rvir. Caughley is so very positive jn w; •'assertions that our readers possibly may fail to distinguish .between his expressions of opinion and his statemerits If fact His accusations asamst the BiblMn-Schdbls League are the outcomo of his own interpretation of certain How far he is right or wrong in his conclusions can best be determined by the public front .the, facts iheihselves, and we, therefore publish m full that portion of the pamphlet referred to by Mr. CaughIfev. It is as follows: "Bishop Cleary also accuses the Bible-ih-State-Scliools .League: Of seeking to revive the penal code of Ireland, which prohibited tho llonian Catlvolic religion. ■The Bible-in-State-Rchools League s obitctivo includes: Obtaining for the Homan Catholic Church-in common with every other Church-the right for its priests or accredited teachers to instruct the children of that church, during school hours and in the Stato schools, t in. the faith of their fathers. "The following official statistics of Aev Pouth W«les show that visits were ■nmd to Slate schools by Komah Catliohe priests to instruct tho Roman Catholic cWld ™ : Children y„ nr ■ Visits, enrolled. ITO' 797 20,662 loos 1,127 .SO.«D 907 . 1,100 112,673 1908 - 1 032 32,0il \m 936 31,378 isib sw 31,755 1911 ...< 711 31 •.■J" 40 "Thus it. will be seen from the above figures that tho system which the .League is advocating, so far from prohibiting the lioniaii Catholic religion, obtained for the iioman Catholic Church the valued opnortunify of visiting and instructing in seven years an annual average of 31.42.'! Itoman Catholic children, and yet Bishop Cleary treats this as a revival of . the Penal Code! : . . "It should lie remembered that, all the State Schools cannot be reached by the ''"Bishop Cleary also suggests: 'That the introduction of the system will violate the consciences of lioinan Catholic parents . 'whose children attend the State schools. But it is incredible from the above large ; figures that such, a inns* of Homan Ca- > tliolie parents are guilty of .violation of 1 conscience." •, . The above is the eorrpetpil version or • the pamphlet and, it srenis to us. puts tho position fairly enough from the point i of view of the advocates of the Bible-in-"latc-Schools League. Of course, Mr.

Caughley may .dispute the soundness of the argument and may regard it as misleading, but it is a littio too much to expect the public to believe that those churches which constitute the League are making statements which they knowto be untrue. They may make mistakes and express opinions from which otlieis differ, but even if they were capable of dishonesty suggested, with, such vigilant eyes as those of their opponents watching them they arc; hardly likely to be foolish enough to be guilty ot the oftcnce.?. >lr. Caughlev would attribute to them. Mr! Caughley, indeed, would strengthen W own"case by being more willing to attribute to those from whom-he differs the same honesty of purpose which he claims for himself.!