LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1843, 1 September 1913, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

« MR. A. R. ATKINSON REPLIES TO I-IIS CRITICS, Sir,—After a brilliant campaign in tho south, during whic J h he has been convicted of' more flagrant inaccuracies in the Course of a single address than Jiavo been seriously laid to my charge in '20 years'of controversy (see Mr. John Caughley's letter in the "Lyttelton Times" of' August 20), Canon Garland has returned to revive the flagging energies cf the Wellington campaign. 'Che presence of his master mind was sorely needed. Tho squad which he had organised—dare 1 call it an awkward squad?—got through its volley-firing With fair success under his supervision 011 Sunday, August 17. But though like tho famous general who "lied full soon 011 tho Ist of June" the Canon may be presumed to have "bado tho rest keep fighting," his troops preferred his example to his precept. .Tho withering fire which with my unaided pop-gun I have been able-to-turn on to their position from my commanding station on tsio hei^htt —"the mountain tops where is the throne of Truth"— has sufficed to confine them to their lines. But with the return of their general, the demoralised and shattered army took the field again yesterday and fired another volley. The noise was terrific. Canons to right of mo, Archdeacons to loft of me, D.D.'s and smaller fry Volleyed and thundered. Neverthele-is, I can assure you that not a man in my irreducible minority ot ono was dismayed, and I am satisfied that when tlio. smoke has cleared away the strictest medical examination will'show that not ono 'lias been hurt.

1 am certainly not going to labour too heavily with the subtleties of tho textual criticism .to which my opponents have subjected my much perverted statement. They point with triumph to tho fact that 1 admit 110 fewer than three or tile disputed words; three out of a sentence containing 23 is indeed a tremendous admission!. If my censors will supply any sentence of tho same length, 1 * believe that my ingenuity would be equal to tho task of making quite a considerable alteration in its moaning if 1 was allowed to change 20 of the words and to vary the order of tho other three —which is exactly what I has been done with mine.

Another feat of critical .sagacity is the discovery that "religious bigotry" fits tho context, but "religious dogma" does not. Thus speaks this well-drilled team with General Garland in chargc; but when Private Gibb was thinking and speaking for hirnsolf that memorable Sunday 'he confossed to finding,the perverted context obscure, as well ho might.. He said then: "Wo aro accused of 'political cant.' It is indeed hard to tell what our censor means by this." It was indeed hard to divine from the botched roport which is now held up as a model of accuracy, for the lino of thought had beon broken. It was the reference to the cant phrase, "Trust the people," that supplies the nexus as 1 have previously explained. But now under the master's guidance it all comes upon him like a flash, and.he sees with the rest that "bigotry" was the very word needed. It is not surprising that with my feebler literary, acumen I should have blundered on the inferior word. But it would bo a marvel indeed if my use of the inferior word were confirmed by the official -stenographer of the Government, and • yet wo were both mistaken! Tho fact that "religious dogma" is the phrase in t-lio official record is conveniently ignored by my accusers.

But it is time that I camo to the real pith of my rejoinder. I havo already disavowed not merely the use of' tlio offensive language ,imputed to me, but the holding of any sucfh opinions, and declared that my only feeling for tho bulk of the Bible-in-Sehools' Lcaguo's supporters is one of genuine respect. But all tsiis is swept aside by tho triumphant demonstration of my critics t'hat I am a liar. I am stating tho matter with brutal plainness, but with perfect accuracy. The conflict between myself and the Government stenographer 011 the one sidi and The Dominion reporter on t-lio other is of course, capable of being resolved against me without branding me of deliberate falsehood, but no charitable middlo course consistent with m.y veracity is left, open • by the thoroughness of 'my accusers. The inference that is solemnly drawn from my delay in contradicting the incorrect report js nothing short of a charge of deliberate lying. First, there was my eight days' delay in making the, correction—a charge which comes with special force from, gentlemen who have themselves taken ten days to deal with ray letter. Then there was my general commendation of The Dominion's report in connection with Mr. Aitken's challenge of m.v _ reference to the Nelson system. Thirdly, for just to show how brazen I am I will add to tho damning indictment another point which has eluded the vigilance of Canon Uarland —there was tho fact that the gist of the offensive matter is actually contained in one of the cross-headings' of tho Dominion's report. The conclusion drawn from the first two points, and corroborated by the third, which 1 havo added myself, is that I had seen the report before tho storm broke, saw nothing wrong in it except the point raised by Mr. Aitken, and "thereby endorsed the accuracy and the otfensiveness" of the words in dispute. In face of tho fact that I had previously declared in answer to Bishop Sprott's just and not uncharitable censure ('-Post," 19th instant) that I had not seen tn'e offensive words until my attention was called to them a week later by the thunders from the pulpits, what is this but a deliberate —a ten days deliberated —charge against mo for .deliberate lying? Now, Sir. Editor, I should be a hypocrite—which is a good' deal worse than an ordinary liar—if I professed any indignation at this amazing charge. Some things are too mean, too silly, and too ridiculous to deserve -the indignation of nu honest man, and this is one of-them. For more thau twenty years 1 havo laboured in this city, and most of my energies liave been dovoted to public causes, which I knew to form nothing but a hindrance tp my personal advancement. I have been in the thick of most of tho public fights tliat wero going; I have hit hard—often, no doubt, too hard—but never below the belt; and I havo generally been on the losing side. But among the compensations has been a reputation for straight-going, for fair dealing, and for telling tho truth, which opponents have often been as freo to acknowledge as friends. I certainly cannot profess the slightest apprehension that a reputation established under such arduous' conditions and over so long a period of time is going to bo snufTed out'or even imperilled, because, under the refining influenco of tho controversy which, is to bring the country peaco at tho last, four Christian ministers have/put their names to the charita bio indictment that you published today.

That a stranger from Australia should have cared and dared to launch this charge against me does not surprise me. Very little that Canon Garland could do would surprise me. But I am _ surprised that thro of m.v fellow-citizens should liavo had the courago to back him up in his latest addition to tho amenities of public controversy 'in this country. When Bishop Sprott heard of my denial of the original charge ho did not pause to cavil or to cross-examine; but with the charity and the generosity that wo have learned to o.xnect of him he accepted tho contradiction without reserve. Bishop Sprott actor! lil;o a gentleman, but, Archdeacon Harper and his colleagues have preferred to follow tho lead of Canon Garland. They have added to tho original charge against mo

the infinitely graver 0110 of deliberately lying in order to escape it. For "my trial I put myself, in tho phrase of tho old law, upon God ;uml tho country. liC-fc tile prosecutors select tlie jury.- A dozen oflice-bearers of St. John's or St. Poter's, si dozen publicans, a dozen poli-tical-opponents, or even a. special jury of four from tho directors of Staples and Co. —tho tribunal may bo as my accusers please, and each can have a K.C. to help him. Let tho issues be whether I have lied in this matter, and whether tlicy have played tho part of Christians and gentlemen in the accusation they havo brought. Let my ovidenco and argument bo limited to my unsupported word of honour, and on the other sido lot parsons and K.C.'s do their worst, with, of course, full right to cross-examine. lam quite content to abido by tho result. "The uso of character," as Burko says, "is to be a shield against calumny," and if my character is not sufficient to stand this strain, let it go down.—l am, etc., A. R. ATKINSON. August 29, 1913. /•

[Tho tone of Mr. Atkinson's reference to the clerical gentlemen with whom ho is in disagreement does not appear to us likely to lielp his own cause very much. That, however, is his affair, though wo begrudge him tho space devoted to his somowhat cheap pleasantries." Our concern is his reference to the "botched report" which gave' rise to the controversy. A fortnight ago it was an "excellent report." in Mr. Atkinson's opinion; to-day he calls it a "botched" report; next week we may expect to havo his opinion that it is a "tissue of lies." or something equally bad. Wo might as well quote again what Mr. Atkinson said of our report two clays after it appeared and when tho matter was fresh in his memory. "The National Schools Defenco League," lie. wrote, "has tfeason to bo grateful to the Wellington newspapers for the excellent reports which they supplied of the deputation which interviewed tho P-rinxV Minister on Saturdav, and to .Tiie Dominion, which is the least in sympathy witlv our arguments, by no means the least credit is duo in this respect." Mr. Atkinson now says that samo report was a "botchcd" one. Wo have turned up the report, and on the margin of the manuscript is tho shorthand noto ta.kon by tho reporter, _ in Which tho words "a mixture of religious bigotry and .political cant" .appear. The reporter is confident tho words were used; his shorthand noto confirms it. Mr.. Atkinson says the "official report" confirms his recollection of what ho said. The "official report" was a s'horthand note of the interview with Mr. Massey taken bv one of.tho Prime Minister's secretaries; a,nd it was by reference to that gentleman that Mr. Atkinson refreshed his memory. Wo have not, and do not, in any way question Mr. Atkinson's belief as to what' he said. We liayo no doubt that he believes he said "nolifcircant and religious dogma." All that -wo can say, lvowerar, is that our reporter, a skilled and experienced note-taker, when first questioned on tho Bnb.inct. said unhesitatingly that the words "religious bigotry" were used, and on turning up his shorthand notes, v."hi"!i had been filed away with the other M. S. S. comprising the contents of our issue of August 11, tho notes taken at tho interview bnro out his recollection of what was said.)