THE AUCKLAND POST OF TO ENQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 20, 18 October 1917, Page 6

THE AUCKLAND POST OF TO ENQUIRY

REV. HOWARD ELLIOTT REPLIES TO MR. ISITT. Sir,—A letter appearing in' your columns on tho BUi instant, over tie name of Mr. h. M. leitt, has been forwarded to me, and I crave space for a reply. Mr. Isitt's outburst lias evoked buck widespread disapproval, as being bo obviously an electioneering dodge, that he finds himself forced to the wall with the spear-points of condemnation threatening, him, and ha endeavours to_ defend himself and disarm his critics by further misrepresentation of myself and the letters in. connection with the Post Office inquiry. Mr. Isitt sot out "to undeceive the Rev, J. J. North and 1 others," and he attempts to do so by mis-statement and special pleading. Before dealing with Jlr. Isitt's statement it will be well to set out deafly tne intention of the letters that .have caused so much commotion, and which have been so cunningly used to withdraw public attention from the damning facts revealed by the inquiry.* On March 23, 19\7, a' censorship was established over Box 912. W-c could not ascertain either from the Minister of Defence or the Postmaster-General a wa-„-son for the censorship. We were quite at a loss to understand it, sinco nothing; that wo had done as a committee of vigilance could be held by any stretch of imagination to bB likely to interfere I with the conduct- oi the waT, The pam"Rome's Hideous Guilt," hadjjeen. published four months earlier, and 15.601) copies circulated, and it never oocurred to anyone that that was tho cause of the censorship, especially when we kue-w that the same pamphlet was circulating in evory part of the British Empire unchecked in, any other Dominion dw ww Zealand.

In order to ascertain line object of the censorship, we were advised' by our solicitors to send a sories of letters through the box. Eight were sent dealing with various inatters, v but every letter referring to the Church of Rome in any way was stopped—and onlv those letters. The letters were not all dealing with immoral questions, by any means, but those other letters, although published freely, hare been discreetly disregarded' by Mr. Isitt and the Hon. Mr. Herdman. Tho letters save ub the information v,o required. Box 912 was being censored in matters relating • to the Roman. Churoh. Then three months later—and one week before tne inquiry—it was decided to again test the object of the censorship by sending other letters—the letters complained of. Theee letters were framed as ■ inquiries upon repwta received by us; in three instances from police officials, and supported by other evidence. They were sent on the advice of counsel. Ther were never intended by me for publication. I never published them—tlie Hon. Mr. Herdman and' Mr. Isitt must take the credit for that. Those letters, which were ever so much stronger (designedly) than the first batch, were passed by the censor. The approach of'the inquiry had altered the principle of censorship. Tha letters were intended to prove the object of the censorship, wliich they did, and that is what stings to-day. These aw tie facts as they occurred, and if the same circumstances arose, and ay solioitor offered the same advice, I would feel compelled to bo act again. Now to Mr.. Isitt's letter. My friend, Mr. North, never discussed-with me the question of the'letters, and he is onlywrong in one particular, however, that the letters were "probably written by ignorant people." They were not written by such people, but by those wlio Ww what they were writing about. Moreover, the letters were not manufactured, fabricated, or invented, ae Mr. Bishop said. Mr. Isitt himself admits that two of the persons concerned are now dead. How does he know which! were the persons referred to, and thai; they are dead? If he is so greatly concerned about the case of one nun, why not move to have the body exhumed? To show how unreliable Mr. Isitt is even, in his quotations from the evidence referring to letters, ho quotes me as saying: /They contain a substratum of truth- which, if occasion arose, could bo proved." Now, this statement referred definitely and explicitly to the case of. . . . drunkenness, and toot to the othev letters at all. Evidently, Mr. Isitt is more intent on justifying himself' than in doing me justice. . . . Mr. Isitt refers to the fact that I read, amongst other letters which he carefully abstains from quoting, a letter concerning a nun, in the Town Hall meeting in Auckland. That is true. It was one of the_ test letters sent, and in order 1o acquaint the public of the nature of the censorship, it was judged necessary to publish those that I did, and for doing 60 I have neither tegret to express nor ■apology to offer., Permit me to say, in conclusion, thafc apart from the censorship of Box' 913 and the necessity laid upon us of discovering the purpose of that iniquity, I have carefully refrained from reflectinpf either upon the religion or the morals of Romanists. Had it not been for the censorship nothing in the natnre of those letters would have been written, and had it not been for the ill-temper of the hon. tho Attorney-General the contents of the four letters would never have been made known, since they were private letters addressed to a private box for n perfectly legitimate purpose. \ Now." how. ever, the pro-Roman Protestants have unwittingly raised the cry of "o'nen the convents," and the agitation will never cease until the convents are open. I am, . - HOWARD ELLIOTT. Mt. Eden, Auckland. [This letter has been slightly abridged.^