BANNED LITERATURE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 8, 4 October 1918, Page 6

BANNED LITERATURE

(To the Editoi;.)

Sir, —Sir James Allen's statement on the subject of the literature banned by the National Government is so far.unsatisfatcory that, as the mover of a resolution of protest unanimously carried at a public meeting of soiiio six hundred pconle, hold here oil August 22 last, I feel bound to cravo your readers of The Dominion the facts the Acting-Prime Minister so conveniently ignores. Let me say, first, that, on the part of the Association, of which I am a member, there has been 110 misrepresentation of the Government's action as alleged by Sir James Allen. Protests have been, and will continue to be made, against the inhibitions which tho Government sanctions, but they do not come within the category of misrepresentations. It is Sir ' James Allen himself who must stand convicted of misrepresenting the character of the banned literature, for'lie says "t'he.attribution of habitual immorality to classes of persons who have taken a vow.to celibacy is boyord the line of permissible controversy during the war," fi'om which it is evident Sir James Allen desires the public to understand that, because of such "attribution," it has become necessary for tho .Government to prohibit the books and pamphlets that have fallen under the ban of tho censor. But what are the facts? Up to the beginning of the present month some twenty-eight (28) books, papers, and magazines, dealing with the political and social activities of tho Roman Catholic heirarcliy, have,been refused admission, under a war regulation that, on the face of ( it, can only have been made in the interests otf, at most, one-seventh of the rommimity, to tho detriment of the oilier six-sovenfhs. I hiivo a list of tho prohibited publications before me, and, speaking of those I know, I am able to say they are not of the immoral' type the Minister suggests, while there is hot one of them that is not permitted to circulate freely throughout every other portion of the British Empire, or that has been censored by the American; authorities. Several of them are, indeed, printed and published in America, while th;; others have their origin in England or Australia. AYhat good and sufficient reason can then be adduccd for theii exclusion, here?

But my complaint against Sir James Allen goes further and deeper than this.- He lias, in his statement, cast an undeserved slur upon the Protestant community, and, while I am loth to sit in. judgment upon the honourable gentleman, I cannot but think, given as he is to weighing his utterances before _ speaking, that the slur was intentional. Sir .James Allen says: "It is the duty of the Government to prevent, during the war, tho. circulation of literature so offensive in language, allegations, or insinuations as to give rise to justifiable resentment by any class in the community." Then why is the Government discharging that duty ;n so one-sided n fashion? Its wrvs are not equal, nor are they just. "The New Zealand Tablet" scarcely ceases to speak of Protestants in the most offensive manner, aixl its reverend editor does not hesitate to sneer at tho Emrlish Catholics who dare to conde.mn Sinn Fein and other disloyal movements, as. for instance, in the "Tablet" of July ll—"These ultra Catholics who would rooi'ier fight for their Kim; than for their Pope." The fact of the matter is that, in this business of banning literature, the Government has played directly into the hands of a section of the-community that lias neither love nor time for it. and that w"uld"destroy as soon as look at it-, if it. had its way.—l am, etc., I ! Eli BERT GINSTEAD, President P.iWP.I'.A.

Palmerston North, September 27. [Owing to pressure on our space, and in view of tho (act 'that wo have already published a- lengthy statement from tho same point of view by the Rev. Howard Elliott, wo have curtailed the above letter.]