A REPLY TO ARCHBISHOP O'SHEA

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 43, 15 November 1920, Page 6

A REPLY TO ARCHBISHOP O'SHEA

Sir.-rMy absence from Wellington hnfl prevented an earlier reply to Dr. 0 Shen s speech at Marton. The fulminations which have been launched against tne . Reform Party and the members of the House who voted for the Marriage Amendment Bill will occasion the gentlemen indicated but small concern, since there is not ono who received the support of/ 110 Roman Church at the elections. Those supported bv tlio Church wore found on the other side of the House. Neither will the iteration and reiteration of the baseless statement that tho Massey party Ts in open alliance with the P.P.A. effect any purpose of the hierarchy. The plain facts contradict the statement. Iho Government did not introduce the clauses of the Bill to which the Romanist- tako exception. . I sought the opportunity -of placing evidenco before the Statutes .Revision' Committee of the legislative Council, n right which anv citizen nos*>sses and a right which no committee of tlio Legislature would deny. The evidenco I was able to produce was sufficient to causa that committee to refer the Bill back to the Council for the purpose of enabling the Leader of the Council to make a public statement inviting nil interested to tender evidence. That invitation nnpearcd in Hi? Press on July 31, and although the Hon. Sir Francis Bell expressly indicated that the statement was ex nnrto and made for the sole purpose of affording Uin=e concerned the opportunity to rebut the ev'donce submitted. Dr. O'Rhea immediately attacked Sir Francis 8011. and. following the lead thus given, the Romanist orators and writers liavo continued tn attack Sir Francis Bell with exceeding bitterness, and have now extended their charity to embrace the Prime Minister mid tli» whole of the Iteform Party. I recognise Hint T ~-n-iltl "evpr have been afforded tlio opportunity of. submitting anv evidenco nt all if Sit Joseph Ward n-nd his party I had been In office. Dr. O'Rhea knows that,- hence his sorrow and bitter rocrm-. •"•.Hon* T did not approach tho Prime Minister to ask his assistance to submit the facts to tho Statutes Pension Committee. The Prime Minister did not, however, use his influence to prevent the discovery of tho facts as did the Government iii 1911, when approached by tlio Presbyterian Assembly. T'<e wmrv into the facte before tho Statutes Revision Committee was oner, tn everv church' and party. The finding of the committee was based on the evidence tendered, which Sir John Findlay, '•n.>-esoiitinsr Dr. O'Shea. had the opporfcunitv to traverse and cross-examine, hut could not contradict or shake. Dr. Cleary and the representatives of tho Soman Church carefully abstained from iriving personal evidence though invited to do so. I asked that the Statutes Hevision Committee summon ' cither »'■ 'vci,~, nr Dr. CTearv. The hwwrclvy shirked the ordeal'and declined to givo evidence, and now cry that the Iw'f™} based on fads and demanded by uigent necessity is an injustice tp them an invasion of their -religions rights. It is ,!r-'-irnd thn<- the sentence of political deajlh has been passed on the 44 members who* voted to maintain the supremacy of British'law and the civil and rel g.ous rights of citizens. Tho names are to be nasted on the walls in every Homamrt honie in tJie land. I notice that there |£U a generous offer to sur.,ly-photo-Uranhs. an offer, that Dr. OSh*a *" nrobablv accept, n view of the political iSt Bartholomew which has been ordered Vt™*meanwhile. it may serve a nrtful purpose when exerted *f TTish orators are the order of the day. to nonU- Why is Dr. O'Shea so. angered by t^'amendment to the Marrage Act if iMs triiK. as w« have been roiiratodly that the Roman Church doe? no question the . legality of u. civil oiw testant marriage or tho eg.t.nacy of the issue of such a marriage? » tw ? "" not oueltion such a man-iage there .can bo no offence wider the amended law and therefore no penalty or »™ e -*& nil the anger, then? Is it V nM " D pUiutha" the Roman Church doe? «Mfr P tion and assert ts right 1 o liwnl nnd sufficient marriage, ant TO condemn the parties tr.such a marriage br branding them and their children w 1 the names of shame? Dr. 0 Shto Is ntimatod that lie ami his wopk *M utterly disregard the law in tins matter. Tf Dr. O'Rhea is prepared to do that T 'iivite him to do so personally, not order some humble priest to hreak tho law If Dr. O'Shea will back uiv his mock-heroic threats by *«»* M*"™' and will permit mo the opportunity to get evidenco of the act. I >nll lay an information which will afford the. bolligerent cleric opportunity to play the role now so fashionable nmoncst certain IrisH Romanists, that of a .aheap innl'tyr. . The speech delivered at Marton mar be described ns com nosed of hysterics a.nrt inaccuracies in equal proportions to which is added a modicum of unctnotisiiess. It is a harmless and .effervescent potion—l am, etc., HOWARD ELLIOTT. Wellington November 12, 1920. «