THE REV. A. REID AND THE BAND OF HOPE.

Evening Star, Issue 3150, 25 March 1873, Page 2

THE REV. A. REID AND THE BAND OF HOPE.

To the Editor. Sm,—l understood from your remarks in Friday evening’s Stah that discussion on matters connected with Messrs Peebles and Dunn was to be considered as closed. Why, then, did the chairman of the Band of Hope entertainment provoke unnecessarily further debate, by bis animadversions on my action in refusing to allow Dr. Dunn to speak in the Wesleyan Hall ? He is reported to have given me credit for conscientiousness ; but, on the debit side, he placed error in judgment, which he charitably hoped I should live to regret. Much obliged to Mr Jago, but I really trust I shall not live to become a dotard. I say nothing here on the good taste displayed by Mr Jago, in introducing the subject at all before an audience chiefly consisting of girls and boys, nor will I inquire particularly respecting the justice of pronouncing judgment, when the other side had not been heard : even granting the competency of the tribunal to try the case. Simply, as a citizen who has been publicly traduced by another citizen, I demand of Mr Jago the reasons for his unwarranted utterances. I resent, with scorn, the sop of “ acted conscientiously,” and take my stand upon the righteousness of my action, as tested by the accepted code of morality. Let Mr Jago, if ho can, prove wherein my conduct has been in conflict with this code.

Will Mr Jago urge, as he did at this meeting, that it is our duty to co-operate with every gosd man in every good work ? My reply is, that I have no proof that Dr Dunn is a good man. The evidence supplied by the Doctor himself during his residence among us, tends to produce the conviction that he is the opposite of good ; and why should I be called on to co-operate with a man with whose principles J have no sympathy, and for whose character 1 entertain no respect? —I am, &c., Alexander Reid.

Dunedin, March 24,

To the Editor.

Sm,—Few things lately have surprised me more than the letter of Mr Reid, which appears in your issue of this morning. On the occasion of the Band of Hope entertainment I felt it was necessary, as chairman of the meeting, to make some allusion to the circumstance of the change in the place of meeting. This I did in what 1 conceived to be the least offensive terms I could use. 1 was careful not to attribute any unworthy motive to Mr Reid, norto anyone elseiuvolvcd in the transaction, and only said, as reported in your paper of Saturday, that I had no sympathy with the proceeding; that I thought a mistake had been made ; and expressed the hope that the gentleman making it would live to regret having done so. Surely less than this could not be said by ono in the position in which 1 was placed, and entertaining the opinions I do on the matter in question. Nor can 1 yet perceive anything in what I said which should so disturb Mr Reid’s equanimity as my observations seem to have done. Mr Reid must have

been very angry when he wrote to you. The idea that a layman should presume to differ from him in opinion, and have the temerity to think him capable of making a mistake, seems to have been more than the reverend gentleman could stand. He evidently’ waxed very wroth. I hope he endeavored to observe the Apostolic injunction, to “beangry and sin not. ” Whether or not he succeeded in the endeavor must be referred to another “tribunal” than that of my poor judgment. I deny having traduced Mr lieid, or haying said anything capable of being emstrued into even a show of disrespect. I am not going to be drawn by Mr Reid into a discussion of purely personal matters ; nor do I think any good would aviso from disputing with him matters of taste. Mr Reid’s action was before the public, and was matter for fair criticism. I have I right to entertain my own opinion with re*pect to it, and to express that opinion, so long as that is done in becoming terms. 1 leave the public to judge between my “ utterances” on Friday evening and Mr Reid’s letter of yesterday. Just one word as to the character of the audience on Friday evening. Ido not know how Mr Reid became aware that it “chielly consisted of girls and boys.” I did not see him present during the evening. I now tell him that there was a sufficiently large attendance of those capable of forming an intelligent opinion on his conduct to justify my allusion to it.

The conduct of Mr Reid in this matter, and the tone of his letter, are sufficient to induce one to thank God that the days of priestly power and domination are gone by, let us hope for ever.—l am, Ac , John W. Jago,