ANARCHISM AND SOCAILISM.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 25, 30 July 1894, Page 2

ANARCHISM AND SOCAILISM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir, — This controversy will bare to draw to a speedy conclusion, or the consequences will be most disastrous. Only the other night my hash-house proprietor said : " What will you take, Mr Bentley ? There's cold roast beef and pork, and curry and rice." I was gazing into futurity at the moment, and unconsciously replied, " Anarchy, please; er--no— l mean Socialism." Mine host is quite satisfied that I am growing "dotty." One of your unfortunate " comps," I believe, bids fair to become non compos mentis at an early date. He was out with his girl the other evening, when his inamorata's gaze was attracted by a most fetching sample of. bead-gear in a local shopwindow. " Isn't that a dear, delightful, duck of a hat T she gushed to her typographical adorer. Where bis thoughts had drifted to may be inferred from the reply he gave— 'Tve got about a * stick ' and a-half of that infernal Socialism stuff to set up yet. A Murra(y)n on the hull bilin' of writers ! " The •boss' has evidently had about enough of this subject, for if you ask him anything about the < copy ' his reply most Curt is." It may not be altogether Orthodox to use such emphatic language ; but I wish someone would tear Bentley up by the Hoots and dump him down somewhere out of this district where he could give some other ill-Star-red paper a turn. The in-Stant-on which I know v this is done, I'll yell the roof of my head O&, and say it is Good-(to)-be-here ; come on, boys, and let's irrigate !" " What-e-xer are you raving about, Fred % n queried the damsel, as she continued to feast her eyes on that gem of a cliapeau. " Excuse me, ma chire, but I thought I was at my ' case' in our composing room." But jesting apart, Sir, this subject of Socialism and Anarchism' has travelled just about as far as I, care totoh low it. I must therefore crave your indulgence to make one or ■ two- brief observations in reply to Messrs Good* behere, Murray, and Boots, and then so far as I am concerned the matter terminates :— Mr Murray, I was indeed sorry to find you leaving the peaceful, restful quietude of your venerable existence, to take part in a correspondence which was already badly gone in the knees and showing ominous signs of giving way altogether in the slacker portion of its pants. I never care to cross swords in a controversy with clergymen. They are entitled to, always have received, and al> ways will receive, a certain amount of respect from me. Consequently whenever I find myself opposed to one in newspaper warfare, I invariably imagine myself cutting and slashing away at a woman, and a woman wearing embroidered petticoats at that. I must therefore either sheath my weapon altogether, or chivalrously allow myself to be cut and carved into pork pie and sausage meat. Besides which impression, I know from experience that clerics have so adroit a knack of quoting scripture texts to meet arguments either pro or con (as it suits them) ; that a layman finds he is simply playing at hospitals, with himself, as the patient every time, whenever bi is indiscreet enough to enter into each unequal lopsided contests. I must decline to enter into a theological discussion with Mr Murray for another reason. I never knew any material benefit to ensue from such controversies to either of the combatants. On the contrary they are the most prolific sources of insanity and " Vexation of spirit " that I know of. Still there is one assertion of his I must take a decided exception to, viz.,: That " Christ was neither a social nor political reformer." Why the whole of Christ 'B life and teaching were aimed at and actually did accomplish the overthrow of most of the Jewish social Vfcws, customs, sacrifices etc., as embodied in the> old Mosaic economy I Furthermore, he, on several occasions, showed utter contempt of their Sabbatarian laws and regulations. He boldly saved the woman taken in adultery from the Draconian, penalty to which she had undoubtedly rendered herself liable under the Mosaic penalty code. Single-handed again, he cow-hided into the streets the hooknosed money-lenders and changers whowere playing their time-honoured business within the Temple precincts. Lastly he even went so far in his disregard of the law of meum et tuum as to send one of his disciples to " feloniously steal and carry away" an unsophisticated ass from an inoffensive Jewish citizen ! How does Mr Murray make his contention dovetail in with these facts ? I could multiply proofs that Christ came and lived and died as a social (if not political) reformer. But cut bono ? " A man convinced- against his will" etc., is certain to apply to Mr Murray. In dismissing Mr Murray, I would respectfully remind him that the Master whose servant he professes to be, once said pathetically and sorrowfully " the foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man hath not where to lay his head ! " What percentage of the clergy— be they Romish, Protestant, Presbyterian or Dissenting—can truthfully say the same ? Why they are as a body, the most comfortably placed and best housed class of men in creation I The " possible improvements in the lot of mankind" ) which Mr Murray so glibly says will be accomplished in God's good time out of the Salvation Christ came to bring) cannot refer in any way to the priesthood, for their average "lot" already embodies the tummumbonum of human enjoyment, ease and comfort— not to say luxury. The unhappy " lot " of many of the laity an contraire, is still open to the "possible improvements" Christ came to bring nearly 2000 years ago. Isn't it about time some of the " improvements " wfere effected ? I think so ; though Mr Murray may disagree with me. Mr Goodbehere and I have learnt to know each other a little personally since my first letter was written, sir, and I venture to say he no longer regards me as a "dangerous fanatic," and the good opinion is heartily reciprocated. Verbum sap. With reference to Mr Boots' letter in Saturday's issue, I wish to say I should have liked to see less " roots " and more " fruit " in his effusion. He says "No such thing as equality found a place in Christ's teaching," and farther that there was nothing approaching " equality " in His mission. Let me cut the top root of this fallacious assertion Mr | Roots, and I'll clo it as gently as possible. When our Saviour selected His disciples he told them to •• forsake all " and follow Him. When they " forsook all" and threw in their lot with Him they lived so much in equality and fraternity that one pnrse was common to them all. When they began to squabble as to precedence and the principle of personal " equality," Christ gave them to understand most explicitly that H© would make no distinction between them hero on earth, and assured them that they would fiad tbenjsejyea cm Uio some

Slane of "equality" when they reached le City of Golden Sidewalks. If you -want verification of this statement consoli you* Bible, Mr Boots. I am, etc., Gboroe £. Bektley.