A CHALLENGE DECLINED.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2207, 3 June 1908, Page 3

A CHALLENGE DECLINED.

DR. FINDLAY AND THE SOCIALISTS. INTER-NAT]ONAI7~ REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM. (Special to “Times.”) WELLINGTON, June 2. Mi-V Tom Mann recently challenged the Him. Dr. Findlay. AttpriieyGeneral,' to a debate on revolutionary socialism. The challenge was conveyed io Dr. Findlay by the secretary of the New Zealand Socialist Party, who wrote 'as follows: “In your speech delivered at AA’auganiii on Friday last you miido special and critical reference to revolutionary socialists. The members of tlie New Zealand Socialist Party, who are tlio advocates of the international revolutionary socialism, instruct me to ask you to debate this subject with one of our members in the Town Hall or any other public hall in AVellington any time during the next four or five weeks. AVe name as our nominee Comrade Tom Mann, who, though not a member of the New Zealand. Socialist Paity, is amember of Gift International Socialist Party,, with which the New Zealand Socialist- .Party i,s affiliated, but if you object to meet Comrado Maiui on the ground that ho is not a citizen of •N.ew Zealand wo will lie pleased to appoint a member of our Wellington branch to meet and debate with you on any date suitable to your-conveni-ence. * Failing either of these suggestions meeting with your approval, ' shall lake a future opportunity of inviting you to attend at His Majesty’s Theatre on a Sunday evening (to be decided upon), when one of our comrades will give a full and exhaustive reply to your attack on revolutionary socialists and socialism.”

Dr. Findlay replied as follows: “I am in receipt of your courteous invitation to debate with Air. Tom-Alann in the Town Hall or elsewhere on the subject of revolutionary socialism. From the tone of Mr. Arinin’s address last Sunday, T take it I am to assume that the real, object of this invitation is an impersonal vindication of the aims and methods of your society. a I fail, however, to seo what possible good such a-debate would promise. I, ft least, could not hope to convince you of my belief that revolutionary socialism, by the violent ex tremes of its purposes, and r.otwith standing tlio sincerity of its advocates. is a real enemy of true progress in this country, an enemy specialJv because it enables our political reactionaries to disturb the real friends of social reform by needless alarm. .Thus, even were 1 free front official objections to its i.cccptnnce, which I am not, I should decline your kind invitation as one serving no good purpose.” The Secretary of the Socialist Party again wrote to the Minister : “Tn reply to your letter of the 29th inst, re revolutionary socialism, there is one part of our invitation of the 25th inst. which you overlooked in your. reply, the invitation to debate revolutionary socialism with one of the members '• of tlie Wellington branch. In asserting, as you do in vout . letter, that revolutionary socialism is an enemy to true progress this alone should make it incumbent upon you to accept such a challenge. A'our public position being wliat it is, vou should have the interests ot tlie community at heart, and to assert that- revolutionary socialism is detrimental to true progress and yet- fail tn meet and debate this nuestion publicly, with an advocate of revolutionary'socialism scarcely shews the courage of your convictions. As a worker T assuro you that the wage-earners are anxiously seeking for light and guidance on this question, and I fail to comprehend how one in your position should shirk the responsibility of doing all that you possibly can, not only to give guidance, but to over-, throw wliat you sa.v is a vicious and destructive doctrine.” To this communication Dr. Findlay sent the following letter: “I am," in receipt of your letter of the 30th tilt. The reason I gave for declining to debate revolutionary socialism on tlio public platform with Air. Tom Alann was quite impersonal, and obviously applies equally to any member of your branch. You tell me that my refusal as a public man to debate this question, with an advocate of revolution scarcely shows me possessed of the courage of my convictions. While you are, of .course, free to. express this opinion, I am equally free to reply that in my judgment such a revolution in New Zealand; with our country’s, universal suffrage and rate of social progress, is but the counsel of fanaticism, sincere aiid disinterested I concede, but still a fanaticism which, as in the case of all creeds fanatically held, is superior to reason and impervious to argument. Hence. I can but repeat spy former refusal. You refer to the workers of New Zealand. Permit me to express my Conviction that tliov need no argument from me to satisfy them* that the revolutionary methods you advocate are a s great a peril to them as to any other class of the community."