THE PREMIER AND THE BIBLEIN-SCHOOLS PLEBISCITE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 604, 20 September 1913, Page 3

THE PREMIER AND THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS PLEBISCITE.

The Editor. Siir,—lt seems that Mr Massey is in a fair way to outpace Sir George Reid, of the "Yes-No" attitude in New South Wales legislative history, on all questions likely to bring him into conflict with any section of th*> people. Now, this is a great pity. In opposition Mr Massey talked about "a square deal" and "a fair deal," about progressive methods and yet, now he is in power, and possesses the opportunity to act as he then spoke, be adopts a vacillating manner that is anything but creditable to him or his party. Shirking important political questions will not avail him much, but rather tend to destroy the public confidence in his profession. The public admire a cuurageous man even if they differ from him in many ways. Mr Massey has before this stated that he stood for the Bible every time, and yet in this so-called Christian country it is barred from our schools, as though it was a dangerous or an immoral hook, while at the same time the Book has been and is now spread broadcast throughout all the heathen nation of the world with most remarkable and righteous results. It can and does work miracles among these people who cease at its bidding to either plunder or murder as once they did. Yet we bar this Book from the schools where our rising generation is being trained supposedly how to make life, and so keep the from the youth of this land that knowledge which is the basis of a!! pure and progressive living. Like all men who endeavour f o fence a question, Mr Massey talks illogically. Personally, he favoured moral and religious teaching in the schools of this county, but politically, he was afraid evidently to act up to his opinion 3 because of certain hostile elements in the State. This means a eompomißß with his convictions. To put it plainly—while he considers that Bible lessons *re part of. a child's equipment he won't risk alteriug our purely secular system. The how about "progressive Liberal" principals, too, when Mr Massey, a mere servant of the people, refuses to let the people themselves decide the question, if he is himself afraid to. To refuse a referendum on this or any other important- political issue is tyranny that cannot be excused or palliated. Here is the spectacle of a professed "Reform Party" refusing to bring in two of the most urgently and powerfully advocated reforms in the land—the 111,000 electors calling for a plebiscite on the Bible-in-Schools question, and the appeal for the demoratic principle in connection with licensing reform. If Mr Massey persists in opposing the people in their just and righteous demands the people will find another party which will prova "a good and faithful servant" in the political sense. These are the rocks upon which the party ship of Mr Massey is likely to be shattered. It is to be hoped that he will heed the cry of "Breakers ahead" before it is too late. It would he a great pity for Mr Massey to go down to history a3 the leader of "the Refuted," and not "the Reform" parly, as was at first hop^d.— i am etc., A. ARMSTRONG.