The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) SATURDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1876.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 417, 7 October 1876, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1876.

*• We flha.ll Bell to no man justice or right: We ehfi.ll deny to rid man justice or right,: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

As we have not room for, a leader this morning, we feej that we are in justice and honor bound to find space in which to explain away, so far as the facts have to crime to our knowledge, the somewhat prejudicial effects of the letter signed by “E.S.V G,” and which appeared in our issue of Wednesday last, commenting on the conduct of the Reverend W. H. Root in absenting himself from town, whSn it is alleged he should have remained to perform the last sad rites of his church over the remains of one who, in life, had been one of his congregation. We feel pained beyond expression to find that this subject has been forced before the public gaze ; but, as we admitted the letter with much hesitancy and cotrpuuction, we feel that we cannot give the explanation we are now about to make, too prominent a place in our columns. We have Mrs Root’s permission to mention her name, as the source of our authority for stating that Mr Root had made arrangement, acting under medical advice, to start on Monday morning last, for a week’s sojourn in the country, but that he had postponed his departure until after the funeral, which was arranged should take place on the afternoon of that day. It

was, however, subsequently to this understanding, put off without his knowledge or consent, until the day following; and, knowing that there was another clergyman in the town, Mr Root, being surely certified that that gentleman’s services would be available, took his departure on the Monday according to promise ; whereupon Mrs Root personally waited on the Rev. Mr Harper, of the Wesleyan Church, on the Monday—not at the eleventh hour, so we are requested to state—and that gentleman readily consented to conduct the funeral service, adding that it would not inconvenience him in the slightest, as his engagement at Makauri did not require bis attendance there until 5 or 6 o’clock in the evening. Mrs Root felt grateful for this, inasmuch as her husband would be able to seek the recreation he stood so much in need of, and. that the duty he would have done, would be as well performed by another in his absence. This is the other side of the question, which, like “ R.S.V.G.’s” letter, will be taken at its proper value. We purposely refrain from expressing an opinion on this matter, which seems to be narrowed down to one as between a minister and an individual member of his congregation. With regard to the former, it was a matter of conscience as to which he estimated the higher and more important duty. With the latter, it was a matter of sentiment—a naturally preferable choice in favor of his own parson, as against one of a strange communion ; but, as a certain amount of public scandal has been created by Mr Root’s absence from what may be considered by some a paramount duty, if not a privilege, wetrust, in the interests of the Church Militant, and for his own credit’ sake, that Mr Root will be able to satisfactorily clear up this most unpleasant accusation.