BIBLE-IN-SCHOOL METHODS

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 86, 18 April 1913, Page 7

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOL METHODS

[To The Edit on Stratford Post.]

Sir, —1 am regretfully compelled to supply facts distorted or suppressed by tlie League organiser in the press and now in a League leaflet, “Methods of Opposition.” 1. 'lias leaflet says that Bishop Cleary accused league leaders of “forgery” and “fabricating a document.” The “document” is a statement attributed to the late Director of Education in Tasmania (Mr Neale), that the Catholic “denomination” there accepts the Bible-in-schools system “as a happy solution of the religious difficulty.” There were four innocent alternatives to the “forgery” charge. Why does the League organiser in April withhold my numerous published invitations of January-Fcbruary to test this alleged personal libel before an Auckland jury? 2. Tasmanian information, given as “information,” without my guarantee or formal acceptance, made it “appear” that the author of the “document” was not the Director of Education. Thus 'far in November. He was allegedly absent at the time; he officially knew the Catholic objection to the system; he had expressed specified views inconsistent with the “document” which was signed by a secretary and “appeared” to represent his view only. All this published some thirteen times in January-Febru-ary, was withheld in the league leaflet officially circulated in April; 3. The League leaflet distinctly conveys the impression that I received a cable message on the subject from the present Tasmanian Director of Education (Mr McCoy) oii December 2nd, 1912, and some days later a

letter. Untrue. These were received on my return jjome, about Christmas Eve. This information, repeatedly published in January-Fehruary, was withheld in the,League leaflet officially circulated in April.

4. The leaflet declares that Director McCoy’s communications to me clearly proved his predecessor the author of the grotesque untruth that the Tasmanian. Catholic “denomination” accepts the Bible-in-schools system “as a happy solution of the religious difficulty.” Incorrect. He credited his predecessor with two identically worded assertions of Catholic acceptance of the Tasmanian system. The secretary admittedly signed one of these, and, in the absence of specific information, he presumably signed the other. Was this his personal view, or was it written, dictated, or approved by a Director of known opposing views? Director McCoy did not specifically say. Why were my plain words misquoted or withheld. 5. Further information, said 1 (January 4, etc.) was “expected shortly” and was to be “utilised in i public pr ( ouo,V|Ucemept’'’( t (already i ■arranged and, pypiounced,; \Viny was this withheld ~iuM j : : a ..League.. Jeaflct officially circulated in April? G. On January 3, 1913, a League ifficial published in the “Auckland star” two new specific statemon'ts definitely settling the authorship juestion. In next issue (January 4) !, thanked thC Lfague official' “for linking so much clear.” The League irganiser says Bishop (jffoary ythen “made known” Unit, frqm early in December, “be knew bis charge to be false.” This is an invention. In (anuary-Febfuary I set right the authority question.some thirteen times from press and ,platform.; This was withheld by the League in April. 7. Official evidence of undying Catholic hostility to the Tasmanian Bible-in-schools system—and the specific grounds thereof—have been repeatedly placed before the League and the public since-’early in November, 1912. Withheld again! The League is still officially circulating the notorious truth that the Tasmanian Catholic “denomination” finds that system “a happy solution of the religious difficulty!”

The League has thus officially sanctioned its paid organiser’s deplorable methods. Yet in the same leaflet he makes it criminal to withhold such facts “even for a single minute!” There are honourable men on the League’s Executive, Will they now delay “fqy a. single minute” the amende which justice and honour demand ?

Copies of this letter have been mailed, registered, to the League’s Executive and its organising secretary..—l am, etc., HENRY W. CLEARY, D.D., Bishop of Auckland. April 12.