The Sslvation Army.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 266, 23 May 1888, Page 6

The Sslvation Army.

Tho«e Sal\ ationists who ha\c been ptaying toi " Zamiel " ought to know that -»ome of their tribe in England have disco\eied a inoic evcellont way of dealing witli t ho-e w horn they dislike. A certain plasteiei of Uvinidge having ?aA ed milHcieiit money to buy two houses, seems theiehy to ha\c incuued the displeasure of the Army people. At any rate, one of the s>peakeis at the Banuck.s at U\bridge )eeently pointed hi* finder at the offending plasterer and said :— '"That man there has got two houses, and he has pot them by logueiy or thievery, or ho has got them out of some biokcn down lawyer; and the moment he die-> he will go straight to hell ; he i a regularly east out of hea\en. ' Had this been ulteied tr catludva by General Booth, it might have been \aluable, as showing the .Salvationist idea ot whatconstitutes a rich man, whose enhance into IVundi-e is declared to be impossible. It would have showndecisively that all o\er the t'soo exemption limit in Now Zealand wero on the straight road to peidition, and would ha\e formed a strong aigument for Bii Hairy in fa\oui of the pro[ierty tav. Unfoitunately. the plasterer doe? not appeal to ha\e been inteicted in the theological beaiing of the matter, and did not icfei to the (Jeneral the jiroblem oi howto be wojth l'soo and yet be s-ure of the Kingdom. He took wnat man} will consider a low and sordid \iew of the question byseningtheeatnestSalvationist with awn itclaiming damages for slander. Mr .1 notice Manisfy, sitting in the Court of (Queen's Bench, decided that even if the wouK had ! been utteied they did not constitute slander. He said — " The woids complained ot weie low, vulgo ' abu c c— slang, and nothing else : but they did not impute any indictable oflence, and therefore weie not actionable. If e\erythiny of this kind weie hi ought into court theie would be no end of actions for slander " It to accu-ie a man of "loguetyand thievery"' h not slanderous, I would like to know what is. Some tunoious folk heie nppear to think it libellous to acciis,' n Kew Zealand M U.li of being diunk, which would seem to pnne thai the character of antipodean legislators i-« mmc piecion- than that of l'\bndge plasteiei-, or tint " roguery and thie\ing " i are not inclu'tihle oHences in merrie Rng- i land. Weie the lattert ter s\ij)posit ion coneet, what an caithlv l'aiadise it would be for our loguish legislators ' Auckland Star.