CORRESPONDENCE. ON EVIL SPEAKING.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 120, 12 May 1908, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

ON EVIL SPEAKING.

To the Editor. Sir,—So far as 1 urn able u> gather, the purport of Mr. .Roberts' last letter la ail apology for using strong language and p«uring slanderous epithets oil those connected with the liquor trallic Vecause the effects 01 that business arc so evil as to justify *uch language. 15ut we have an old adage that "abuse is not argument," and there is also tint Scripture "Speak evil of no one." Two wrong» do not make a right, and the wrongful and un-Christian language with which the teetotal campaign is nearly always carried on seems to indicate—what is really true—that so far as Christianity ia concerned, the ease in its favor is at its best but llimsv and exaggerated, and as usually set forth is directly contrary to its teachings. ' I congratulate Mr. Koberts on the impressed tone of his last letter. That drunkenness is * gTeat sin is undoubtedly true. But we have many more pre yalent and deadly sins running rampant in Society at present to lessen wliico we have no special organisations. Nor are they needed. We have in the Christian religion a safe and pure antidoteand the only real one—for all sins, of all sorts. Jf the head is made right and if one lives in daily dependenee on Divine aid, which it iprivilege to have, we shall l, e saved to tae uttermost. The sad fact is, to a ry large extent indeed, well meaning persons and most of our' Churches have lost sight of this truth. Bv introducing a method of saving us from one special sin, they imply that Christianity lias lost its power, so f ar as the sin of drunkenness is concerned, and that it is necessary to take their pledge and join their teetotal ranks in order to be safe from the vice. Thus have they denied, i totally, the power of the religion they are paid—in many instances— to preach, and from this fatal error comes the present decline of spirituality, and of the hold of the churches on the masses, untrl *re hear the lamentable err. officially ■wide, that the world has conquered the Church. I have said far more than 1 intended m reply to Mr. Roberts. h„t the need for someone to speak out is inost urgent, both in the cause of religion and liberty. We so much need a reversion to Biblical methods and the study of the Scriptures.—l am, etc.. B. ENROTII.

P.b. Mr. Roberts writes of his cx ] leniences in Illinois. I would like to give another episode. While travelling in that .State on one occasion, ;1 farm" house and farm wi re pointed out'to me and the following account given of them: | This lfiO acres had been taken up by a | colored man, who had fenced and cultivated it, building a nice house n in! ■•iitliuildinjw, and planted aa orchard and sliade tree*. until it licmnii'. as I "aw it. a very desirable homestead. A few month* previously, however, a white man had rome along and half-killed the owner, drove him off the place, and with his family had taken possession of the property, where he was tlier,. living in peaceable possession.. The colored mail had no redre-s. IVcaii-e of his strain of negro blood he had no rights, even in that free State. There was no law to protect him, a iid as he had not Iteen killed, the white man was able to at him and his eric-. Sow, Sir.

is a country where such au outrage as this is legal, one that wc should look to for precedents to restrict that British liberty wc now enjoy; or should we try, i as they apparently are doing, to obtain i legal rights to perpetrate an injustice* I —B. E.

Ki:u: HARDIE AND SOCIALISM. To the Editor, sir.--In your Saturday'-, issue yon >ay Keir Hardie generally regarded as in tin- nature of a "poliiieal freak," anil, it appears, on tile ground iliat lie is a Socialist. It is not oxplaint.,l by von vvliv a Socialist member of tlio House of Commons is a "freak."' probably leaving tliat oflice to paragons of wisdom as evolved those definitions of a Socialist printed ill the columns of your supplement, 'which same definitions, to the student of Socialism, simply rang# from the banal to the brutally false. But in regard to your oivn allusion to a recent Socialist visitor, it seems unfortunate that you don't see lit to support your contemptuous reference with some evidence that such treatment is just: possibly the explanation lies in the fact of your considering "socialist.'' and "freak" as interchangeable terms, an! tlii* consideration may lie further explained by your not. having spared tin; necessary time to study Seeiali-m, for a slight study of that subject would nil rely make it impossible for any fairminded person to deal such treatment as that I draw your attention 10. To some at the present day a wor-e course is considered permissible in opposing Socialism, and such silly attacks as are maintained by certain kinds of people may delude tiie superficial, but any who seriously study the question— if they become Socialists or not—will certainly admit the sincerity of the Socialist endeavor to apply a solution to those grave social and political problem* or our times; and as surely convinced of J the ignorance or insincerity of those who reckon to combat Socialism with 1 nonsensical and even brutal attacks, ex- ; posing nothing but their own shallow- ' nesa and lack of responsibility as citizens. You, Sir, say there is only one way to light Socialism, and generously grant the great need of social reforms, at any rate in the older countries, ilere, then, is a ground ot agreement. Make 11 a starting point. But we immediately separate; one B ayg reform in the present system is all that is needed; while the Socialist is convinced that 110 reform, both permanent and adequate, is possible. llie system is at iauJt aim must go, not in one counlry, but 111 all nations ou tiie sunie plane 01 industrial I development, and here we discover way Socialists hold that Liberal or Tory are Ijul, as " tweedledum and twcedlcdeu and political ideas, sucli as protection, > lree-trade, Arbitration and Conciliation Acts, and such like are at their 'best uut patchwork, aud don't concern the Socialist. As to -Now Zealand, Uie same results will follow in time, as have appeared in all countries under the capitalist system of production for protil. All this on the economic basis; bui a new spirit is abroad, and the growth of Socialism expresses the morat advance of the race. Individuals are gaining more conscienee. the "1 ought'' is becoming stronger, and 'tis surely but a rational iuierenee thai with this development we shall take the ! Socialist altruistic line 01 progress, and ) not the individualistic egoistic side , track. Possibly when you, Jlr. Editor, can make time for a study of Socialism vour attitude will change, and instea I of calling a Socialist a "political freak" ' you will regard, liiin, perhaps as mistaken but more probably as sincere and high-minded, with pure ideals. A rather startling conception in connection with this subject is that no civilisation lias yet been founded on a sutli- ' ciently sound basis as to resist decay; and it may be the lot of us moderns 1 to establish that basis, and commence ! a developing and enduring civilisation ' that shall become greater and nobler ' than ought in man's imagination. AnJ other course is open. The present 111- ' dividualistic tendencies may develop and the same point be reached ill aOcinl in- • equalities aud consequent^rapid decline and fall; as marks past time; but how much greater the fall from our height of attainment 2 Both yourself and I vour readers hope lor better things: but ou the matter of what source 1111- | provcuieut slmll llow from, we limy difler. Allow me to say, in conclusion, I that what Socialists want is a fair aud keen examination of his thought, ami not the shallow grip of false insinuation that so many consider his Hue. nor an unjust and slighting reference t» his comrades in the light, and t ie half-jesting, supercilious treatment he oft en meets with m the I re-. Investigation and criticism he welcome; suieV«tl«r treatment is < [Who but a ''political lreak" would have "iven expression to the irrational sentiments expressed by -Mr. lveir liardie during his Indian peregrmat'ims. Who but a "political freak would «' preached the extreme doctrines which Mr. Keir Hardie preached wliilst in fcew Zealand, a country admittedly m the van of true industrial and social evolution! Who but a "political lrcak would have talked in the same strain as Mr. Keir Hardie on returning from his trip? Thus Mr. Hardie: "What strikes me at present >s that colonial loyalty is merely a surface sentiment. When business interest and loyalty clash, it is business interest that wins. Tariff Reform will never tighten the bonds of Empire, for the reason that the colonies are not prepared to give anything. They will take anv advantage gladly. but they will make no sacrifice. The Flag and the Throne stir a certain emotion, for they arc the ties with Home, but the Empire arouses no enthusiasm at all." We do not say all 'Socialists are "political freaks," or that tliev arc such firebrands and as pcttylog. ging, unpatriotic and extreme as Keir Hardie. That would be untrue. There are numbers of men styling themselves Socialists who are animated by the best resolves and who are keenly interested in the amelioration of thp conditions of humanity. There arc Socialists and Socialists, as there is Socialism and Socialism. The Socialism that admits of helping the man who is deserving and needful of help; of giv ing equal opportunities to all; of doing justice to all sections of the community; and of considering and respecting the rights of the employer and the capitalist (for tile latter have rights as well as the wage-earner)—that form of Socialism (call it Socialism. Christ ianity or liumanitarism: the name does uot much matter) we are in thorough agreement with. But the doctrines preached by some of the leaders of the l'ed-llag Socialistic cause—leaders who are the extremists of an extreme cause -in England and 011 the Continent, and by a I few in this fair country of onrs, we. r cannot believe in, because the doctrines, in a great measure, are devoid of the qualities of fairness, justice, and moderation. If Mr. Rich, whose conscientiousness we don't question in the leiist, would for a moment look a little over the side of the Socialistic rut in which lie i« wandering he would see evidence of the justification of our contention that so far as this country is concerned, we arc progressing and "developing on lines which if not as idealistic or aia«t as tile red-hot Socialist would desire, are as safe and practical as is consistent with the general well-being of the Dominion.—Ed.]