THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1895. REUNION OF THE CHURCHES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2909, 19 December 1895, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1895. REUNION OF THE CHURCHES.

We have received from the Rev. Father Le Menant des Chesuais a reply to the Rev. Mr Dickson’s letter, with a request that it should be published as an advertisement and charged for in the usual way. We should be glad to oblige the rev. gentleman, but in this matter we cannot do si-. If we were to publish the letter as an advertisement there aro people so uncharitable that they would say we never charged for it; that its publication as an advertisement was a mere trick, a subterfuge, a dodge to get over our expressed determination to close the correspondence. It would be said that we were compelled to do so by the priest, that we dared not refuse, and that in order to get over the difficulty we published it as an advertisement. Now Father La Menant des Chesnais knows that that would be all untrue, and he knows also that neither he nor any other priest would ever think of attempting to bring any undue influence to bear on anyove in the exercise of his profession or calling. That being so, the publication of Father Le Men ant’s letter would place himself and ourselves in a false position. It would be said that he invoked the thunders of the Church, and that we had not the moral courage to offer further resistance. Furthermore it would be said that we had recourse to chicanery and falsehood, by pretending to make a charge for advertising the letter. Now Father Le Menant would not like it said of him that he had exercised any undue influence, and we certainly should not like to pose as resorting to any species of trickery or falsehood in order to get out of such a difficulty. For these reasons we must decline to publish, t ven as an advertisement, Father Le Mouant’s letter, although we see in it the possibility of a considerable increase in our revenue. One of the best harvests we have had was when, some years ago two wealthy gentlemen had a discussion in the advertising columns of this paper. It was delightful while it lasted. The matter was spicy, and we were paid for publishing it. We should like such another harvest, but it so happens that in this case we should be accused of not charging the one side, and as the contrary could not easily ba proved to the satisfaction of those believing the other way, we must decline the letter. In our List issue we stated that the correspondence was closed, and to that we shall adhere. We have, however, received another letter Which we should like to publish only for the fact that we cannot consistently do so. It is signed *‘Pro bono Publico,” and has been written by a Freethinker, who begs us to coutiuuo the publication of the lectures. He says they contain information which would take a lifetime to acquire, aud that they are a splendid reference, because they give chapter and verse as to where the information can be got. However, we cannot publish this letter, although there is nothing objectionable in it, but wo have said we should not publish any more letters on the subject, and we shall adhere to it. We have also received ft letter from the Rev. Mr Dickson, but owing to absence from home we have not been able to look into it yet.