DR. HOSKING'S CANDIDATURE

Waikato Argus, Volume VII, Issue 519, 28 November 1899, Page 1 (Supplement)

DR. HOSKING'S CANDIDATURE

TO THE F.DITOH. Sir,—l am not sorry that Dr. Morley replied to my letter, as it bears out what 1 said in my first epistle—that the church has "no case" against Dr. Hosking regarding his candidature. I take it that Dr. Morley contends that I had no right to write officially to give prestige to my remarks because I had only been circuit steward about five week. That is all bunkum. Had anything happened in the circuit lor which I was officially responsible the next doy after my appointment, Dr. Morley would have very soon found out where I was, and nobody knows thiit bettor than the rev. gentleman himself ; yet became I wrote officially five weeks after my appointment on a matter concerning our quarterly meeting, he blames mo for hav. ing done so. Again, five minutes after Dr. Morley was ordained a minister he had a perfect ripht to perforin the rites of the church, and I think I am quite right in assuming that had anyone challenged his right to do so the indignant attitude he would have assumed would be better imagined than described ; yet, in a manner of speaking, he would deny me the same privilege he himself enjoyed. That i 3 what I call Toryism, as near as I understand it. The fact of Dr. Morley trying to belittle me does not alter the facts of the case, and only shows bad taste, and therefore will not add one jot towards winning the argument. With regard to the slur he casts in connection with my designating myself the " chief officer." let me say that I only mentioned that fact to give prestige to my remarks. Be that as it may, let me remind' Dr. Morley that whatever little service I render it is given free : I do not draw about £l2 a week out of an institution that is not able, properly speaking, to pay half that sum, when ministers in small circuits are not able to get much above a quarter of that amount. I just mention these facts to show that the rev. gentleman possesses Tory instincts, and consequently is opposed to Dr. Hosking'a Liberal ideas ; hence his interference.

With regard to Dr. Morley's statement that Dr. Hosking is a Wesleyan Minister, I shall have to go over some of the same ground as in my reply to Mr Allen. The baaid of union between the three churches distinctly provides for one Methodist Church, and it was decided that the three methodist polities be cancelled, and that a constitution on more democratic lines be adopted. So how can Dr. Hosking be a Wesleyan Minister when the Wesleyan Church does not now exist. It is true that the name of John Hoskinp, D.D., appears on the minute book of the Conference, but, sir, if your name appeared there it would not make you a Wesleyan Minister. It is also true that the Wealenans (socalled) are trying—to • use a vulgar phrase, though it is very apt just here—to cram the Wesleyan laws down the throats of their amalgamated brethren, but whether they will succeed in doing so ia quite a different matter. These parties should talk about " acting honourably," " doing right," " keeping your hands clean," etc. And even if he were a Wesleyan Minister there is nothing in the Book of Laws to prevent his being a Parliamentary candidate. 1 think I have made that point clear enough. Dr. Morley does not question Dr. Hosking's right to become a Parliament' ary candidate. Mr Allen does; so like the Opposition leaders in the House, they disagree. Mr Morley adds that the Doctor will doubtless have the opportunity of stating his case to the church authorities. Well, what can they do ? They can paBS a vote of censure and there the matter will end. But Dr. Morley can make his mind easy on that jpoint as in all probability Dr. Hosking will be retnrned for the Waikato seat, when he will immediately send in his resignation. What I contended from the first was that Dr. Hosking has a perfect right to contest the seat, and that the official quarterly meeting was justified in wishing him success at the polls, and these arguments have not yet been refuted, and I will leave it to your readers to decide as to whether I have been inaccurate in my statements. No doubt Dr. Morley thinks it is almost sacrilege for mo to reply to him, but we must agree to differ on this point as well as on the others.—l am, etc., John Andkew. Hamilton, 23rd November, 1899. P.S.—Since the above was written Dr. Hosking has resigned his connection with the church.—J.A.