CORRESPONDENCE.

Waipa Post, Volume II, Issue 53, 17 October 1911, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

(Out correspondents opinions are theit own; the responsibility of editorial items makes sufficient ballast for the editor's shoulders. It is necessary that all letters for publication should bear the name of the writer—not necessarily foi publication, but as evidence of good faith.) TO THE EDITOR. SIR, —Please accept the tTjanks of every right thinking reader, of the WAIPA POST, for the way ; in which you dealt with last week's Court proceedings. It would be better perhaps without this further reference, but I with others feel it a duty to assure you of our thanks and commendation. If your paper is kept on, on its present lines it must succeed. Every issue is now "being eagerly looked for. lam etc,. Backblocker: ' to the editor. Awamutu Resident" asks to be informed as to the number of occasions during the last three years upon which the member for Waikato (Mr H. J. Greenslade) has called his constituents together to give them an account of his stewardship. Could anyone imagine a more needless or silly question ? Your correspondent ought to know that the Paymaster-General' of .the Treasury has taken care to see j that all honorarium voucherstotalling £9OO for the period — I have been properly signed and I completed. What more, does your correspondent want ? Some people are never satisfied. Yours etc., • - GRAFTER. TO THE EDITOR. SIR, —There are two sides to every question not excepting the drink problem, and while the Rev. Father Lynch * went . somewhat wide of the mark and "mixed his drinks " pretty considerably, and gave us by way of ingredients a regular "cocktail," yet there is much to be said from the trade's standpoint. There are two aspects of the case to be considered. First, the financial aspect —as affecting the revenue, profits and wages of the State, the brewer, the shareholder, the publican, and all those dependent upon the Trade for their employment —and secondly, theconvenience of the customer.. If the hotels are closed it means little less than ruination and beggary to everyonewho now is ent upon the Trade for their income and livelihood, from, the State exchequer right down to Ihe office boy in the brewery and the youngest hotel housemaid. Is this fair ? Is it right that, the country should be taxed to make up for the loss of Revenue, or that the brewer should have to throw on the scrap heap hundreds of thousands of pounds,' worth of valuable machinery, or that the publican after putting in a lifetime in building up a legalised business should find himself and wife and children not only out of. employment but more than likely ruined in pocket ? Is this fair ? Then what of the convenience of the customer? From a lengthy experience I have repeatedly proved, if only in the matter of the " table," that, at equal prices I am much —very much —better served in a licensed house than in a unlicensed one, and 'my experience is extensive in both Islands from Auckland to the Bluff. Therefore, I ' ask, why should the State be robbed of revenue, the brewers, publicans, and employees robbed of their livelihood, and the public robbed of its comfort and conveniences ? .;, . Mulligan, to the editor.

SIR, —Ori opening the POST after my arrival from Auckland on Saturday I was called upon by four important gentlemen whose names are to be found in your last issue namely, " Don't," " Kihikihi," " Orphan," and (Rev.) F. W. Clarke. " We came," they said, "to challenge you for a fight with or without gloves."' "Don't" spoke first. He said, "You have taken inexcusable liberties in your letter in the POST on the No-License question." " Kihikihi " shouted next, ■■! Being related to Lord Kitchener I should like to state that he was born in Ireland, but nevertheless he is no Irishman." " Orphan " immediately asked (but not to the " If it lay in your power to wipe out every drop of intoxicating liquor off the face of the earth for ever would you do it ?" Then . the Rev. Clarke's time came., He said, "As president of the local branch 5 of the Waikato NoLicense League I must indignantly protest against the unwarrantable accusation of false misrepresentation made against us in your letter to the Waipa POST of Tuesday last." " Good gracious," I said, " did my letter in the POST concerning the mis- ~ representation of the American clergy cause all this, excitement and indignation ?" But no quan-

tity of oil-could calm the ruffled waters, and concluding that I would have to. fight, though not caring much about this kind of exercise, I said, "Gentlemen, I will take you one by one." Then, taking the President first, although foreseeing that it would take me,rowing to the length of his arms and his size andjfeight as well as his good corruption, that it would take me about six. rounds to knock him out. He had contempt at first for a skinny pugilist like me, as he shouted when the sparing commenced, "None of your straw splitting now when the issues to. be fought at this time to thousands in fair New Zealand will mean allthe difference between heaven and hell." This c was the very warm corner, Mr Editor, in which I found myself and had no alternative but to use the gloves or die (metaphysically of course). But let me, before entering the most tedious part of this letter, state that I have indeed much regard for the .Rev. F. W. Clarke who very; worthily occupies the Vicarage*'of Te Awamutu. He possesses'many gifts, and would be an over match in this controversy were it not that right and truth are willing to back me up

in my protest against the misrepresentation of the American ? Catholic clergy and the people from Ireland in the United States. The rev. gentleman's letter in the POST in reference to mine of the former is made up as follows: One protest, one statement, one offer of £5 reward, one mis-state-ment of the contents' of my letter, and two wrongful, accusations. ' This being the order in which I they originally. stand and consequently it is the same order I will follow in my refutation. (1). The protest is already stated above.

(2). The statement consists solely of affirming that the quotations complained of in the nolicense column are true, but gives ..no reason or authority to show us ' -that they are true. (3){ The monetary offer will be a reward if the quotations above mentioned can be proved not to be substantially correct. (Reply): It is the author of the quotations, and no other, that should show that they are true. Why make such statements if there is no proof of their truthfulness? They are those used by the no-license advocates/and should be shown that they are true, if possible. This is simply shifting the responsibility from their own shoulders on to others by this offer of a monetary reward. Moreover, this offer contains a Very important admission, indeed, namely, that the quotations are not verbally true but only substantially correct, though the readers were certainly given to understand by the use of the invented commas that every word was truly that of the alleged American Priest or Bishop. This admission, moreover, confirms the truth of my protest against the truth of the quotations, as we all know how the substantial feruth can be clothed to suit each and every one's opinion, however erroneous. But no one need envy the cause that requires such means to prop it up. 4. The . mis-statements pf the contents of my letter made by the Rev. F. W. Clarke that the " writer laboured to make a " tremendous point" of the trifling fact that the name of Bishop Ireland was used instead of Archbishop Ireland. But the truth is, as can be ascertained by reference to the first paragraph in my last letter, where I have pointed out, not only this inaccuracy, but many others in conjunction, all of which were omitted by my opponent for the sake of making his readers believe that there was but just one inaccuracy, and that of no importance; The most he can claim for this statement is, that it contains a half truth, and no one need be envied for stating half truths. 5. I now come to the first of these untruthful accusations, ■ which is as follows:—" Moreover, the Rev. T. P. Lynch is not too precise as to ecclesiastical nomenclature. He invariably speaks of the Roman branch of the Catholic Church to which he belongs as 'The' Catholic Church.' Indicates a back number of crass bigotry, etc." When speaking of the church to which I belong the word Roman is used by Catholics to designate only that the visible # head of their church is the Bishop of Rome, and is not generally used where there is no danger of confusion, such as in these letters, as there is no danger'that any one in this district will mistake the Catholic Church for any of those claimed by the Rev. F. W. Clarke, to be also Catholic. I must say that it is the first time in my life that I have been accused by anyone, outside rny church, or by anyone within it

either, of being bigotted towards those of other denominations, and I protest with my whole hiart and with every fibre and si hue against this unmanly and degrading accusation which is- as false as it is unchristian 'and sinful. I avail of this opportunity to assure non-Catholics of all"' denominations, if assurance is necessary, that the writer wishes them, each and all, the greatest possible happiness in this as well as in the life that is to come. I know that the writer will be excused from entering into a discussion on the origin of .the churches, and the power of the Popes, as religion is too sacred to be discussed in the, secular press,.where it would be treated as the changing politics of the hour. ,

(6) The second and last of these accusations is that the present writer tries to confuse the issue by the trite assertion that no-license is the sole remedy intended by the no-license advocates for the abuse of intoxicating liquors. I beg to remind the rev. gentleman that he has mistaken the issue of our discussion, which is neither the merits of continuance or of no-license, but that of misrepresentation of the American Catholic clergy and of their people in the United States. Thus the'warious parts of which the Rev. Clarke's letter is composed has now been replied to, and neither his protest, nor statement, nor offer of a reward, nor of mistatements, nor wrongful accusations, nor all taken together, show in the least way, the incorrectness of protest against misrepresentation of the American Catholic clergy and of the people of Ireland in America.

I do not therefore intend to return to this subject as charity and good will are easily forgotten in striving for victory and the good achieved may be more that counterbalanced by the evil that may result. Wars are becoming unpopular among Christians, and rightly too, and so are bitter controversies in peaceful communities The other writers who did me the credit of replying to my letter will kindly excuse my short reference to them, and if. I have written a word unfair or untrue of the Rev. F. W. Clarke in."this controversy I did not intend doing so, and withdraw it without reserve. I am etc., T. P. LYNCH, P.P.