PASSING NOTES.

Digger (Invercargill RSA), Issue 26, 10 September 1920, Page 6

PASSING NOTES.

(BY "JACQUES.")

From an "Albion" picture advt : — Sbe's ihe very latest "World" Star, and she's "some" girl. Who wouldn't like to spend a vacation on a lonely island with s, Crusoe" — especially when ss'ehDx'6( Hf Which shows the value of a code — or Freneh — when you get down to real delicate things. The H. C. L. bacillus may now be regarded as quite ubiquitous ; though we "take the wings of the moming and flee to the uttermost ends of the earth, yet shall we not escape it." It has even at last invaded the penetralia of the Law, that holy of holies, which most of us fondly believed to be superior to its vile infection. Court charges are to be, or have been, increased all round. This is about the last straw, surely. The almost dailv rise in the prices of the things we ordinarily eat and wear and use we were becoming accustomed to, and resigned to. But when the grave and reverend Law descends to participation in the general orgy of profiteering, and calls-on ns to pay extra for the poor luxury of being summoned — well, it is surely time to call a halt. The reason or excuse for the extra charges is somewhat obscure; perhaps they are resultant on t}ie increased cost of paper, or pen nibs, or something like that. It would not be so bad if we were sure it would stop where it is but now that a start has been made we may see the Law's enterprise oxtend in other directions. Probably our fines will be made more solid, cab fares will be elevated, and damaged uniforms reach famine prices next, with possibly charges for admission to gaol institutions. If so, it is safe to predict a great and speedy falling off in the patronage we have so liberally accorded that institution in the past. "John" demands that I justify my "outrageous statement" that McCabe, in his debate with Conan Doyle, assumed that all spiritists were liars or fools. Very well. If "John" will look up "The Debate" (page 4) he will read McCabe's words: "It was born of a fraud. It was cradled in fraud. It was nurtured in fraud. It is based to-day . . . on fraudulent performances." Now, even "John" must admit that the very term "fraud" presupposes liars on the one hand and clupes or fools on the other. Again (page 5) he quotes Flammarion : "You may lay it down as a principle that every professional medium in the world cheats." In quoting this McCabe necessarily endorses it. So with his later quotation of Dr Stanley Ha, 11 : "I insist that there is no single grain of truth in all this mass of Spiritualistic dross. " Oh page 18, he says: "Whatever other witnesses there may be you will find that distortion of judgment, that blearing of vision, which occurs whenever a man enters that wonderful world, that world of almost unparalleled trickery in the history of man." Now these few excerpts (which could be considerably multiplied) are sufficient to illustrate the general tenor of McCabe's argument, and if they do not show that he contemptuously classified all spiritualists as liars and fools, rogues and dupes, then there is no meaning at all in his words. It is true that, as "John' says, Conan Doyle thankecl McCabe at the close of the debate for his "courtesy," but this was nothing more than the parting handshake of the generous pugilist. Earlier in the debate he said: "Mr McCabe has shown that he has no respect for our intellectual position." This was surely

a polite way of saying that it was evident that McCabe regarded Doyle and his party as fools. I trust that "John" is now satisfied. One or two passages in "John's" screed suggest that he considers me as possessed of a strong bias towards spiritualism. If that is so, he is most egregiously mistaken. I have been simply discussing certain weaknesses of McCabe, and am not at all concerned with the defence of spiritism. I am not a spiritist. But I do believe, on the evidence adduced, that (as in Mrs Piper's case), manifestations as genuine as baffling, of some mysterious force or influence have been repeatedly witnessed. I cannot accept the spiritist explanation of these phenomena. My reason forbids it; but, on the other hand, my reason equally rejects the telepathio hypothesis until tolepathy itself is proven. Perhaps the soiutici] of the whole problem will yet be found elsewhere in that vast psychic domain oi which we, as yet, know so very little. So poor old "Dick" Folley has passed over to the great majority. To most of us, who thought he had left the danger point io his irecent iHness far behind, the news oi

his sudden death cama as a distinct and unexpected shock. Few xnen among us nurnbered more friends than he. "Jacques," who had known him intimately for many vears, tenders his humble tribute of respect to the memory oi one whose sterling honesty of character, unfailing courtesy of manner, and kindly, cheerful disposition; procla-imed him one of Nature's gentlemen — one of the rara type that we can ili spare. Peace to his ashes, Now that the people have lost faith in Pla,in Bill's "square deal," he has taken up "loyalty" and "patriotism" as the next best suit, and is rather overworking them. He does not want occasion, but merely opportunHy. to trot them out. For practically every offender and offence he has one of two adjectives. A strike is invariably "unpatriotic" — though I have not read that a lock-out is so ; a cablegram of protest against foolish participation in an unnecessary war is "disloyal'' — in fact everything which does not meet with his august approval is somehow treasonable. Evidently nothing short of slavish submission to every whim or caprice of our elected representatives can be deemed "loyal" or "patriotic." Ah, well! "loyalty" and "patriotism" are handy and portable virtues ; convenient, effective, and very cheap — costing, too often, nothing more than easy lip service. They are handy for pasting your enemiea with, and supply an easy means of gilding your own reputation, For how is the public to know that the man who is singing "God Save the King" loudest is very likely devising means of taking down the "digger" who fought for him, in a land deal cr piling up the prices of that same "digger 's" kiddies' bootg and clothes ? Only the other day we read of millions of cardboard bullets having been sent for the use of the American troops in France. Probably the contractors who supplied these were among the foremost in singing the "Sta.r-spangled Banner," and advising young America to go over to France and use those same bullets. It can be preUy safely accepted that those who prate most of their "loyalty" and "patriotism" have very poor samples of those qualities about them. True patriotism or loyalty DOES things, but babbles little. So New South Wales, following the example of older countries, is about to institute the State lottery as a means of replenishing her depleted exchequer. True, Ihe matter is. only "under consideration" cs yet, but in view of the present worldwide difficulty in raising funds by ordinary methods, it is safe to predict its early ruatoria! isation. And, in all probability, it will not be long before New Zealand follows suit. There is no earthly reason, apart from onr thin-skinned, wowseristic ubhorrenc'e of every form of gambling (other than church bazaar lotteries) why we should not. The State lottery would provide at once the means of raising easy revenue, and the healthiest concvivable outlet for that gambling ptopensity which, blink it as we may, is mhai tnt in all of us, from the urchin who disdains to play marbles "for fun," to the speculator who invests in land or shares for the "rise." Of course, its introduction would meet with opposition from those who would deny the State's right to "rob the unlucky to enrichthelucky." But is ihe unlucky really robbed ? Granted that he loses his money — a few pounds a year, perhaps— -but does he not get full value for it in the ricK measure of rosehued hope that the lottery, more than any other form of gambling, yields. I think so.