DR. MORAN AND MR BARTON.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 55, 16 May 1874, Page 8

DR. MORAN AND MR BARTON.

We publish the following lotters in order that our readers may know even better than they hitherto knew, what manner of man Mr .Barton is : — Tc the Editor oft he * Star.' tv uSIB;7u SlB ;7" At , the earliefit moment possible to me, I hasten to reply to Uishop Moran c letter. r; I have never disputed the right of Dr Moran and his flock to combme their votes for any particular purpose they may desire to accom?;lS^°? t0 thvow fcheir wei S Kt in fttVOr °f Mr Stafford, Mr Stout or Mr Wales, as we shall see below they hare done. Ido strenuously object to any section of voters, whether Catholic or otherwise, coin* about to misrepresent their own intentions and the religion andopinions of candidates. My chief object in writing was to show the Protestant electors that they have an opponent whose numbers and tactics and alliances are alike unseen ; and t:> urge upon Protestant electors the necessity of registering. ♦l. i? T'r * c o , b . s f\ ed , that ?r? r Morftn doea not deny the existence of the block list which he showed me onhia wall, nor does he deny havinc said that if any one on that list ever presented himself for an election he would find the Catholics strong enough to keep him out. But in the face of these facts, and of the additional fact that the meeting which decided on the plan for defeating me was held in St. Josenh's schoolhouse, he says he " did not interfere in this election." If any one doubts tne part the Catholic priesthood play in politics, the follow, ing extracts from the ' Tablet ' ought to set the matter at rest • Tabled ■ oonf nn jj g vn f e^, ?873! >88 9 ays C :- J ""* * * C^ h^ *' "Mr Learv is OUT of Caversham. The moral from this and M» Barton s defeat is that though the Catholic electors may not alwara put a candidate on the educational question in, they can always keen anyone who trifllcs with them ou.t" J J ° Cp The 'Tablet' of March 7, 1874, shortly after I had issued my address tc* the electors, and while I was still the only candidate in the field, reminded its readers, in italics, " Now Mr Barton did not r>re*Jt as requested, the petition of his Catholic constituents on the subject of education. J v In the 'Tablet' of April 25, 1874, after the election was over the editor, in lamenting the defeat of Mr Stafford (through the discovery of his having Catholic support), and in crowing over my defeat, lets out in the exuberance of his triumph the tactics employed here : — "In writing this, we fear we are not promoting the political interests of Mr Stafford The No-Popery cry is as potent in this Colony, particularly m the Southern Provinces, as it ever was in the old country, even in the worst days. It was for this reason that we did not dare say one word in reference to the recent Dunedin election We feared lest our opposition to Mr Barton might have enabled that gentleman to appeal prejudices, and thus iecure his election beyond the possibility of a doubt. We did not oppose him, therefore lest we might thereby incur the responsibility of beine instrumental in returning him." 6 " Bishop Moran may answer that he i 8i 8 not responsible for the op.mons of the editor of the • Tablet.' But any person who will comphte the leading art.cle in the 'Tablet' of 7th June, 1 873, describing the manner in which I had treated the petition sent to me to the Provincial Counci and that part of the Bishop's letter describing t!ie same thing, wul have no doubt that the writer of both is one and tha same person. The language of the two is almost identical. In that article and m his letter Dr Moran professes to give a conversation he had with me. He states that he asked me to present the Dunedinpel ition to the i Council -that I did not positively refuse, but that I made great d.fficulty about doing 80 , and that I ultimately consented. My answer is that no such conversation ever took place. The Bishop perhaps unintentionally, conveys the idea that he had three different conversations with me, the fact being that I never saw Bishop Moran, nor had any kind of communication with him, except on the two oftcanons mentioned in my former letter. The first was when I suggested the several petitions; and anyone may see that it could not be oa that occasion that I "hesitated" about presenting tha one from Dunedin, for they wore not yet prepared. The next occasion was shortly after Mr Haughton's resignation of his seat for Queenstown, and afteJ that gentleman had told me that tha Bishop was so deeply offended at my conduct respecting tho Catholic petition that I must expect the Catholic vote to be against me if I contested that election. That interview, in which I did not ask the Bishop's support, though I attempted to convince him that he had no reason in his ostensible ground of opposition was not only long after the presentation of all tho petitions but also after the debate and derision of July, 15, 187! when Mr Haughton moved— "That the estimates for education be re-considered in order to muke provision for a subsidy to Roman Catholic schools' in accordance with the several petitions of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of this province." On that debate I did not speak, and did not vote. Mr ifuughton's motion, though professing to bo founded on tbuse petitions, proposed a measure which I had not at all undertaken to support. I was willing, as I said ia my List letter, to expunge from our National Schoolbooks all expressions tending to lower the Catholic clergy in the eyes of Koinan Catholic children. But I was not, nor am I now, in favor of separate sshools, training our youths to be combatents of rival creeds, instead ot rearing intelligent citizens of a common country. vu The Bishop goes on to say that ho sent down the Dunedin netition, with a note to mo, to the Council Hall, and that both were left on my desk. In reply I may say that the custom was, and I believe is still, that all letters or papers left by any person for a member ot tha Provincial Council aro placed, not on his desk (whence they would £ liable to be thrown down in his absence), but in a pigeon-hole marked with his name j and I undertake to say that no such letter or petition as Dr Moran speaks of was ever found by me in my pigeon-hole. Tho Bishop states m his letter that I pleaded the Reichelt case to him m my excuse j "but," he rejoined, "you veto in the. House durtogthJ

three days (meaning, I presume, three days' interval between his tending th« petition and its actual presentation by Mr Cutten), " and if you wished you might have complied with the request of your constituents, or at air events have asked some other member to present the petition. Bishop Moran admits in the article of the 7th June that the petition was presented by Mr Cutten : and I find from the records that this was on the 22nd of June. I have taken the trouble of examining the Votes and Proceedings of the Council of that year ; also my own diary, and the newspaper reports of the period, to see when and how the Catholic petitions were presented, and how I myself was engaged during the same time. I find that on Thursday, Jttne 15, I was in the House and voted. On Friday, June 16 the first batch of Catholic petitions (five) were presented by Messrs. Shepherd, Bustings, Haughton, Hickey and Armstrong, and that a petition from Messrs. Marshall and Copeland, brewers, which had been entrusted to me was presented "by Mr Shepherd pro Mr Barton. I was therefore absent from the Council on that duy In further proof, my own diary shows that I was, on the 16th June, engaged till 12 p.m. (midnight) on the enquiry in Reichelt's case. On Saturday, 17th June, of course, no sitting of Council. On Monday, 19th, two more Catholic petitions were piesented by Mr Clark and Mr Haughton. On that evening 1 was employed in the Iteirhelt case till 10 30 p.m. On Tuesday, the 20th Juno, no Catholic petitions were presented. I therefore presume none were sent down. On that day, 1 believe I was absent from tha Council. At any rate, I was absent from the afternoon opportunity of presenting petitions had there been any to present, as I was engaged from 2 p.m. till 3.30 in consultation with Messrs J. MLean, Henry Driver, and Jami-B Macassey. I have no reasonable doubt that I was engaged the re'«t of that evening in preparing to conduct the heavy case of Bathgate v. Bank of Otago" which occupied the Court the two following days. I find on Wednesda) the 21st no Catholic petitions were presented, and I again presume none were sent down. On that day I was engaged till after 4 o'clock, and I find no trace of my presence that evening in the Provincial Council. But of this I am certain, that even if I was present, I neither heard nor saw anything of the Dunedin Catholio petition. I find that on the 22nd (Thursday) two Catholic petitions were presented : one from Kyeburn, Oaruaru, &c-, by Hon. J. M'Lean ; the other, from Dunedin and other places, by Mr Cutten— this latter being the one which it is alleged "had been kicked about the Council Hall for three days." On that duy the 22nd, the • Otago Daily Times' report shows that I was engaged all day from 10 a.m. till 7.16 p.m. in the Supreme Court in the case of Bathgate v. the Bank of Otago. • Thus it appears that Bishop Moran is mistaken iv supposTng that I was present on any of the day» when these petitions were presented, and equally mistaken in believing that I knew he had sent me the Dunedin petition and letter he refers to. As to the delay, if there was any, I find that the Dunedin petition was by no means the last tLat was presented. One was brought forward on the 28th June by Mr Lumsden, and another so late as the 7th July, by Mr Mackenzie. Were these two petitions left " kicking about the Council Hall ?" Bishop Moran terms me 1 " quondam blatant Liberal now turned Orangeman," and adds that "the most besotted bigot could not have given expression to a greater 6pint of hostility to his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and a more lamentable ignorance in reference to the deeigns of the Catholic Church," than I have displayed. Iv so far as tJie principles of Orangeism imply opposition to Ulframontanism, I am content to be ranked «s an Orangeman. With " the designs of the Catholic Church," so far as creed is concerned, I claim no light to interfere, but in regard to its political policy I do claim such right : •where it ceases to be a creed, it becomes a state-craft. I adhere to my statement that the real object of Ultramontane Catholicism ii to keep its own flock unthinking and uneducated, and to retard as n ucli aa possible the hburul education of others. From the statements of Irish Catholic bishops I will make a few extiacts, and leave the public to judge. Bishop Derry, in a pastoral dated Ash Wednesday, 1865, epeakiug of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland says:— "lt is expressly enjoined on us to keep youth away from Colleges of that description. Parents and guardians of young men are to understand that by accepting education in tliein for those under there charge, they despise the warnings, entreaties, and decisions of the Head of the Church. Adhering to the dicipline in force in the ilioeese, we once for all declare that they who are guilty of it shall not be admitted to receive the Holy Sacrament of the Kucharist or of Penance -while they continue their disobedience " Iv September, IS6D, a pastoral by Cardinal Cullen was published in the ' Times,' in which occurs the following passage:—"l am so convinced of the evils of the model School system, that I give notice to any Catholic parents who shall obstinately persevere in keeping their children ia the lion's den, in the midst of danger, that I feel bound to deprive them of the advantages of the Sacraments of the Church until they make up their minds to act as parents anxious for the eternal salvation of their children ought to act." Dr. Keane, Bishop of (Jloyne, examined before the Royal Commission on Piimary Education, said the only thing the Church did not claim to teach was the multiplication table, and Mr Doirian, the Bishop of Down and Connor, in anawer to the same question said that "even in arithmetic, there might arise points of a metaphysical kind which a teacher might explain injuriously." If these Roman Catholic Bishops are true exponents of the "designs of the Church," then no ouo can doubt what those designs are. — I am, Ac, Geoege Elliott Bakton. i Dunedin, May 11. To the Editor of the ' Evening Star.' Sib, — In your issue of this evening there appear* a second letter from Mr Barton in reference to the part taken by Catholics in the recent election. This letter gives me the lie direct, and has, consequently, no claim on any attention from me. But, under the circumstances, I owe it to the public to state the ease as between Mr Barton and myself more fully thaa I have hitherto done. In my former letter, from an unwillingness to trespass too far on your space and to contradict Mr Barton's statements unnecessarily,

I confined myself to what I then considered sufficient for my defence, and passed over a great deal of Mr Barton's letter unnoticed. Mr Barton did not suggest to me, either directly or indirectly, either himself personally at any interview, or through a third party, that " a petition khould be drawn up and sent to each of the congregations for signature 5 and that eucli of them should be presented to the Council by thb members sitting for the respective districts." We had no interview in reference to the drawing up of a petition j nor had vre any conversation to that effect. Before our first interview, the Dunedin petition had been drawn up and signed. Mr B rton had two iuterviews witk'mo, and only two. I sought the first for the purpose of asking him to present the petition of the Dunedin Catholics, which had been already prepared ; and on that occasion the conversation, which Mr Barton denies, did most certainly take place. The second interview was sought by Mr B.:rton himself; and on this occasion he asked me to use my influence for him in the Lakes District, for the representation of which he said he intended to be a candidate. The conversation between us during this interview, as given in my former letter, is undoubtedly true in every particular. It need- not, therefore, be repeated now. But towards the close of this conversation, I did go over from the fireplace, -were we had been sitting, to the wall on which there was a list of members who had voted agfiin9t our most just claims and absented themselves from the division without cause, and said, " There is a list of our enemies. In every contested election we shall vote against these, no matter who may be their opponents ; and though we are not strong enough to put in friends, we are in many or most places strong enough to keep out these — our enemies." As to the meeting said to have been held in St. Joseph's Schoolhouse, I must say I never heard there had been such a meeting. Ido not believe there was such a meeting. On the evening of the day of the election, at 8 o'clock, there was a meeting of the Tablet Company in St. Joseph's School-room ; and whilst the first comers were waiting for the arrival of a sutficisut number of shareholders to constitute a legal meeting, the conversation turned on the event of the day. I was present, and told those who were in the room and ca el to listen, what I have stated in this and my former letter in reference to the two interviews I had with Mr Burton, and our conversations during these interviews. But this could have had no influence on an election that had been decided several hours previously. — I am, &c., + P. MOBAN. Monday, May 11.