A WELLINGTON ADDRESS

New Zealand Tablet, Volume 40, Issue 40, 1 October 1903, Page 3

A WELLINGTON ADDRESS

•SIGNED BY 200 CATHOLICS' Some months ago we received from Wellington a belated copy of an address to a ' Rev. and dear Father ' whose name did not appear thereon, but who, we learned later on, was the Rev. Father Hays, who is a prominent worker in the cause of temperance in England. The copy sent to us was on strongly prohibition lines, was couched in stilted schoolboy English, dated December 10, 1902, contained no signatures, and concluded with the statement that it was ' signed by 200 Catholics.' It contained the following extraordinary paragraph :—: — ' We are all the more anxious for our fellow Catholic colonists when we recognise our Catholic proportion of the population is one in seven, while unfortunately in the police and gaol statistics we regret the figures read one in 7 ftvery 2.50 of the drunkards of New Zealand.' If the Iramer, or framers, of that address ever took the trouble to glance at the criminal statistics of the Colony they would have been aware of the following facts : (1) Our ' police statistics ' make no reference whatever to the religious beliefs of aocuised or convicted persons. (2) The ' G-aol Statistics ' could not, neither do they profess to, enumerate ' the drunkards of New Zealand ' — they only set forth that exceedingly small percentage of ' the drunkards of New Zealand ' who, being of the poorer and poorest classes, take their too copious cups in public, get ' run in ' and convicted, and being unable to pay a fine, are lodged in durance vile. It is quite safe to say that our ' gaol statistics ' do not represent the two^hundredtih part of ' the drunkards of New Zealand.' Moreover (3) the one roys'tering toper who is put under lock and key fifteen or twenty times in the course of a year counts m our gaol statistics as fifteen or twenty diunkard^—ione for each conviction that ends in imprisonment. (4) Our ' police and gaol statistics ' do not furnish the smallest ground eitner in fact or reason for supposing that Catholics are more intemperate than the corresponding classes of other denominations, while in the matter of graver crime they can confidently challenge comparison with their fellowcolonists of other creeds. We have dealt with this whole subject) |of comparative crime so recently and exhaustnely that there is no need tor further enlarging upon the subject at the present time. We thought, and think, too much of Wellington Catholics to lightly accept the statement that two hundred of them set their hands, at least knowingly, to that clumsy and disgraceful calumny on their co-religionists throughout New Zealand. At any rate, we were not prepared to accept the statement without sufficient evidence And none was oflcred either directly to us or to our Wellington representative, with w,horn the party who forwarded the address was at one time in communication. In addition to the lack of signatures and the addressee's name, a further Element of Suspicion was furnished by the complete absence of any names or indications of the committee or officials (if any) associated with the address. Moreover what seemed \o have been once a name written on the back of the document appeared to have been carefully crossed out by sweeping lines so as to be absolutely and completely undecipheraole. The communication, so far as its ' face value ' was concerned, was, m pointj of fact, anonymous The suspicious-looking and slanderous document was not, of course, published by us Nearly two months later we received a communication (signed with the most faultless legibility) from the sender peremptorily requiring publication of the document A brief and courteous reply declining publication elicited from him an exceedingly violent and abusive communication, which, we were informed was sent by the direction of his ' committee ' We were further informed that the calumnious address to Father Hays was ' confined to the signatures of Catholic adherents.' It was subsequently published in a prohibitionist organ with the bald statement that it had been refused insertion in the 1 N.Z. Tablet.' Careful inquiries conducted by clergy and laity on our behalf in Wellington failed to elicit any information as to the mode of election, personnel, or existence of this alleged ' committee. 1 The ' 200 Catholics ' who are alleged to have signed the document have not yet been discovered. We are in a position to authoritatively state that no practical Catholic had anything to do with drawing up or procuring signatures for this libel on our New Zealand co-religionists. So far as careful inquiries went, they elicited the fact that eight practical Catholics appended

their signatures to the address. The following Address to Father Hay,s exiplains itself :— Wellington, J,une i..— / 1903. • The Rev. Father Hays. 1 Dear Rev. Father, ' We, the undersigned, were signatories to the address sent to you from Wellington and dated December 10th, 1902 and alleged to have been signed by two hundred Catholics. We appended our signatures to the document .inking that it was a complimentary address to you • but we have been greatly pained to learn, from its recent publication, in a New Zealand paper, that it contained .> following paragraph, which we did not, notice at the ne of signing :— ' " We are all the more anxious for our fellow Catholic colonists, when we recognise our Catholic proportion -it the population is one in seven, while unfortunately in the police and gaol statists we regret to state the figures read one in every 2.50 of the drunkards of New Zealands. " ' We beg to emphatically repudiate and reprobate this calumnious reflection on the members of our faith in this Colony, 'lhe assertion that " the police and gaol stalstics " make or justify the statement quoted above is quite untrue ; and we are confident that not one practical Catholic in Wellington would have set his or her name to the address if it had been known that it contained this gratuitous slander on our co-religionists 'Mahout New Zealand. 1 We are in full accord with every effort which you have made, or may in future make, in the cause of true temperance reform and beg to remain, faithfully yours.' i lere follow seven signatures, and underneath them the statement : ' So far as we know, with one exception, f^e signatures represent All the Practical Catholics who signed the address dated December 10th, 1902.' The evceplion is stated to have been at the time absient from Wellington, and the signatories explain that, had he been present, he would, no doubt, have joined wi,th them in repudiating the slander condemned by them above). A reply to this address has just been received from Father /Hays It was written at Holyrood Hall, Market Rasen, Lancashire, and bears date August 11. 'It is quite true,' says he ' I have received addresses from several towns in New Zealand, and was particularly struck vi th the passages in the Wellington address to which you have referred. However, I am now very glad to have your letter and the second address which you enclose, nd beg you to kindly convey my gratitude to those who have signed their names.' The remainder of Father Hays' letter refers to his temperance work in England, and has no further bearing on the subject of the addresses from vVcllington.