SECTARIANISM AND POLITICS

New Zealand Tablet, 18 January 1912, Page 20

SECTARIANISM AND POLITICS

AN EFFECTIVE REPLY TO A FALSE STATEMENT ■- It is injurious to religion as well as to politics to have sectarian bitterness introduced into the already heated atmosphere of political .controversy. Our contemporary, the Evening Star quotes, the preceding sentence from the Christchurch Press of January 3, and then goes on in the course of a leading article to say: ‘Needless to say, we are. in full agreement with this remark, which, indeed, is of the nature of a truism; and our only regret or wonder is that our , esteemed contemporary, in the special instance, should not have recked its own rede with more scrupulous care— we might even say, with a keener sense of humor. For the whole of the article in which the edifying truism appears is a. singularly pointed attempt to introduce sectarian bitterness into the already heated atmosphere of political controversy. The matter has a particular interest for Dunedin people will perhaps best be gathered if we quote the Press’s opening sentence.’ - . -7“ . After quoting the opening remarks of the Press the Star goes on to say: ‘After studying Father Coffey’s letter and our contemporary’s reply, in the light , of our knowledge of the circumstances of the campaign in Dunedin West, we are constrained to compliment the Rev. Father on the cogency of his arguments; and if this is tantamount to condoling with the Press on the weakness of ;its position,- well, the fault is not ours; and; condolences should have - some slight consolatory effect. ... We sincerely - wish that there had been a worthy response to the -Rev.'- Father’s appeal ; but, ; alas and alack! the Press reiterates its statement that : “in Dunedin there was . an organised attempt to influence the Catholic vote in favor of the

Government candidates as there was in other parts of the Colony.’’ It is not unreasonable to suggest' that we have an advantage over the editor of' the Press as regards knowledge of the Dunedin contests; and, even in respect of that “reliable” Dunedin correspondent, it "would be interesting to learn something of his identity, or at least of his credentials. We do not hesitate to declare that the allegations which our contemporary so persistently advances are, for the most part, unsubstantial and fantastic.’ ■ The following incisive passage from Father Coffey’s second letter is then quoted: —‘It is a peculiar fact and one worthy of special notice that ministers' of other' denominations may turn their churches' and meetingplaces into political platforms, that they may*'" stand outside polling booths on election days, may even ’ go r inside till put out by someone in charge', that they may go from door to door distributing tracts and asking votes for certain candidates, telling them “ that God will be with them if they vote for Mr. So-and-so,” that they may ride round in motor cars on the day of’ the 1 election, rounding up the faithful and yet there is not one word in the papers in condemnation of such actions; But if a priest in the remotest corner of New Zealand lifts his voice or if some “ reliable correspondent” assumes that he has lifted his voice, the Press Association are at once informed of the fact or assumed fact, and the public are treated to a howl about the ‘ ‘ priest in politics.” ’ Commenting on this the Star says:— ‘ That passage may well cause some searchings of heart in quarters which need not be too definitely particularised. In at least one of the Dunedin electorates, during the recent campaign, clerical and religious and semi-religious influence was brought to bear with a passionate persistency, as well as an invidious subtlety, which (if the paradox may be excused) had an element of downright diablerie. And in connection with this questionable sort of enterprise, though the Roman Catholics" may not have been entirely idle, it is notorious that they could not hold a candle with some other denominations.’ FATHER COFFEY’S FURTHER DENIAL. The following letter on the same subject appeared in the Press of January 10: —‘Sir, —I am sorry you have not had manly courage enough to admit defeat. You were led by your ‘reliable correspondent ” to make a false statement containing a most unjust and-base' insinuation against a body of your fellow-citizens. You now know that your statement is without foundation, in a word, that it is false from every aspect; and instead of honorably admitting you were deceived, you reiterate your statement without one solitary ; word of proof Heretofore I have- been led to expect different conduct from a respectable newspaper. To dispel further doubt on the subject under discussion, and to make the matter as clear as possible, I shall now give your statement in your own words, and shall give an emphatic denial to that statement under the different guises in which it has appeared.

No. 1: “A Dunedin correspondent on whom we can rely, informs us that every Roman Catholic in Mr. Millar’s constituency was seen on his behalf two days before the election." The above statement is absolutely false, in the only sense in which you could have used it. . That is, that some 7 organised attempt 1 was made by the Catholic authorities to influence votes for Mr. Millar. If you can prove that your statement ’is true, and that l am wrong, you are at liberty* to claim my £lO, the offer of which is still open.

‘-Statement No. 2: “Doubtless the, work was done by lay representatives of the Roman Catholic Church." ■: The denial of this is contained in my answer to' No. 1, but in order to place the matter beyond all possibility of doubt or dispute, I now “ state categorically /an explicitly, that it is absolutely false to say or' insinuate that any Catholic, clerical or lay, man or woman, was asked or authorised, directly or indirectly, ./any; Church authority or Church organisation, /to visit one single Catholic voter, or to ask' for one vote for Mr, ■ Millar at the last election, either during the first or

second ballot, v. Is .this denial ; clear enough for you ? If not, prove'that I am wrong,. and claim the £lO. It ought not to be a too difficult task for your lynx : eyed and “reliable’’ correspondent. . .V “ , ' v - • . ‘ Statement No. 3, taken, from the leading article, you were good enough to devote to me in your issue of the 3rd inst., “ That in Dunedin there was an organised- attempt to influence the Catholic vote in - favour of the ■.- Government candidates. " This statement has - a wider signification than the previous ones/- as # it refers to all the electorates in Dunedin. Taking it as referring to all or one, - I deny its truth. It is absolutely . without foundation. If you or your correspondent can prove it true, you may claim my ten pounds (£10), and it shall be given to you. As a notorious fact, in at least three of the Dunedin electorates - Catholics were found voting and working on opposite sides, without let or hindrance of any kind, or any attempt to influence their votes by the church authorities. In Dunedin West, Mr. Millar’s constituency, I freely admit that most, if not all the Catholics voted for him but that they did so owing to any organised attempt on the part of the Catholic authorities to ,influence their votes, or because “ the head of the Government was a Catholic,” I absolutely and unqualifiedly deny. To my mind their votes for Mr. Millar were due to three reasons: (a) Mr. Millar’s work in the interests of the Dominion ; (b) Mr. Millar’s work for the City of Dunedin and (c) the abuse which they received from the other side. You will never win the Catholic vote by abusing their religion or most sacred institutions Catholics have their full share of the spirit of self-respect and independence; and they are no more disposed than their neighbors are to fawn on ■ and lick the foot that kicks them. Because I admitted that there were one or two Catholics (in' their private capacity and in the exercise of their undoubted rights) on Mr. Millar’s Committee one man and two women as I now learn— take it as an evidence of organised effort. Such argument reminds me of the “drowning man grasping-at straws.” There was an elder of the Presbyterian Church a very active member of his committee ; and you have not accused the Presbyterian Church of undue influence in his favor. The chairman of Mr. Thomson’s Committee, if I am rightly informed, holds a very high place amongst the church-workers in Dunedin ; and you have not - accused-him or his church of undue influence. * But because one or two Catholics in their private capacity worked; on Mr. Millar’s committee, herein you find a marvellous proof of “an organised attempt to influence the, Catholic vote in favor of the Government candidates.’ In contrast to your action in this matter I may call your attention to'the action of the two Dunedin papers. The position of the Evening Star, you will see in its leading article of even date. The Otago Daily Times has been all through the elections a most pronounced opponent of the Government, and it let no opportunity pass to secure the defeat of Mr. Millar, It had ten correspondents and reporters on the spot to your one, and yet from beginning to end of the elections not one word has appeared in its columns alleging that undue influence, on the part of any person or religious body which was so apparent to your lynxeyed “reliable correspondent.” Your apology for having entered into a discussion on this subject “that you did it in the interests of your Roman Catholic friends” —reminds me very forcibly of the story of the wolf and the lamb. The wolf abused the lamb, which was drinking down the stream, for polluting the water - which-his majesty the wolf had to drink. You started the discussion by publishing the canard about the West Coast .priests ; you added to your offence by . introducing false information supplied by your Dunedin “unreliable correspondent;” you made an uncalled-for attack upon the Catholic Bishop of Christchurch, - who, in the lawful exercise of his office, denounced the. slander-mongers of the Dominion, and, because we have the courage to reply to your false- statements and base insinuations, we are to be accused of raising the bug-bear of “ Sectarianism 1 in Politics.' This is surely the most modern edition of the story of the wolf and the lamb. I am

immediately interested in your statement regarding Dunedin. I have now, for the third time, given that statement an absolute denial from every point of view. I have called upon you, and I now call - upon you for the third time to withdraw it or prove it. If you prove it, I offer you or your correspondent ten pounds (£10). If you do not claim the money, your readers will know the reason why By all • the rules , oflogic - you are bound to prove the statement, having made it. If you cannot prove it, "by the rules of justice ; and honor -you) are bound to withdraw it and apologise to those whom) you have unjustly accused. I shall now leave you to decide.— etc., ; - ‘ ■ . - • ; ‘James Coffey, -- ■ ‘ Adm. St. JosephJs Cathedral, Dunedin. ‘January 5.’ f ) In the course of a leading article on the above letter, the Press says —• v wi . , ■ ‘ Father Coffey assures us, in effect, that the Church) authorities had nothing to do with it -canvassing .; the' Catholics" on behalf of Mr/Millar], and we accept his denial without ? the slightest - qualification or reserve. The Press concludes by, giving an ‘ absolute denial ' to* the • statement that it made * an uncalled-for attack ?on the Catholic Bishop of Christchurch, who, in the lawful exercise of his office, denounced the slander-mongers of the Dominion.’ ' - _