I. -13b

264

(Janon Garland, were published in about seventy New Zealand daily papers, and in the Outlook, in the course of a controversy on the subject with Canon Garland. The matter quoted hereunder was also mailed to Canon Garland and to the chief members of the League executive. The following sample copy is from the Dominion of the 20th January, 1913 : — " Sin, —1 have just now (17th January) received from a friend in Wellington a copy of your issue of the 15th, containing an excited communication by the reverend organizer of the .Bible in Schools League. " In a Bible-in-schools pamphlet the following shockingly untrue statement was credited to the late Director of Education in Tasmania, Mr. Neale: That the Bible-in-schools system in thai State is 'accepted by all denominations as a happy solution of the religious difficulty. . This amazing assert inn was flung at me in controversy, and gave rise to the following two issues: (1) The question of its authorship, and (2) the question of its objective truth. " (1.) Information received by me from Tasmania (the accuracy of which 1 could not, of course, guarantee) was to the following effect : (") Thai the quoted statement was certainly signed not by the Director of Education (Mr. Neale, then alleged to be absent), but by a secretary t<. the Director; (l>) the secretary was understood to be the author of the statement so signed by him; (c) it was made to appear at Least doubtful that so flagrant an untruth was fathered In one so well acquainted and sympathetic with Catholic educational grievances as the Directoi of Education was known to be. "On the 16th November the organizing secretary of the League asserted in your columns that the statement quoted above was signed by ' the secretary of the Director of Education.' This obviously left the mystery of its authorship precisely where it had been before. So did two communications received b\ me from the present Director of Education (Mr. McCoy), on my return to Auckland just before Christmas Eve. He failed to give a specific solution to these two doubts: (a) Was this cruel miestatemeni made by its signer (the secretary) as liis own personal view, or (b) was it dictated, written, or approved by the Director of Education J '' On the 3rd January my esteemed neighbour, the Key. Mr. Jolly, published in the Auckland Star a letter in which the present Director of Education (Mr. McCoy) affirms that his predecessor actually twice wrote with his own hand the statements in question. Here, for the first time, we had a clear, express, and categorical statement in point, which (as acknowledged by me in the Star of the Ith January) set at rest the question of authorship, and proved that my informant's were mistaken in their grounds for supposing that the signer of the statement was also its originator. "No charge of forgery was laid at any time or by any person in this connection. This charge was illogically deduced as the only working inference; yet there were no fewer than four quite. innocent inferences which ought to have been taken into consideration before fixing on one that involved a grave criminal accusation. May I be permitted to remind the reverend organizer of the League that 1 am amenable to the laws, which provide a speedy remedy for any one against whom a charge of forgery is improperly made or implied. May I furthermore add that, in the case of the present alleged charge, the questions of fact would be decided by a jury composed wholly or in great part of my Protestant fellow-citizens. " In my letter of the 4th January in the Auckland Star 1 stated that I had already planned hi utilize the correspondence 'in hand' anil 'expected shortly' 'in a public pronouncement arranged for at an early date.' What may possibly be an important communication in this connection is still awaited. Those who know me will have no fear that I shall herein be lacking either in candour or in personal honour. " (2.) I now come once more to the question of the objective truth of the statement that the Bible-in-schools system in Tasmania is 'accepted by all denominations as a happy solution of the religious difficulty.' Not to mention Jewish and other objectors, Catholics hold a very important place in the list of ' nil denominations 'in Tasmania. How do they view the system? "(a.) The Catholic denomination in Tasmania, as elsewhere, notoriously denies the moral right of the Government to impart what the law in several Australian States terms biblical and 'general religious teaching*' (6.) The Catholic denomination in Tasmania, as elsewhere, publicly and notoriously objects to paying tithes (in the shape of taxes) for the exclusive establishment anil endowment of a form of biblical and 'general religious teaching' at variance with the religious convictions of its adherents, (c.) On specific and oft-stated grounds of doctrine and discipline, Catholic teachers cannot, without at least a material violation of their conscience, impart the sort of biblical and ' general religious teaching ' referred to above. An authoritative state ment on this subject has been before the public of New Zealand repeatedly, at least since October. Catholic teachers in Tasmania are forced by law either to forfeit their bread-and-butter or violate their conscience, and do, at State expense, work which properly belongs to the Bible-in-schools clergy and parents. (</.) For over two months past there has been before the public of this Dominion a declaration by the official head of the Catholic denomination in Tasmania of the wrongs which Catholics there believe they have been Buffering under the sham ' protection ' of the Irish proselytizing conscience clause which has found favour with our Bible in Schools League. " Yet, in spite of these well-known facts, the League is still officially circulating the notorious and cruel untruth that the Bible-in-schools system in Tasmania is accepted by Catholics ' as a happy solution of the religious difficulty.' " Once more—-for. f think, the fifth time—-I thus direct the League's attention to this grave matter. "17th January." " Hexky W. Cleabt, Bishop of Auckland." As the Committee were unable to get into touch with the Rev. G. S. Cook on the 26th October, for cross-examination by me, I am permitted to put in a statement in regard to his evidence. I am. however, limiting this statement to the following two points: — On pages 7-8 of his evidence the Rev. Mr. Cook states that " the Yass Convent School makes a special feature of coaching candidates for the entrance examination," said examination being