Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

THAT FIVE POUNDS.
To the Editor of "The Mercury."
Sir-Some vitriolic effusions have appeared
in your columns condemning my
attitude towards the 'Tattersall" gold.
The attempts from the logical point of
view have been amusing, from the moral
point of view, execrable. In their frenzy
your correspondents have mistaken abuse
for argument, and coarseness for point.
Logically my position has been so admirably
stated in the article signed
"AAH"" and so well supported by "True
Blue," as to be absolutely unanswerable.
There are a few things, however,
which I crave space to point out.
1. What has given rise to this controversy?
in your columns Appeared a
report of a meeting of the Blind Institute
Committee. In that report I a
known and outspoken opponent of 'Tat
tersall's," appear as accepting money
from that very source. I wrote correcting
the error, and explaining that
I had acted in consistency with my declared
attitude. Had I not done so,
I should have been open to the charge
of inconsistency, and rightly branded as
a hypocrite. What honourable or
thoughtful man would deny me this
right?
2. "Tattersall's" has made the State
Parliament its slave. From the same
source care what looked very like an
effort to coerce the City Council. But
surely it reaches the height of obnoxious
coercion when a Christian minister is
forbidden to speak out and inculcate
what he believes to be right principles.
When, sir, did it become a crime for a
minister of Jesus Christ to teach con-
scientiously, fearlessly, and without re-
spect to persons?
3. There are different views as to what
is for the Blind Institution's highest
good. My critics seem to hold that
gold is the one essential, no matter from
what source it may come. My view
is that the highest; good comes by the
practice of the purest principles, and by
absolute refusal to touch the unclean
thing, whether in the case of the individual,
the insticutioiit or, the nation.
Here is a man who has amassed money
by operating a vice which is acknowledged
to be one of the most damning sins
of fallen humanity. How can such
money be accepted for charitable purposes?
4. It is suggested that I should refuse
such money for the church, but accept
it for the Blind Institute. What strange
code of morality is this? This would
mean one conscience for church matters,
and another for the affairs of the Blind
Institution. Would my friends suggest
a third conscience in the business world,
and fourth in politics, and so on ad in
finance? The suggestion is a palpable
absurdity.
If my would be critics would but read
the Bible, and act according to its teachings,
there would be no trouble, for
"Tattersall's" would not exist. The
Psalmist- when speaking of those who
work iniquity, prays "Lob me not eat, of
their dainties." The New Testament
lays down the principle, 'Touch not the
unclean thing." I accept both the Old
and New Testaments, and consequently
seek to practise the precepts quoted. and
to "teach men so,"
Mr. Editor, I quite expected the
howl which has followed my action. The
home thrust of the sword of truth is
invariably followed by a shriek from
those' who feel the sting of the piercing
blade.
In conclusion, permit me to thank
those who have so ably supported me
through the press in the stand I have
taken, and also those from whom I have
received letters of thanks and encourage
mont.
Yours, etc
JOHN S. BUNTINE.
Chalmers Manse,
April 28, 1903.
[This reply must close the discussion,
which has become a mere repetition of
statements already made. We received
yesterday half a. dozen letters practically
repeating what had been said before.
-T'Sl. "Manly
Much more depends upon the personality
of the teacher than upon the flag of
his these. "Glasgow Evening News."
$