THE LATE LIBEL PROSECUTION.

Evening Star, Issue 4247, 6 October 1876, Page 2

THE LATE LIBEL PROSECUTION.

We scarcely think that the Roman Catholic laity will feel flattered by the unwarrantable scurrility of the following article in favor of their clergy, which we copy from this week’s ‘ Tablet.’ We owe no duty to Bishop Moran, and have a right to expect equally, courteous treatment from him as from any other person ; and if his zeal and that of those under his control lead them to forget “the gentleman,” they must expect to he answered “ according to (their) folly.” Bishop Moran chose to prosecute rather than to ask an explanation, which, from the readiness with which every communication from him had previously been published in the Stab, he must have concluded would gladly have been given. He sought to compel what he could not force, but might have had for the asking. He must not, therefore, complain that he was met on his own ground and defeated. A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. In the case, Regina v. Bell, a Dunedin Grand Jury has ignored the Bill of Indictment. We have nothing to say as to the gentlemen of the jury. Personally they are almost all unknown to us. Even their very*names are for the moat part new to us; and in addition we do not forget that, considering the unusually small number swem on tbe jury, two or three dissentient voices would suffice to find “No True Bill.” What we are certain of is, that they ore all sound Protestants, that not even one Catholic was amongst them, aud that the few with whom* we are personally acquainted axe honorable men. With the jury, taken either individually or. collectively, we have nothing to do, and nothing- further to say than that we believe them to be respectable citizens. Our business is exclusively with weir decision, which, though honestly arrived at, as we are bound to believe, is a grievous mistake and a great wrong. This decision is, no doubt, the outcome of conscientious convictions—even though these should happen to have been in so ne instances foregone conclusions—realised under the sanction of on oath to do justice according to law and fact. But, unfortunately, conscientious convictions do not always lead to the true aud just; and, in the present instance, tnere can be no doubt that the action of t'.ie Grand Jury, though most conscientious, has resulted iu a mis-carriage of justice, in liberating a guilty newspaper from the penalty due to libel, and in severely punishing the innocent. It is, no doubt, in the power of the Catholic clergy to apply to the Supreme Court to annul the decision of tho Grand Jury, and to order a trial in the case. And were these gentlemen to do so, even though they should have po other object in view than to mark their sense of tbe injustice of which they are the victims through this mistaken finding of the Grand Jury, they would only do what they have a strict right to do. But then arises the consideration, would there bo any probability of their obtaining wiser aud more just treatment at the bonds of a Dunedin petty jury than they have experienced at tbe bauds of a Grand July. Their friends, judging from tbeir knowledge of the state of public opinion iu (bis City, tell them there womd be baldly any such probability.

The decision of the Grand Jury, though oontrsrf to their intention, amounts, tor an that, in «ffe"t to a permission to everyone in the community, it bo disposed, to libel the Catholic clergy in the news, papers, and to a promise of impunity for such an offence. It is to Be greatly feared that the genceand sense of fair play of a petty jnry would not be of a higher order than, those of a Grand Jnry. To be sure a petty jury would do its best, as did the Grand Jury, to be Jos. and equitable md legal, bnt it is hardly to be hoped its best would be better for the reputattonof Catholic clergymen the of a Qrand Jury. , From first to the conduct of the * Evening Star/which the dem/? on of * he Gr * nd Jur V F?* nonnees to be free from evC? appoataneei of libel, for in the opinion of the Jnry, C? evidenced by its finding, there was not so moon as case to go to a jury, has been in reality very Wet published a most dunnii.g libel—we the (xtand Jtlry* s pardon—on its unoffending neighbor** gentlemen who reside wlteln-urfew perches of its office. Then, when the original libeller published*' retractation of the lie ana an apology, the * Star/ Which had hastened to copy tee libel, took care not to publish this retractation and apology, although it copied extracts from the. very number of tee ‘ Tuapeka Times’ which contained the retractation and apology; and up even to the present moment, the * Star * has studiously abstained from retracting the lie to which it so promptly gave a wide circulation, and from making an apology to the Catholic clergy whom it has se grievously maligned. There is no comparison between the criminality of the 'Evening Star* and teat of tee ‘ Tuapeka - Times.* The latter is a country newspaper of rather limited circulation, the former is a metropo* lital journal, having a boasted circulation of several thousands. The power for mischief of a libel pnbdi«hed in the * Star* is consequently vastly greater than that of the * Times.’ The metropolitan journal did not disdain to copy defamatory matter from its oodntry cousin, which, by the way, gets its supple, ment printed in the * Star’ office—a rather suggestive circumstance—but whilst most willingly mi. tating its little country cousin’s bad example and execrable taste in retailing falsehood and scandalous reports, the City paper ignored tee good example of contrition and restitution of the‘Tuapeka Times'—a line of conduct which has, we tear, become contagions. In its issue of Monday evening, the * Star/ so doubt, expresses its regret for having annoyed the Catholics in Dunedin; but it has not one word of regret or retractation so far as tee persons actually maligned are personally concerned. In fact, it stiff leaves nnoontradioted in its pages tee lie so far as it affects the clergy. It is careful to avoid all mention of the specmo|libel complained of, deals in general terms, and so writes as to leave people at a distance tinder the impression that tee Catholic clergy of Dttnedin have only got their due; that some of them really did commit tee crime attributed to Mm, and teat its regret is not for having libelled these gentlemen, but for having riven some annoyance to the .Catholic laity, who might possibly be somewhat troublesome to it. This is our reading of what the' Evening' Stax ’published on Monday evening, in reference to the finding of the Grand Jury. ...... The * Star’ nowhere says tee lie contained in the libel Is untrue, but merely says, " Tor it must not be overlooked that in the eyes of every other class of Christians What was copied from another paper, however untrue, was not considered derogatory to tee parties named.” The * Stax * knows that the statement it copied is untrue, but it has not said so. Neither does it offer tee least apology to tee clergy so ruthlessly held up to tee scorn and ridicule of all whose good opinion they prize, nor express the least regret for injuring their good name and fame, and wounding teem most cruelly. On the contrary, it adds insult to injury by telling thorn, in reality, that they are to have no remedy and indeed ought not to complain because chooses to judge teem by tee standard of their enemies, and ribe at them when made, by itself and fellows in the the victims of lies, which are matters of sport to other denominations, though they are matters ot and death to them. The * Star ’ has another curious sentence. This explanation would have been glviul l to Bishop Moran had he been courteous euongn ~°. municate with ns.’’ What explanation, hign a* l ** mighty * Star ’ I The ’ Star ’ then assumes to hav«> the right to libel Catholic priests its next door neighbors, to neglect to retract its falsehoods when made aware of them, and to perservere in this course because Bishop Moran did not go down on his knees, and beg of it to be so good as to say that what it coaid easily have known, from tee beginning, to be a lie, was not true. This false report was so injurious, and, moreover, so improbable teat it was absolutely inexcusable in the * Star* to publish it even as on extract from another paper without inquiry. When the summons, containing Bishop Moran's affidavit that tee report was untrue and injurious, was served, why did not tee * Star’ contradict its statement, as it was bound in justice and honor to do? When the ‘Tuapeka Times* retracted and declared the report tone false and rashly inserted, why was not tee * Evening Star/ Dunedin, as prompt to take over to its columns these passages as it was to give a prominent place to a libel on Catholic priests t No, it is no. excuse—no justification tor the conduct of the ‘Star’ to say that had Bishop Moron asked for explanation it ) would have been riven to him. Why should Bishop I Moran have asked for an explanation ; it was his 1 right and his duty to demand that justice should be done. And it was the duty of tee conductors ot the * Evening Star/ as men, as fellow citizens, and as Christians—if theyare Christians—to have anti* cipated all action on his part, and made an unreserved retractation and a manly apology. Had they done this, they would have discharged an imperative duty and acted creditably. Our contemporary the * Guardian/ in its issue ot Tuesday says, "There is no one in this City teat knows Mr Bell, who would believe him capable ef •wilfully maligning or hurting the feelings of the Boman Catholic Church.” All we eon say in reference to this is, that it would give ns great pleasure to be able to believe as does our contemporary. Mr Bell we do not know, but this we know, that tee ‘Evening Star* been for years an habitual maligner of Catholics and their Church; and teat henceforward it may, on the strength of the decision of a Dunedin Grand Jnry, feel safer than ever in tee indulgence of this amiable propensity I