Wellington Criticism of Mr Justice Gillies.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 85, 17 January 1885, Page 6

Wellington Criticism of Mr Justice Gillies.

The Wellington f ' Post " has lately been distinguishing itself by a style of criticism which is thoroughly worthy of the immortal Jefferson Brick. " The mighty mind of the popular instructor," to use Mr Brick's phraseology, has been in a state of deplorable perturbation over matters political and social. Sir Julius Vogel, who a few months ago was the object alternately of sickly adulation, oracular admonition, and fatherly reproof, is now accused of committing blunders that would disgrace a child, and of pursuing with his colleagues a course of dishonourable duplicity. Governor, Ministers, and Judges, down to the humble messenger who thanks Providence for a merciful shelter in the big wooden building, are subjected at intervals to a hectoring abuse which is mistaken for criticism and loose illogical assertions that are confounded with argument. Port Nicholson affords bounds all too narrow for the flight of this literary spread-eagle, and so the affairs of Auckland are to be taken care of and kept in order. Mr Consul Griffin was set upon with peculiar ferocity, but turned the tables so completely that his critic whimpered in sympathy with the noble-minded Chairman of the "Wellington Chamber of Commerce, who, with a churlish narrowness all worthy of his adviser and of Wellington itself, refused to join the Chairmen of Auckland, Christchurcb, and Dunedin Chambers in signing the testimonial to the departing Consul, Mr Justice Gillies and the Auckland Grand Jury are the subjects of the " Post's " latest attentions, and the manner of attack is characteristic. The palladium of British liberty is endangered. " Never since the days of the notorious Jeffries" has anything &o shocking occurred ! We tremblingly seek the details of this horrible outrage and peril, but having found it, breathe freely once more. The grave offence, it appears, consists of His Honor and the Grand Jury having denounced, in words all too weak, 'acts of the grossest indecency and filthiness, and regretted that the present state of the law allowed the escape of the offender without adequate punishment. The Post complains that the Judge and Jury found Martin Swallow guilty without trial. They did nothing of the sort. Certain sworn depositions were placed before them, upon which it was their duty to pronounce a judgment, and while giving the prisoner the full benefit of the technical loopholes of the law, they would have been guilty of a public wrong had they allowed him—escaping on such terms— to go forth with unsnrirched character to enter decent houses. The "Post," however.does without evidence what it blames the Judge and Grand Jury for doing upon the sworn testimony of credible witnesses. It says:— "We have no sympathy with the particular defendant ; he probably deserved all that was said about him," What is this but repeating the offence for which it has abused both Judge and jury ? ♦ c We doubt (says the oracle) whether any English judge since the days of the notorious Jeffries has ever passed such an extrajudicial sentence." Fudge! The Scotch law passes it upon men at every criminal assize in the verdict " not proven j" and English judges and magistrates do so every day in the year when they dismiss prisoners with a caution. What are the "Post's" comments but a public and intemperate condemnation of a learned judge and jury, consisting of men of the highest personal honour and repute, without trial ? The case against Swallow was one which specially demanded that theindictment should not be dismissed without comment, and people who are not more stupid than the drivel for which we were mulcted in telegraph charges yesterday will accept the opinion of the Judge and jury who examined the depositions in preference to the uiaunderings of a writer at Wellington who manifestly knows nothing of the facts. The " Post " is goo I enough to admit that the expressions of His Honor and the jury will carry w eight with the public. We sincerely hope so— and have no doubt of it, as far as concerns men of sound judgment ; but there can be no universal guarantee when a public journal is not ashamed of becoming the apologist of beastliness, and under the guise of "fair play " endeavours to palliate conduct which Judge and jury have, in the iiterestsof society, only too justly stigmatised.