New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1875. THE 'SOUTHERN MERCURY' IN

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 93, 6 February 1875, Page 5

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1875. THE 'SOUTHERN MERCURY' IN

The Southern Mercury'isfoundoTit,andinitsanger at being detected m its underhand calumny of honest and honorable men, forgets itself, and gives vent to its feelings in an article of abuse and falsehood in reference to the New Zealand Tablet. As is usual with our assailants, the * Southern Mercury, whilst saying all manner of untrue and disparaging things of us, and laboring hard to prejudice its | readers against us, has not the justice nor the manliness to quote even one sentence, by way of proof, from our article which has occasioned its towering passion. It is manifestly afraid to let its readers see what flimsy grounds there are for its invective. The 'Southern Mercury' begins its Philippic with the words—" The New Zealand Tablet is rapidly acquiring the reputation of being the most Aggressive and intolerant periodical in the Colony. Not content with the defence of its own position, it invites attacks, ard commits the impolitic mistake of forcing neutrals into the ranks of its opponents. ' Our answer is— (l). No doubt the opinion is gaining ground amongst the readers of certain newspapers that the Tablet is everything the ' Mercury ' says it is because these newspapers, in defiance of facts, have persistently repeated calumnies of us, and as persistently withheld our own words from their readers. But a falsehood repeated, even for ever, cannot change a lie into a truth ; and those who know the Tablet best, who have read it from the beginning, are well aware that it is neither aggressive not intolerant. (2.) We give the most emphatic contradiction to the statement of the ' Mercury ' that we have not been content with the defence of our own position, and that we have invited attack. From the first our position has been one of defence. We have defended our faith and our Church from assaults upon them made in the public and High Schools, and in the Press ; but when or where have we attacked any man's faith, assailed any man s right, or in any way endeavored to impede the leeii? m ! lt ? e 3?? ession °f option? This is a matter easily tested. It it can, and if it dare, let the ' Mercury' give the passages from the columns of the Tablet which sustain its assertions. To do this would be an honest, straightforward proceeding; but this is precisely what the ' Mer- ■ cury shirks. ;The 'Southern Mercury' continues :—" An illustration of the pugnacious disposition of our contemporary is furnished by a most disingenuous article, which appealed in its last issue. We lately published m our columns an extract

from the Independent,' respecting Freemasonry. It was inserted without comment, and consequently would not, by any honest or competent journalists, have been treated as an expression of opinion by ourselves. But the Editor of the Tablet is ignorant of the functions of a journalist, op which is worse, he wilfully misinterprets those functions. If he is fit to be entrusted with the control of type at all he should know that the mere insertion of anything copied from another paper, without comment, and with an acknowledgement of the source wherever it is derived, in no way binds' the copyist to the sentiments or statements therein contained." Softly, Mr Editor of the « Southern Mercury ' But we must, before proceeding iurther, apologise for the length of this extract. Our excuse, however, is, our anxiety to let our readers see our contemporary's doctrine as to editorial responsibility, expressed in his own words. The principle here announced by the * Mercury n is true to a certain extent, but by no means universally. It has its limitations. If, for example, an Editor republishes a libel or a slander, is he not responsible for it, even to the law of the land ? And, again, may there not be circumstances which go to prove that the publication of matter copied from another journal, is another way of giving expression to the copyer's own opinion. And will any dispassionate man deny that such is the case in the present instance, when he bears in mind the controversy that has taken place on the subject of Freemasonry in the Tablet and certain other newspapers lately ? And this view is confirmed by the consideration, that the charge against the Jesuits, to which the 'Mercury' gave circulation, and which has originated this controversy, is the most atrocious that could be made against any body of men. The ' Mercury ' published, without note or comment, the following fearful calumny, taken from the * Independent * : " It is exactly a hundred and one years since the Bull for the suppression of the Jesuits was put by Pope Clehextt XIV., Gtangakellt, who died so mysteriously a year after — poisoned by the Jesuits, as every Italian believes." Now we maintain that the man who publishes such a charge as that without note or comment makes himself an active agent in the propagation of the slander. No honest, honorable man, who disbelieved the charge — who, in fact, did not endorse it, would publish it to the world, even as an extract without comment. It is a charge of too terrible a nature, too injurious to the good name of a learned, virtuous, and useful body of ecclesiastics,— -too hurtful to the most sacred feelings of upright men, to be flung abroad before the eyes of the public, without a deep conviction of its truth, and of the absolute necessity of making it public, or of repeating it. The ' Mercury ' is on the horns of a dilemma : either its Editor endorses the • Independent,' or, in sheer recklessness, and with no object, except to wound and outrage the feelings of his Catholic fellow citizens, he launches this lie on the wings of the New Zealand Press "We here repeat what we said in our issue of the 23rd ult. : The ' Southern Mercury ' contains an article from the ' Independent,' which a respectable journal ought not to insert. Again, the • Mercury * misrepresents our use of the word " endorse "in our article of the 23rd January. It is no where said in that leader that the ' Mercury ' endorsed the article of the ' Independent,' and this affords another proof of how unfair it is to omit quoting the passages to which reference is made in such controversies as this. These are our own words,— '• According to the * Independent,' endorsed of course by the * Mercury,' for which the 1 Guardian 'is sponsor— the Holy See does nothing except at the suggestion of the Jesuits. Poor simpletons all three are." "We applied the word " endorsed," and in a playful way, to one particular sentence, and to that only. Had the 'Mercury' attended to this obvious fact, its columns should not have been burdened with a great deal of irrelevant matter, and the expression of a great deal of unnecessary indignation and untrue charges of ignorance. &c, in reference to the ' Tablet.' The only remark we made which is at all applicable to the entire article of the ' Independent,' was, that a respectable journal ought not to insert it, and that it is at once silly and shocking. But what we did not say then, we say now, viz., that it is clear to us the ' Mercury ' did endorse that article from the ' Independent.' The ' Mercury ' says, "Yet persistently we have been attacked, uhfied and misrepresented, by that peculiar paper " the ' Tablet.' The < Mercury ' is (freamingT tfltil the 23rd of last month, the ' Tablet ' has never, so far m

we can remember, said even one word in reference to the I ' Southern Mercury,' or anything that has appeared in it. "We announced, indeed, once, we think, that such a paper was to be published, but further than that there has been almost no notice of our contemporary in our columns. This is another proof of the utter recklessness of our contemporary. The ' Mercury ' says again, that we have done more to cause social dissension and bitterness of heart between neighbours, than a lifetime spent in conciliation can sufficiently atone for ? Again the ' Mercury ' is dreaming, or it mistakes the delusions of its own distempered imaginings for facts. No such social dissension as that spoken of exists, or if it does, it must be within a very small and absurd section indeed — a section composed of men who rage because they are not permitted to scatter broadcast, calumnies against Catholics and their Church, without let orfhindrance. But the^ rarest specimen of the mental calibre of the 'Mercury,' is to be found in the last paragraph of its leader of the 29th ult. Our contemporary says " "We would only desire to remind him of one of the promises which, as the conductor of a religious paper he ought to be well acquainted with : — " Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven." "Well, it is said that the devil can quote scripture, and we know he did so, for the purpose of tempting our Divine Lord. But he did not succeed ; and we hope that tlie ' Mercury's ' temptation of us to be silent in the presence of its monstrous falsehoods, shall not tempt us or frighten us to abandon the defence of what is true and good. The Editor of the ' Mercury ' is not the first man who misunderstood Scripture, and perverted it to his own unhallowed purposes. He is so taken up with his own ideas and views of things that he grows angry when a contemporary takes the trouble to correct his mistakes, and warn the public against being misled by his blunders, prejudices, and calumnies. And strange to say he labours under the delusion that the way to promote peace is to permit slander and falsehood of every sort to run riot ; and like a coward, a hireling? and paltroon, to abandon the cause of truth and justice. According to him, the Christian Beatitude calls upon us to allow him to say everything that is vile against Jihe Church and its best Ministers, without a word of contradiction. or remonstrance. But our ideas are very different. In our opinion falsehood and injustice can never promote peace ; and reason as well as religion teaches that it is a sacred and inexorable duty to refute untruth, repel calumny against the Institutions of Christianity, and defend that which is just and true. And we are convinced that this is the way and the only way in reality to secure peace. In fine, as the ' Mercury ' has quoted Scripture, we may be permitted to imitate its example. All who are acquainted with the Sacred Book, know that on one occasion some amongst the Jews said to our Divine Lord, " Thou hast a Devil,"*and he answered, " I have not a Devil, but you have a Devil." This answer could not have been very soothing to the Jews. But it embodied a truth which it was necessary to express under the circumstances. We suppose the Editor of the ' Mercury,' had he been present on the occasion, would have, at least, affected to be scandalized, and would have reminded Christ of the promise " Blessed are the peace-makers," &c.