New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1876. A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 184, 6 October 1876, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1876. A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

++ In the case, Heglna versus Hell, 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 most part new to us ; and in addition we do not forget that, considering the unu«ually small number sworn on the jury, two or three dissentient voices would suffice to find "No True Bill " What we are certain of is, that they are all sound Protestantsthat not even one Catholic was amongst them, and that the few with whom we are personally acquainted are honourable men. With fie 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 their 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 some instances foregone conclusions realised under the sanction of an oath to do justice according to law hyA fact. Hut, unfortunately, conscientious convictions do * not always lead to the true and just; and, hi the ptesent instance, there can be no doubt that the action of the Grand Jury, though most conscientious, has resulted in 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 the Grand Jury, and to order a trial in the case. And were these gentlemen to do so, e?en though they should have no other object in view than to mark their sense of the 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 be any probability of their obtaining wiser and moie just treatment at the hands of a Dunedin petty jury than they have experienced at the hands of a Grand Jury. Their friends, judging from their knowledge of the state of public opinion in this city, tell them there would be hardly any such probability. The decision of the Grand Jury, though contiary to their intention, amounts, for all that, in effect to a permission to every one in the community, if so disposed, to libel the Catholic clergy in the newspapers ; and to a promise of impunity for such an offence. It is to be greatly feared, that the intelligence and sense of fair play of a petty jury would not be of a higher order than those of a Grand Jury. To be sure a petty jury woulddoitsbest,as did the Grand Jury, to bejustand I equitable and legal, but it is hardly to be hoped its best I would be any better for the reputation of Catholic clergymen than the best of a Grand Jury. From first to last, the conduct of the 'Evening Star,' which the decision of the Grand Jury pronounces to be free j from even the appearance of libel, for in the opinion of the | jury, as evidenced by its finding, there was not so much as a prima facie case to go to a jury, has been in reality very bad. This paper published a most damning libel — we beg the Grand Jury's pardon — on its unoffending neighbors, gentlemen who reside within a few perches of its office. Then, when the original libeller published a retractation of the lie and an apology, the ' Star,' which had hastened to copy the libel, took care not to publish this retractation and apology, although it copied extracts from the very number of the 'Tuapeka limes' 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 so grievously maligned. There is no comparison between the criminality of the ' Evening Star' and that of the 'Tuapeka Times.' The latter i is a country newspaper of rather limited ckculation, the former is a metropolitan journal, having a boasted circulation of several thousands. The power for mischief of a libel published in the ' Star,' is consequently vastly greater than that of the ' Times.' The metropolitan journal did not disdain to copy defamatory matter from it's country cousin, which, by the way, gets its supplement printed in the ' Star' office — a rather suggestive circumstance — but whilst most willingly imitating it's little country cousin's bad example and execrable taste in retailing falsehood and scandalous reports, the city paper ignored the good example of contrition and restitution of the 'Tuapeka Times' — a line of conduct which has, we fear, become contagious. In its issue of Monday evening, the ' Star,' no doubt, expresses its regret for having annoyed the Catholics of Dunedin ; but it has not one word of regret or retractation so far as the persons actually maligned are personally concerned. In fact, it still leaves un^ontradicted in its pages the lie so far as it affects tlie clergy. It is careful to avoid all mention of the specific libel complained of, deals in general terms, and so writes as to leave people at a distance under the impression that the Catholic clergy of Dunedin have only got their due ; that some one of them really did commit the crime attributed to him, and that it's regret is nut for having libelled these gentlemen, but tor having given some annoyance to the Catholic laity, who might possibly be somewhat troublesome to it. This is our reading of what the ' Evening Star' published on Monday evening, in reference to the finding of the Grand Jury. The ' Star ' nowhere says the lie contained in the libel is untrue, but merelyjsays, •' For 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 the parties named." The ' Star ' knows that the statement it copied is untrue, but it hits not said so. Neither does it offer the least apology to the clergy so ruthlessly held up to the scorn and ridicule of all whose good opinion they prize, nor express the least regret for injuring their good name and fame, and wounding them most cruelly. On the contrary, it adds insult to injury by telling them in reality, that they are to have no remedy, and indeed ought not to complain, because it chooses to judge them by the standard of their enemies, and to gibe at them, when made, by itself and fellows in the Tress, the victims of lies, which are matters of sport to other denominations, though they are matters of life and death to them. The ' Star' has another curious sentence. " This explana-

tion would have been given to Bishop Moran had he been courteous enough to communicate with us." "What explanation, high, and mighty * Star ' ! The ' Star ' then assumes to have the right to libel Catholic priests its next door neighbours, to neglect to retract its falsehoods when made aware of them, and to persevere in this course because Bishop Moean did not go down on his knees and beg of it to be so good as to say, that what it could easily have known, from the beginning, to be a lie, was not true. This false report was so injurious, and, moreover, so improbable that it was absolutely inexcusable in the ' Star ' to publish it even as an extract from another paper without inquiry. ► When the summons, containing Bishop Moran's affidavit that the report was untrue and injurious, was served, why did not the ' Star ' contradict its statement, as it was bound in justice and honor to do 1 When the • Tuapeka Times ' retracted > and declared the report to be false and rashly inserted, why , was not the ' 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 ? No, it is no excuse — no justification for the conduct of the ' Star ' to say that had Bishop JMokan asked for explanation it would have been given to him. Why should Bishop Moran have asked for an explanation ; it was his right and his duty to demand that justice should be done. And it was the duty of the conductors of the ' Evening Star,' as men, as fellow citizens, and as Christians — if they are Christians — to have anticipated all j action on his part, and made au unreserved retractation and a , manly apology. Had they done this, they would have dis- j charged an imperative duty and acted creditably. J Our contemporary the ' Guardian,' in its issue of Tuesday \ says, " There is no one in this city that knows Mr. Bell, j who would believe him capable of wilfully maligning or hurting the feelings of members of the Roman Catholic Church." All we can say in reference to this is, that it would give us great pleasure to be able to believe as does our contemporary. ! Mr. Bell we do not know, but this we know, that the ' Evening Star ' has been for years an habitual maligner of Catholics , and their Church ; and that henceforward it may, on the strength of the decision of a Dunedin Grand Jury, feel safer | than ever in the indulgence of this amiable propensity ! !