GRAND JURIES' JUSTICE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 190, 17 November 1876, Page 12

GRAND JURIES' JUSTICE.

RBfiPONSIBILITT OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS. On the occasion of a certain memorable trial the presiding Judo-e m the perplexity of his mind asked the question—" What "is truth?/ After the decision of the Grand Jury in the case the Queen v. Bell, we may well ask " What is justice ?" The jury law of Dunedm would appear to grant full license to the Press to circulate false and insulting reports against the Catholic clergy lhat does seem a strange sort of justice. If the jury law of Dunedm do not grant this privilege to the Protestant newspapers it certainly refuses aid in restraining them in the exercise of it People generally are of the belief that every man's character no less than his person is sacre-1 in the eyes of the law. The Grand Jury in the above case seems to teach an opposite doctrine. They apparently declnre in effect that provided the assailant be a popular newspaper and the assailed a Catholic priest, or, better still, the Catholic priesthood in general, but little respect need be shown to men s feelings and character and the most groundless and insult- ' mg stones may be propagated against them with perfect impunity lhis is a doctrine very full of comfort to the enemies of the Catholic Church in this well-governed colony. No wonder that the Protestant presa should endorse it with manifest feelings o f trir tnph and exultation. But the press doea not always speak the sentiment of the just and respectable portion of the people. I doubt if the right-thinking and impartial portion of the f rotestant public will approve of a decision which gives so dangerous a latitude to the press to make free with any man's feelinffs or character, even though th»t man be a Catholic and a priest. The excuse put forward for Mr. Bell is, that he did not, insert the paragraph himaelf, ncr did he sanction its insertion, and he had no motive or ill-noil towards the parties insulted. He is therefore it is said, free from any criminality in the matter. This is no sufficient justification either in law or morals. An editor must be held responsible for whatever appears in his paper. As to the motive tor tne inaction— was it a good motive ?~-could it possibly be a good one f Was it from love and affection to the Catholic clergy man Mr. BeU will hardly say that it was. Did he or whoever inserted the paragraph think that he was publishing something to the honor of the parties indicated. Could he possibly think it honorable m any man to break a solemn vow to God, as every Catholic pneet must do who marries. Suppose the Editor of the Tablet or some one acting for him were to insert a paragraph to the effect that Mr. BeU bad gone off with some other man's *if e ,

WtT£ h r*i felfc? and ? u PP 08e Mr. Bell were to seek redress plea that the Editor of the Tablet had no malice towards Mr BeU and hjs man had merely copied the false and insulting story fta& another paper, what would Mr. Bell and Mr. Bell'? ProLX brother feditors have said ? What did the Judge say to the Grand Jury in reference to this case, if anything, in°his eWe ? CcSd HlSr^ thafc vPalv Pa lA ifc? "^^eem^onstro^Tninefaceof l£JS2 f £ £ S°v W have a charfcer to d 0 as Mr. Bell has doneSTriSfl 0 *??* P riestß /™ th ™t or hinderance torn the *Zn TH ? Jxa & M a Strange iartfcotion. It sits with closed doors, and its proceedings are secret and one-sided. What confidence can the public have in it, as a protection to the innocent aftera case like this, gating that the jurors were^ all upS men flMhS^ f6f 6 eßt / The man who should scatter firebrands far and mdc by night and by day, and say he is only mSS fm X ?°r W8 < ! wn entertai^ent or that of others, and means to hurt no one, is an emblem of Mr. Bell with his ' Star* The jury who should find "no bill" against such a reckless man Bell's ££> «*emble the Grand Jury who found "no TilT' £ W f b % "**? <( the ' Guardian I notice, gives Mr. Bell a certificate of good character, testifies to his respectability, and says that no one who knows him would believe him capable of intentionally injuring any one, even a Catholic priest? But he did fX'tS *S Yl^Y 1^ V C^\ oUe P riest ' the Publication of a SL™ scandalous story m his paper. If he did not know what his paper contained before publication, he was morally and legally to blame for his ignorance. If he will trust the making up ?f h£ paper to others, he must be responsible for all they insertf Besides S?X c ? me %°te assured that the paragraph complained of was' SK° Unded ? S^ he Bhould have !° Bt aofc a moment fe volunteering a contradiction of it, and expressing reffret for its Z er «r "• T* ' T. Oa P<*\Times> did. Hehad S BKw£»2 SLTwr? 33 * US v lCe or honor to do thi8 > aotwithstandinoTthe of disposition which the Guardian claims for him. Up to this moment he has not ex- ™™ Se <? 2? J r6gr * et for the inßult kg calumny he was the means of propagating, so far,as we have seen. The probability is he feels se°nH^nr Or T? c * P ™ d to cx P r9ss S * * *o*ed Unj sSh sentiment. From what you say, he seems to regard it as part of the vocation of his 'Star' to excite public odium against the Catholic clergy, by raking together all the stories he San find to S 6^ P r^ udl ce, whether true or not. I will never believe that the respectable right-minded Protestants in Dunedin have any sympathy with this man in so ungracious a work, however clever and popular he may be. Auckland. Laic<