ATTACK BY A 'DEFENGE' ASSOCIATION

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXII, Issue 36, 8 September 1904, Page 4

ATTACK BY A 'DEFENGE' ASSOCIATION

Charges Against an Irish Priest

The following further correspondence on a subject already dealt with in otir columns appeared during the past week in the Dunedin ' Evening Star.' ni he story rofencd to in the first paragraph appeared also m an Auckland paper :—: — Sir, — There recently appeared in your columns a s1o:y t.* the effect that a Protesitant police nan hod \nn dis|m;iy^ed in Mayo County, Ireland, on insufficient evident; , that this was done at the instigation <-t [>'v ! er C.'Hara • and that the head and front of the << nstable'; ol'endmg was merely this— that he had wooed c.nd won a Cn'nchc maid of Kiltimagh. Through vcrr courtesy I vßj enabled to place before your readers the ctLer side cf the story. It contradicted in practically every particular the version of the case previou6ly published in you* columns, and it had the advantage of being based, as to one item, on the testimony of the ] arents of ' the woman in the case,' and, ajs to the others, on the (quoted) olLeial statements made in the House of Commons on June 13, June 15, and July 15 by Mr. Wyncham, Chief Secretary for Ireland. In your issue of last Saturday there appeared a tale which, as regards its substance, might have been (except foi one statement) a transcript of the romance first published by you. The tale referred to was supplied by an organisation which calls itself the ' Protestant Defence Association.' Their version of the case consisted of a series of absolutely unsupported and gratuitous assertions, which are logically met by gratuitous denials. They were, moreo'vetr, in hopeless contradiction with the parental testimony referred to abo/ye, and with the authoritative and official declarations of Chief Secretary Wyndham quoted in my letter ol Augiust 20. There is- no need, on any account, that I should thresh that old straw over again. My sole reason for troubling you with this communication is to focus public attention on the fresh matter that has been imported into this controversy— to wit, the vehement special attack made by this ' defence ' association on the personal character of Father O'Hara — who, I may here state, is one of the ablest and most beloved priests in the West of Ireland, popular with Protestants as well as Catholics in his parish, and well worthy of the tiibute paid to him by the Chief Secretary for Ireland from his place in the British Parliament. The Fresh Onslaught on Father O'Mara by the ' defence ' organisation consists of two grievous accusations. ,The first is necessarily implied in their story ; the second is direct They assert (1) that he headed a ' conspiracy ' ' to get the offending Protestant out of the place, and (2) tor this purpose trumped lip three false accusations against him.' I turn to the great standard ' Encyclopaedic Dictionary ' and in the thirteenth volume, page 223, find the following definition : '" To trump up " : To devise or make up falsely ; to concoct.' It would be a very grave matter to lay the double-barreled charge, quoted abo\c, against even a member of the criminal class. It is vastly more serious to level it at a man who is engaged in the sacred ministry. If Father O'Hara were, as stated, guilty of criminal conspiracy and of ' concocting ' ' false accusations,'; his proper place would obviously be, not the altar of fiod, but the felon's cell. No Fair-minded Man, \ Christian or ,non-Chris-tian, would fulminate such fearful charges unless he was satisfied that he had the most cogent proofs of the guilt of the person whom he accused. Tims far, however, the ' defence ' association has not advanced so much as a scrap of evidence to sustain their q,uotcd accusations against Father O'Hara. I now invite them to supply this strange omission. They cannot let the matter rest where it stands. For my part, I will insist on stringent and conclusive evidence, granting nothing but what is established by adequate proof.

Fa,t|her O'Hara''s friends in this oity and province will, no doubt, watch the discussion with interest. No honorable course is open to the ' defenders ' but to cither sustain their attack by cogent evidence of its truth, or to frankly and manfully withdraw their quoted charges. I will not do them the injustice of supposing that they will elect to run away from accusations of such gravity and take rciuge in Brer Rabbit's unworthy resort— ' lay low and saynufhnV But if such a regrettable contingency should occur, I shall, after a leasonable delay, claim the privilege of saying a further word on the swbject in your columns.— Yours°, etc., EDITOR ' N.Z. TABLET.'