THE NELSON BIGOTS

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXII, Issue 42, 20 October 1904, Page 3

THE NELSON BIGOTS

To the Editor. * Sir,— ln your issue of the 6th inst. you refer in remarkably moderate terms to the disgraceful behaviour of a coterie of rabbit-brarned bigots who infest the town of Nelson, concerning whom I propose, witdi your permission, to plaoe a lew facts before your readers. That these creatures are in reality a small minority is after all no reason why they Should be allowed impunity m making unprovoked onslaughts an their Catholic fellow-citi'/ens, nor does it justify the Cattaolic laity ol this country in allowing your own splendid services in the interests- of fair-play to go without t<hat support which anyone can give who watches public affairs as vigilantly as I do. In laying that bigots of the JSandy Row brand are in a minority in this country, 1 do not wish to imply .that their influence is necessarily limited to themselves. The great majority of the public are apt to believe what Uiey read in the newspapers, and when any journalist is low enough to publish systematically continuous misrepresentations and slanders affecting a section of the community— more especially when the victims take them all ' lying down '—it cannot be surprising if the people as a whole conclude that the attacks are justifiable. The Catholics of Nelson seem able to stand a great deal when they submit meekly to a sustained campaign of Vilification and innuendo at the hands of a commonplace scribbler who is t<he representative of a clique whom nobody outside of Nelson really takes seriously, and whose behaviour in recent 5 ears has been worthy rather of the barbarous Hooligans of Belfast than of members of a community which prides itself on more than ordinary fair-^play. Let me first briefly recapitulate the cotrd,uct of the ' Nelson Evening Mail ' during the angry period of the Stoke case : It is unnecessary to premise that no reputable newspaper will ever comment on any case while it is still ' sub judice.' As a strong illustration of tiho law on this point, 1 might point out the case of Butler, the Glenbroo'k murderer, who was executed at Sydney some years ago. Everyone knew that Butler was guilty, but nevertheless, in order to emphasise the gjroait principle lihat e\ery man. is in the eye of the law innocent until proved guilty by the proper legal procedure, both the great Sydney dailies were fined £1(00 for commenting on the case before the trial had concluded. Now mark the contrast. While the Commission appointed to enquire into the Stoke affaii: wasi sitting in Nelson, the ' Mail ' not only published extended reports, as* well asf a plentiful, crop of anonymous letters-, but it maintained every day a running fire of comment— l cannot call it fair or intelligible criticism*— seasoned with virulent innuendo. The inevitable result, of course, was till at a storm of the bitterest fu.ry was aro\used against the institution and all connected with it ; but not only was no protest made, but the coterie, through their official mouthpiece, the 4 Mail,' whined piteously when a change ot venue was granted om the gto,u,hfl that the feehng; which had beqn stirred up precluded the possibility of a tair trial in Nelson ! I question if a moteie disgraceful instance of sectarian fury was ever afforded anywhere, and yet the authors of it all were gasconading the while about fair-play. This, however, is by no means all. While tSie Stoke madness was at its height a case of another kind occurred at Nelson. I allude to a revolting abortion case, in the hearing of wttiich some truly awful evidence was given. In that case, however,feeling ran the other way. The report of the proceedings was curtailed as much as possible, names being oven deliberately suppressed. A change of venue was applied for in this connection also, and affidavits were filed by reputable citizens of Nelsion to the effect that there were many people there who actuaily regarded abortion—which, by the way, is the most cowardly of all methods of m/urder— with indifference, if not approval, and for tmat reason it was impossible to obtain a fair trial in 1 Nelson- The application was refused in accordance with established practice— that where public feeling runs ' against ' the accused a change of venue will be granted, but where the reverse is the case, the Court will not reflect on the community to the extent of believine; that it will not see justice done. I say nothing against this, which is sound invpTinteiple, hUt I do say that the decision was received in (Nelson with a

muffled chuckle of delight "by some of the canting hypocrites who were d,oing their best to stir up as much mud as possible in connection with the Stoke case, and whose behaviour constitutes a lasting, disgrace tio the ' holy city ' of Nelson- I could say very much more on this particular point without &oing beyond Wihat is coimmon knowledge m Nelson itself, though the facts halve been conveniently suppressed by a compliant pressLonpi after Hip Stoke affair had ended, when in the dr'dinary course of c\ents l.he miserable display ot insensate bigotry wooild hatve spent, itseli, i-lie wiekhed sieiibo of the ' Mail.' aided "by his brace of atnionymoius correspondents, did, his best to keep t(he soi'O open. One day we would ha\e an editorial culled from some lio-Popery .sheet abio'ut the frrare m the Philippines . on another the facile editor would spread himself on the Oi'Haran' case ; or else the public would be served with somCitlung from the drunken blackguard, Slafltery, etc., until at last another ' scandal ' came to light I allude to the dismissal and removal tif certain police officers for misbehaviour. There was nothing very icmarkabi 0 in the aftair itself until the late Dean Mahoney was accused— not Uifroctly, it is true, but by innuendo,, which is worse, though safer for the slandermoaigers — of securing the punishment of the mein for the . part they had played in connection with tfie Stoke case. At a public meeting in JNelson insinuations were made against the Dean which would be shameful under any circumstances shoit of actual knowledge of the truth of the insinuations, but which were rendered absiotutely unpardonable by the fact that he was just on the point of leavuig Nelson in tihe hope of regaining the health of which persecution had robbed him. I met ■ him here on the eve of his departure for Ireland, a crushed, and broken-hearted man. .He was destined never to return, and I have no he^oatioh in saying that his death was hastened by the shameful treatment he had received in a community wherein he had labored y.ealously and well for the greater part of his life. The greatest fault ot which ho was guilty was an aptitude to tjhmk everyone as unsuspecting as himself, and the treatment meted out to him rmist have come as a \ery painful revelation to one who never did a wrong to a fellow-creature. The tvile slanders circulated about him in connection with the police have, of course, now no credence whatever, but they have helped to do their deadly -work, and the tact that they were circulated and repeated by innuendo at a public meeting amounts to a Humiliating reflection both on the scandal-mongers themselves and on the community that tolerated them,'. I have given the foregoing condensed history of the factp in order to add point to what is to follow. Your readers iwill recollect that the blast of sap/age intolerance in connection with the Stoke case reached far beyond the dozy limits of Nelson. That fact was due in t(ho main to the circumstance that the Press Association—which, theoretically, is a model of impartiality— was utilised by the gang of sanctimonious mountebanks to voirut a stream of vituperation all over this countfiy. Now let me show your readers the wide difference when somebody else's ox is gored. Let me recall the disgraceful disclosures made and substantiate*! not long since in connection with the Costley Home in Auckland, in reference to which the press messages were of the scrappiest kind and the leading arlti'cles sfc few that the public scarcely knew of the affair. Since that case a sen?ation has been caused in Wanganui on account of charges ol the gravest nature made by certain bpys of the Wanganui College*— an Anglican institution— against the headmaster. But in this, case also the press agent was as silent as the grave and the New Zealand public kept in the blankest ignorance of a sensation which stirred Wanganui to its depths. I assure your, readers, however, that the charges were made, and a PRIVATE enquiry held by the ex-Chief Justice of this country, Sir James Prendergast, at which the teacher was represented by Mr. C. P. Skerret, of Wellington. Mr. Kmpson, the teacher who was accused, was exonerated by Sir James Preridetrgast, and has been felicitated by Ins numerous friends in consoauence. I make no comment on the fad, but I avsic any honest man whether such procedure would be tolerated if a Catholic institution were involved, instead of a highclass school under the control of another creed ? Now I will give one more instance which has not been notice*! by the press oven to the extent of the scant publicity accorded to the Wanganui sensation. 'Within a few miles of Nelson is another orphanage— the Anglican orpih.anafe.a.t Whakarewa, MotVe,ka. Certain of the inmates of that institution some time back preferred charges of gross cruelty aglainst tflie manager, and maintained them with a degree of vehemence almost reminiscent of the Stoke affair. Tin that case also a private enquiry was held, one 'of the judges being the Rev. Mr. Kempthorne, an Anglican clergyman, of

Nelson. Here again Wie manager was exonerated, and again I make no comment beyond saying that, from what 1 have seen of the institution— and 1 "have paid ill se\eLal visitor— it is conducted in an exceedingly creditable manner. But does anyone suppose that if the institution were conducted under the aus^kes of the Catholic, Church so little would be heard of a serious charge against tne management ? How the ' Nelson Mail ' would champion tne cause of the poor orphan if the institution concerned were Stoke and the Rev. Mr. KempUwjuie a Catholic puiest ' 1 veuiUiae to say that the grea-t bulk of the 'New Zealand piubiic have heard nothing ot tiie cases 1 have referred to ; in fact I doubt if anyone outside of Nelson knows anything whatever of luie Whakarewa case. But mote how well everything in connection with Stoke is paraded, even to the extent of working up a white heat at an isolated case of corporal punishment while the case is still undecided ! Of course the pretended solicitude for the boys is nothing but the veriest hypocrisy : the real reason underlying the whole business is that a set of miserable beings are doing their best to discredit a Catholic institution and to irrigate and amnoy the Catholic body, though they say not a word wJiem the breath of scandal blows across the reputations of institutions controlled by other sections of the community. In conclusion allow me to contrast the behiawioux of the Catholic people of ,Wangaj«ui with the jalitifcs of tihe yellow yahoos of Nelson who beat their tom-toms in the office of the ' Mail.' — I am, etc., P. J. O'REGAN. Wellington, 12th October, J»O4.