THE PATH OF RECTITUDE

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10760, 13 September 1900, Page 2

THE PATH OF RECTITUDE

1 '— " TO THE -fiDITOI. OF THE ___--. Sir,—lf you had attacked the Stoke Orphanage offenders with as much severity as you attack your friends who try to keep you in ihe path of rectitude, the public would probably be placated. "Carelessness." "invin_ib_e -bias!" I fear that I cannot plead guHty to either, although, unlike an editor, I am conscious of fallibility. Very unwillingly I must charge you with (unconsciously) misrepresenting the position, by both suppressing, and suggesting, as per logical formula. The reference I gave you, p. 72, question 127, reads thus: "Was'the story by Mr Harley about the confinement in the cells correct?" "It is substantially correct." The latter speaker being "Brother" Augustine. Now, sir, "the story about the confinement in the cells," given by Mr Harley, is the same as that given by Mr Rout (Mr Harley's being the j fuller). " I was justified, therefore, in writing : "His (Mr Rout's) evidence, and that of Mr Harley (was) practically admitted as correct." For the story of tlie cells is "a large order" in both Harley's and Rout's evidence: —including persistent concealment, lyiag, confinement in the dork for seven or eight night, "and days, with interludes of flogging with, a supplejack, and starvation! Hr Harley's evidence (and Mr Rout's) includes these trivial items, and it is, says "Brother" Augustine, "substantially correct." It is true that Mr Rout's evidence goes further; so, indeed, does that of Mr Harley; and you may contend that the admission does not cover these other facts. This is so. Yet you are not justified in saying, as you do, that "Brother" Augustine "only admitted one portion of Ma* Harley's evidence—that relating to the confinement of some boys in cells—was sub.staatially correct." Mr Harley's (and Mr Rout's) evidence in regard to other particular's was not denied. Nor could it be. For who can (or does) doubt the sworn evidence

of either gentleman? Publish then, sir, Mr Harl.y's evidence ii regard to the confinement in the cells, ii pp. 37-38, given on Friday, 28th July. Bu admitting that, in a matter of some diffi culty and risk, all that was possible lixis beei done since July 27th, -what about the perioc covered by May 50th and July 27th. Dur ing these three months the Nelson papers an* the Nelson public were fighting against greai odds, backstair influence, and an unscrupu lous Ministry, to get a thorough investigation and inquiiy into a state of things a, bad, I say advisedly, as bad, as anything in "Oliver Twist." And what aid did the free and independent Press of New Zealand render? What assistance did the cultivated Press of Christchnrch, representing truth and righteousness, give them? Do you honestly think, sir, that the intelligent public, both in tlie House and out of the House, are animated in their, indignant criticisms and demands by unworthy motives? Do you think them less fair, less intelligent, than yourself? That you cannot give them credit for purity of motive? When the case is stated upon a public platform, as I trust it will be, I am satisfied that you will stand alone, if you hold such opinions; and that tbe public will be appalled by your long sustained "reticence" in regard to the biggest scandal that has yet occurred in New Zealand. What in the name of God justifies righteous indignation if the Stoke "horror" does not? One word as to the sub judice bogey. The matter is not sub judice. Mr Seddon has said that the papers will be handed over to the Police Department; Mr Dullea, the head of the Marist Order, that certain "brothers" who had left the colony would return—that is all. This morning we are told they are on board the Monowai, and will be tried for common assault by a Magistrate. (By what magistrate, by. Mr Wardell?) There is, ■ therefore, no impropriety in discussing the I matter, or holding a public meeting, always so long as is done in good faith, and without misrepresentation. There is an old device, often successfully used, to take certain legal steps, in order to stay public and well deserved criticism. The controllers of Stoke and the present Government are as astutfe as the Boers in such tricks. —Yours, etc.,

PUBLICIST. September 12th. ;2_x Rout answered 214 questions, and of these only 79 referred to the story of the confinement, which alone Brother Augustine admitted to be substantially correct. In these circumstances the elasticity of our correspondent's conscience is, indeed, amazing. Two boys found in the calls, where they were confined for absconding, told Mr Rout, as stated in his evidence, that they had been "caned over the hands with a supplejack," that they had -read and water for breakfast and tea, and the same as .tha other.boys for dinner (Irish stew). 'Mr Rout stated that "the cell was sufficiently light to -read in during the greater part of the day" if one stood near the opening by which it was lighted. This is all die-torted by our correspondent into "confinement in the dark for seven or eight days, with interludes of flop-ring with a supplejack, and . starvation." If his own letter, therefore, does not convict him, either of "carelessness" or "invincible tias," we do not know the meaning qf the words. Fur-ther-more, although it is announced .that '■ the Brothers are to be criminally prosecuted, our correspondent thinks it is ..quite right and proper not only lish garbled extracts from evidence given against them, suppressing tha* given on the other side, but to hold a publio meeting for the purpose of denouncing them , before their trial. All this may be our ; correspondent's idea of "the path of rectitude," but frankly we hate no desarfe to walk therein. We quite agree that further judicial investigation; is.":calied for, but in the meantime cotnmon decency, not-to say British fairplay, demands that the question of the. guilt or innocence of the men should be left to be settled by the law. — Ed. "The Press."]