THE “DEFENCE” ASSOCIATION’S ATTACK ON FATHER O’HARA.

Evening Star, Issue 12307, 23 September 1904, Page 8

THE “DEFENCE” ASSOCIATION’S ATTACK ON FATHER O’HARA.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln your issue of Monday the organisation which calls itself the* Protestant . Defence ” Association played another act in their comedy of evasion. I have already pointed out many times how, on August they asserted that Father O’Hara, a Mayo pastor, organised a criminal “conspiracy ’ for the purpose of ruining a police constable, and that this, “conspiracy” consisted of “trumping up’tbree false accusations” and inciting persons to commit perjury in order to compass his evil ends. I have three times called upon the “Defence ’ Association to make good or withdraw their shocking attack upon the personal* character of the popular and beloved pastor of Kiltimagh. "The result in each case hae been significant to the last degree, bunco the first moment of my demand for proof the valiant “defenders” l ave dropped t.heso accusations, and never once so muai as mentioned them! Your readers can readily surmise the reason why. In their last letter they quote an opinion expressed by an Orangeman in the House of Commons, but in dictionary meaning and plain import it is vastly different from the three shocking charges so gaily given to the world in thoir letter of August 27. The whole burden of proof of their charges falls upon Father O’Hara’s accuse!'?. But they do not deal in proofs. Their latest literary curiosity is composed chiefly thirty-one qeustions, innendoes. random guesses, undue assumptions, and unsupported statements which are logically met ny gratuitous denials. The bulk of these statements are not true as set terth ; many of them are flagranti falsehoods ; and not one of them has the remotest reference to the “Defence” .Association’s published charges of criminal “ conspiracy ” “ trumping _ up false accusations,” and suborning perjury. Here ora a few samples of the irrelevant misstatements under cover of which the valorous “defenders” endeavor to escape from their attack on Father O’Hara : 1. They assume fas usual, without a scrap #f proof) that Father O’Hara's objection to the constable in question was based simply on grounds of religions belief, the constable being, it appears, a non-Catholio of some unstated creed. But (a) ns a matter of notorious fact the objection was based on specific and current charges which, if true, would unfit the man to he a public guardian anywhere, and especially in a Parish and county where illicit sexual relatinns are almost wholly unknown. ;b) Again, on August 5, in the House of Commons, Chief Secretary Air Wyndham strongly deprecated such an assumption as has just been mentioned. Ha pointed out (hat the constable, in attempting to justify himself, “put forward two theories” to account for the accusations made against him. Neither of there two theories had the remotest connection with religion or the , smallest reference to Father O'Hara, (c) ! Father O’Hara’s great-hearted friendliness towards the few and scattered Protestants |n his parish of 7,000 souls has shown itself in a thousand various ways. It was lie. for instance, who organised and carried through the presentation and popular demonstration to Sir David Harrell, a Protestant police magistrate, when Sir David was leaving Mayo. For over twenty years one_ of the Protestants in the Kiltimagh parish was placed and maintained on the Board of Guardians through the active and unfailing friendship of Father O’Hara.. And a short time ago, when a vacancy arose in the postmastership of Kiltimagh." a resolution was unanimously passed and a memorial signed by Father O’Hara and ins people urging the Post Office authorities to appoint the only Protestant in the town to the vacant position. And this was accordingly done. But all the empty assertions or assumptions of the “defenders” on the question of bigotry are beside the question at issue. Even if they were to prove that Father O’Hara had suddenly altered his life-long liberality of mind and become ns violent a bigot as his Orange accusers they would still be no nearer to proving that he is a criminal conspirator, a irumper-np of false accusations, and a suborner of perjury. 2. Father O’Hara's assailants assort that the first investigation (by a locum-tenens inspector) into the charges against the constable was a “ court of inquiry.’’ Chief Secretary Mr Wyndham denies this statement point-blank. On June 20 and August 3 ke declared officially in Parliament that the first investigation was not a “ court of inquiry ” nor a “ court ” of any kind : that it did not take evidence on oath; and that, is to evidence, it was a “ Totn-Dick-and-Harry” affair. He ridiculed the idea that j “it constituted a trial by a court of law,” and added that the constable was not asked to plead at the investigation; that the report of it rent to headquarters “ was somewhat vague ” ; and that the constable was offered by headquarters the option of asking for a “ court of inquirv,” but failed to do so. But, as before, all the contentions of Father O’Hara’s assailants on these points are quite beside the one is-ue between us. Even if a dozen “courts of inquiry” found the charges against the constable to be untrue it would obviously not follow that Father O’Hara organised a criminal “conspiracy,” “ trumped up false accusations,” &nd suborned perjury to compass his ruin. 3. As already stated by me, Mr Wyndham officially stated in the House of Commons on dime 20 that the incriminated constable was tried by one and only one “ court of inquiry ” 'taking evidence on oath. That was subsequent to the “Tom-Dick-and-Harry ” affair. In vour issue of September 5 the “defenders” made Chief Secretary Wyndham say that this trial was | “ instigated ” by Father O’Hara in a conversatinn with Under-Secretary Sir A. Mac- ! Donnell at a certain meeting of the Con- i Rested Districts Board. This statement is a pure fabrication. Mr Wyndham never made it. On the contrary,' in the House of Commons on August 3 he expressly stated that, the remarks of Father O’Hara” on the , occasion referred to were made after the Inspector-General (Sir Neville Chamberlain, ' an English Protestant) had instituted the * court of inquiry.” Mr Wyndham further- ’ more declared that Fir A. MacDonnell had j nothing to do with the constitution of the court of inquiry, and that the police authorities wore in no way influenced or actuated by him. The “Defence” Association practically assert that, the County Inspector, the court, and the Inspector-General are a set of perjured ruffians, who have given themselves over, body and soul, to the archdemon of the piece—that terrible country pastor from far Mayo. The Chief Secretary, on the other 1 hand, declared officially on August 3 that the court of inquiry was at no time “ wrongfuly influenced ” by any person; that the evidence, was taken on oath; that it “ was given before two trained police officers, who were far better able to satisfy themselves as to the credence of the witnesses than an ordinary jury ’ ; md that he was satisfied that their judgment was “given to the best of their conicience.” The Inspector-General (he added) fully concurred in the verdict, and punished the constable with dismissal, which (ns Le showed by reference to an official list) is the current and customary penalty for immorality in the force. (The Chief Secretary stated that one of the charges on which the constable was convicted was “ an attempt at seduction, ’’and that, in the opinion of the Inspector-General, the judgment could not be affected by the alleged medical certificate which was privately tendered long after the trial). But, once again, all the contentions and statements of the “Defence” Association in reference to the court of inquiry are quite beside the issue. Even if they succeeded in prov’ng that the Inspector -General and the court of inquiry instituted by him were double-dyed scoundrels, and the Chief Secretary an intensified Ananias, ft obviously would not follow that Father O’Hara is (as they asserted on August 27, but not since) a criminal conspirator, a “ trumper-up o! false accusations,” and a suborner of perjury. The verdict of a competent tribunal, conscientiously arrived at on sworn evidence, was privately, improperly, and .unconstitutionally overridden by Mr Wyndham without further trial of any kind, and against the

solemn protest, of the Inspector-General, who (as he admitted on August 3) holds that the conviction was just. This was done at the instigation of the Orange members of Parliament. They complained that Father O’Hara had exercised an illegitimate influence in getting the constable prosecuted. Yet on August 3 their chief spokesman in Parliament showed that they themselves had privately exercised an illegitimate influence on Mr Wyndham by threatening,’in effect, an Ulster Tory revolt in the House of Commons. The threat succeeded, a grave administrative scandal ensued, and now, very significantly, the Orange party in the House absolutely refuse to join with two former Lords-Lieutcnant of Ireland, with the Nationalist members, and with Father O'Hara in demanding the production of the papers in connection with the case, and a fresh, full, and impartial investigation. Mr Wyndham and his Orange supporters in the House have made it clear as noonday that they dare not face the ordeal of further inquirv. And yet they well know that this is the only means of removing the legal stigma of a grave crime from the rharacter of the constable, if he is an innocent man. There could scarcely be a better test of their real conviction. Meantime the Orange “Defence” Association here, through their Past Deputy Grand Master Secretary, are unable to establish, and refuse even to repeat, their shocking accusations against Father O’Hara. And toey have not the manliness to frankly withdraw them. They have only themselves to blame for the verdict which numbers of your readers have passed upon them: that they have themselves “ trumped up false accusations” and “conspired” to blacken the character of an honorable mgn. —I am, etc.. Editor ‘ X.Z.. Tablet.' September 22. [This corrc.-pondcnco is now closed.—Ed E.b’.]