The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, APRIL 25, 189O.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIII, Issue 9089, 28 April 1890, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1890.

No doubt that was a very foul murder at Taranaki the other day; one of the most brutal, ontrageons and, apparently, motiveless. As to motive, that always opens a wide ■vista of endless conjectures, for the motives of men are as various as their characters, their moods, and their circumstances. When science is puzzled so often to draw the line which ought to separate sanity from insanity so that the many shades of the intellectual condition should he grouped on either side according to their respective orders, who shall lightly pronounce as to motive? There is the brutal ruffian, whose temper hurries him to murder; a delicate, tender girl of sixteen kills her baby brother because its mother shows the usual maternal preference for theyoung and helpless ; a calculating scoundrel destroys a life that stands between him and some advantage; revenge has as many reasons as greed ; the methods of murder, in short, are not more numerous than the motives..

The great fact in this New Plymouth case is that murder has been committed. What the motive could have been for the killing of a poor old creature must appear in the sequel, to add by instruction of fact to our perplexities about human nature.

No doubt the murder was ono of the worst o£ tbe brutal order: nothing' ; in it of tbe “fine art” which a celebrated writer has sketched with powerful, incisive pen. But does that j astify us treafcing th e first man arrested under suspicion aa if he were guilty ? That is what the police have been doing ever since they arrested their Maori suspect. Of course the police are not supposed to exercise judicial functions, or to cultivate judicial habits of mind. In reality between the executive bra,nch of our system and the judicial branch of the French administration there is no difference. Both regard the prisoner as guilty till he can prove his innocence: one becaueo it is their theory, the other because it is their principle. After all that can bo said, and often is said, about the duties of the police, the groat fact remains that unless the police believe in their case they cannot work it up, con amove, and by consequence difficult crime must go undetected. But the police must draw the line at their barrack gate. They have no business to poison the public mind through the newspapers against any man they may choose for good reasons to suspect. This is exactly what the New Plymouth police have been doing in this murder case. From day to day they inform the local reporters of their certainty of the Maori’s guilt; from day to day they talk to them of clues; at last they announce startling discoveries. And the reporters, with the doggedly ignorant zeal which makes some journalists regard everything as public property, faithfully report everything to the public, till every newspaper reader in the land comes to regard the Maori as without doubt the murderer. What chance has he of a fair trial? Fortunately for him he has found an able advocate in the person of Mr Samuel, who declares himself confident, according to the local reporter, of proving au alibi. The local reporter, it must be said, has in this instance made amends by giving the other side as soon as ever the other side was suggested to him. But ho should remember that there is always another side, and that the police ought not to give him any of their side for publication; he knows, besides, that the police are not likely to give him anything that will tell against their case. The duty of the police is to discover the murderer. But they must remember that every mau is entitled to a fair trial on the principle of our law that he must be proved guilty. It is their duty therefore to maintain complete reserve. They will find it more conducive to success than the attempt to hang a man by working the newspapers —a process which often defeats itself by exasperating the public. If it always did that, we should take objection to it, on the ground that it protected criminals. As it does not, we must protest against it for the protection of the innocent.