"IRISH MARTYRS."

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6493, 13 April 1908, Page 5

"IRISH MARTYRS."

(To the Editor “N.Z. Times/ 1 ) Sir,-—I trust you will forgive me for troubling you again on this matter, but. as the writer of the letter signed "Logie*' in your issue -of to-day (April 11th) accuses me. implicitly at least, of suppressing and trying to conceal the true facts of tho case, I am compelled totake notice of what I should otherwise have ignored. I wonder if "Logic” has any larger acquaintance with his "nom de guerre” than may bo obtained from a dictionary? His letter, certainly, does not suggest it, and I would courteously point out to him that it is not logical to write on a subject when one is, apparently, not acquainted with the facts; neither is it logical to answer a letter without reading it. Had "Logic” read my letter he would have seen that I raised no question as to the illegality or otherwise of the attack on the prison-van—that is utterly irrelevant. I merely stated what actually took place, and pointed out that all the prisoners were identified by the same witnesses, and tried on the same evidence, and that this evidence was, in the case of one of them, subsequently proved so absolutely false, that he was forthwith released. "Logic” invokes the law, well so shall I. It is a point constantly insisted on by counsel and judges that a prisoner must be given the benefit of anv doubt there may be, and, in English law, a man is innocent till he is proved guilty; vet Allen, Larkin and O'Brien were hanged on the evidence of admittedly perjured witnesses! These are "hard facts,” as "Logic” says, and all the blustering and charges of hysteria in the world won't change them. Can it be that "Logic,” like many others before him, has rammed his head'against hard facts, and become somewhat confused in consequence?—l am, etc.,

1 AN IRISHMAN. (To the Editor "NJZ. Tim eg.”l Sir, —In your issue of this date, ,r Logic/' who professes to have a knowledge of the criminal law, says if a person is killed in committing on illegal act, it is murder. Admitting that the act might be illegal, might not the killing be accidental? Surely, if "Logic” had only an elementary knowledge of the criminal law, ho should have known that there must be "malice aforethought” to constitute the killing murder. It does not require a knowledge of law or even logic to know this, but a little common-sense; and it is not necessary here to quote standard authorities on the English criminal law to refute "Logic's” definition. As to his sneer at "God save Ireland/' the countrymen of the martyrs, and .all who revere their memory, can well treat it with contempt.—l am, etc.. GAELTVellington, April 11th.

(To the Editor “N-Z. Times.”) Sir, —The gentleman -who opened this subject evidently mistakes the hulk ot New Zealand people when he asks them to agree that Allen, Larkin and O'Brien were martyrs. To say so is to prostitute the noble word, which means "one who dies for the sake of truth,” or one who dies for virtue. These men at the very least were part of a mob of Fenians, armed, to effect a rescue by violence, and fired revolver shots to effect their purpose, one shot killing Brett, who was a martyr to duty. Then again "Irishman” says it is now generally admitted the three men referred to were martyrs. That statement may be good enough for hot-headed Irish Nationalists, but not for sober minds. Streams of monks, sisterhoods and clergv find English soil congenial and. safe to live in, and invest capital, as witness the recent exodus from France. I notice every possible chance is taken to get cheap "ads.” for the Irish .Nationalists -which, had they a case to bear the full daylight, they would scorn to do.—l am, etc., A LOYAL IRISHMAN. April 12th.