The Evening Mail. TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1878.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 585, 19 March 1878, Page 2

The Evening Mail. TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1878.

The bubble bus burst. The State tria has been brought to a cl- se, and that too, in a manner which must nave prove, anvthing but satisfactory to those win wen- loudest in their demands to have tin mighty law i.f libt-1 set in motion Within a very few hours after emeriti; upon the examination of witness-s, tin jury returned a verdict of not guilty, am acquitted Mr. Jones of the charge o libel a charge ordered to be prefenvc against him by that august assemblage the Parliament of New Zealand. We have no present intention of entering into the merits of the case, though ivi may do so in a future issue. Hut then are"a few circumstances, however, in c"ii nectinu with the mat'er which we fee bound to refer to. In the first place then, we must exprt ss our unfeigm d regret that, owing t'. the ruling of tin judges, the truth of the charges made In were not fully inquired into The fact of the pleas of justifi-ation pu in bv Mr. Rkes on behalf of Mr. J one: being thrown out, pr. eluded the possibi lity of the allegations made by this journal being thoroughly sifted. By thu means a very great amount of interesting information" was kept from the publicinformation which we, in common witl the general public, hoped to see brongh to Tight. For months the trial o: Mr. Jones for criminal libel on the Lars Attorney-Generel had been looked for ward to with the utmost interest. Tin public anticipated obtaining an insigh into the manner in which the nam-, lands are dealt with by a certain st-ctioi of the Northerns. They hoped to hecm. initiated into the mysteries of th<>s< "ways tliat are dark" so successfully practised by the Auckland land ring But thev have been disappointed. Tin ancient "but obsolete laws of pleadim which obtain in the Supreme Court pre vt-nted the defendant putting forth tlia evidence of justification which he won.lc have been prepared to adduce. Tin issue was therefore reduced to the verj naked question, whether or not Mr Jones had been guilty of libel; and a cast whie . had been"looked forward to witl the utmost interest was robbed of it: greatest charm. We have no intentior of saying that the decision of the Judge: was wrong; far be it from us even ti hint at such a thing. We have too mncl confidence in the integrity and_ impartiality «f Judges Johnsi-os and William: to entertain for one moment a though: that thev would iii any way assist i: burking the fullest inquiry into the alle stations* made in this journal, and se forth so explicit}- in the pleadings of jus tifieation. Their decisions were dotibtles: in accordance with the rules of Courts o Law ; but the result is none the les: unsatisfactory. The public wanted to knov something more than whether or not Mr Jones was guilty. They were anxious t< learn whether or not the statements math in this journal were true—whether or no there had been such outrageously hide cent, not to say dishonest, trafficking ii native lands as was stated by us. Bu they have been disappointed because soin. time-honoured forms of pleading inter vened to prevent the matter being fulb inquired into. That Mr. Jones had m fear as to the result of such an inqiiin no one can for a moment doubt. Whei brought before the bar of the House o Representatives, Mr. Jones demanded ai inquiry into the truth of the allegation; contained in the article, for the writini and publication of which he had been ad judged guilty of a breach of those privi leges with which Parliament guards tlu honour of its members during its sessions. That inquiry the House, in it: wisdom, refused to grant, on the mi derstanding that the Supreme Conrl was the proper place in which to tesi the truth of our statements. And now the Judges, by their ruling, say thai such an inquiry cannot be held in tin Supreme Court. Where, then, are wi to look for an investigation into tlu charges of wrong-doing in high place; preferred by us I " It is of the utmost importance to" the public that " the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," should b,» elicited. Mr. Whitaker, when referring to the charges made against him in this journal, said that if they were false, the writer should be in gaol; but if thev were true, he (Mr. W-httakek) should" himself be there. The jury empannelled to try Mr. Jones, after a few minutes' deliberation, not only declined to semi him to gaol, but declared him innocent of the charge preferred against !iim. In effect, if not in so many words, :liey said that ho was right, and left it to >e inferred that Mr. Whitaker was wrong. We trust, however, *-hat none of >ur readers will imagine that the jury. iv- their verdict in Mr. Jones' r avi>r, had any idea of insinuating ;hat they thought there was am r oundation for Mr. Whitaker's' remark hat either Mr. Joses or himself should >e in < r aol. We also trust that Mr. kVniTAKER will not take the v»rdict to nean that as the jury declined to >rder Mr. Jokes to be imprisoned, they lid so because they thought him (Mr. iV.) the most fitting candidate of the two or admission into one oi those delightful 'stablishments provided by a thoughtful

country f<ir the reception and safe custody of its evil-doing inhabitants. We are sure that nothing could possibly have been further from the thoughts of the jury. At the same time the reference made by Mr. Whitaker about somebody j going to gaol was a very unfortunate one. We trust by this time Mr. Whitaker has become a wiser if a sadder man.