South Canterbury Times. TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1889.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4912, 22 January 1889, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1889.

If we judge by the space devoted by the Home papers to the evidence given before the Parnell Commission, we must conclude that the enquiry is a thing of extremesb interest to the British public. But v/e do not believe it is. The newspapers made arrangements for reports; commenced to give full reports of the proceedings each day, and cannot very well stop now till they have seen the thing through. Both proprietors, editors, and readers must be heartily sick of the Parnel Commission, with its interminable repetitions of old stories of outrage, of grave or trumpery character. This is not what the Commission was appointed for; but then the Commission is almost compelled to take whatever evidence counsel, either for the Times or the Parnellites, choose to press upon them for record. What the Parnellites wanted in asking for the Commission, what the legislature understood it was for in creating it, what the public expected, was a straightforward attack before the special tribunal on the men who had been attacked under circumstances that did not seem to them to admit of their replying effectively. The questions in which the people generally were and are interested, are, Did Parnell sign those letters? Has the Times, or any one, proofs that Parnell, or any responsible man of his party, had any previous knowledge of a single criminal outrage ? Or that he or any of them expressed in private any other opinion of such outrages than they have expressed in public P Pew people will attach any importance to the evidence (even before its certain contradiction later on) of the confessedly murderous wretches who have sought to dignify their damnable deeds and plots by swearing that Parnell was a party to them. What the public want to know is the value of the alleged documentary evidence which the Times professes to to hold. If this evidence is really trustworthy, if the Times only believes it to be so, they ; would not have kept the Commission grubbing among the police records of half the counties for reports of outrages with which the Parnellites can have had possible connection. The end of this however appears to bo drawing near, and the letters will probably be brought up very soon.

Are the Government ashamed of their selection to fill the vacant judgeship ? If it is true that Mr Denniston has been appointed, and if they are not ashamed of it, why was not the offer and its acceptance ;made known in the usual way. Up to yesterday morning it was officially denied that the offer had been made to Mr Denniston, yet, our Dunedin wires informed us, Mr Denniston had accepted the offer. We are prepared to admit that the Government have had a difficult task before them in filling the vacancy, without ■ knowing in what the difficulties consisted, but that they have acquitted themselves well of it is not to be admitted without question. We have before now given our opinion that Mr Ward ought to have been permanently appointed. As for Mr Denniston, be may make an excellent jndge, but as a lawyer he has been notorious for the lack of some of the qualities most essential in a judge. Dunedin will be well enough pleased at Mr Denniston’s appointment. Any Dunedin man rather than any other. As Mr Denniston is not well known elsewhere, criticisms of the appointment, before the new judge shows his capacity and bis temper, are not likely to be very keen.