New Zealand Tablet Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1876. THE 'OTAGO WITNESS' ON LIBEL.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 186, 20 October 1876, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1876. THE 'OTAGO WITNESS' ON LIBEL.

In order that our readers at a distance may know the full import and value of the opinions of the * Otago Witness,' we beg to inform them that the ; Otago Witness ' is the weekly issue of the ' Otago Daily Times,' which they will remember as an old acquaintance. We had hoped we had done with the libel case Megina v. Bell, and we had made up our mind to say no more about it. As the road to justice had been practically closed in the case by the decision of the Grand Jury, it appeared to us useless to take any further notice of the affair. But we have been disappointed. Our contemporaries of the press are not disposed to let the matter rest. We took no notice of the offensive remarks of the ' Evening Star,' as they were only such as might be expected from that journal. Nor did we think it worth while to call attention to some of the strange expressions of that paper ; such, for example, as " unwarrantable scurrility," " and forgot the gentleman," inasmuch as it was clear to us, every intelligent and educated person would himself at once say on reading these expressions, I was always under the impression scurrility is never warrantable, that the essential constituents of the gentleman are truth and justice ; and that, consequently, all would easily perceive that the ' Star ' in these remarks was securing its own condemnation, But it would be a dereliction of duty on our pare, to pass over in silence what the ' Otago Witness,' in its issue of last Saturday, has said in reference to us and this libel case. Our contemporary says, " The Tablet is very indignant that the Roman Catholic libel case should have been dismissed. For my part I could see no libel in it, but the Tablet appears to think that a Roman Catholic is a sacred person, and that nothing should be breathed to the discredit of one." These words are under the heading " Passing Notes," iind though written in the first person are in the leading column, and express the views of the editor. According to the law of England, which, on the subject of libel, is also the law of this colony, it is a libel to publish auything, the tendency of which is to degrade a man in the opinion of his neighbors, and to make him ridiculous. This is the law. What «re the facts? The • Evening Star' published a false statement in reference to a Catholic priest ot Dnnedin, to the effect that he had committed a crime which, in the estimation of all the members of his own nongregatiui), of all Catholics throughout the I world, and of many honorable pure-minded men outside the Catholic Church, is sacrilege, and also equivalent to perjury. j It was a report which most certainly had a tendency to dej grade him in the opinion of his neighbors, and make him j ridiculous ; and notwithstanding this undoubted fact, and the additional tact that the repoit was a base and 1 notorious falsehood, and, we will add, a deliberate falsehood on the part of its originator, a Dunedin Grand Jury ignored the Bill of Indictment. The Tablet was iv- ' dignant at this decision of the Grand Jury, as most certainly it was justified in being; but, whilst it deplored a miscarriage of justice, and made no secret of its iti- \ dignation, it did not charge the Grand Jury, either individually or collectively, with corrupt or unworthy motives, nor

with anything but an error of judgment on the part of, probably, not more than two or three of its members. The Tablet does not think, nor does it appear to think, as the ' Witness ' says, " that the Roman Catholic is a sacred person, and that nothing should be even breathed to the discredit of •one." But it certainly does think it is a false, scandalous, and malicious libel to publish a lying statement, charging a Catholic priest with perjury and sacrilege ; and it certainly does think the decision of the Grand Jury has led to a miscarriage of justice ; and it is indignant at both — as every intelligent and honorable journalist ought to be. But this is not all. The next sentence from the ' Witness* is, if possible, a stranger piece of injustice. " I think the Tablet is doing a considerable amount of nnschief in the community by creating ill feeling between the Catholics and other denominations which has never hitherto existed." We are not aware of the existence of this ill-feeling ; it certainly does not exist on our part, nor amongst the Catholics and others of our acquaintance. And it would surprise us very much to find that any ill-feeling did exist, for we have never done anything reasonably calculated to create such a feeling. We never attack the religion of others, we never publish lies of others, we never try to bring our neighbours into contempt and to make them ridiculous. We confine ourselves almost entirely in matters appertaining to religion — to the defensive. We admit that when driven to repel calumny, to defend truth, or to uphold justice, we strike out strongly and give no quarter till our duty is done. But we do not think so meanly of our neighbours of other denomina- j tions as to suppose for one moment that such a line of conduct could creute any ill feeling on their part ; and we freely admit that, in such a cause, we are perfectly indifferent to feeling. Our duty to truth and justice must take precedence of all things. If our line of conduct is displeasing to some, as we perceive from the remarks of the ' Witness ' it may possibly be, we cannot help it, — the fault is theirs, not ours. No man should be afraid of truth; no man should cease to love and pursue justice, and no man should have any ill-feel ing against us or other Catholics because we manfully defend truth and justice. The ' Witness ' does not feel the least sympathy with a Catholic priest who has been grossly belied and grievously libelled by the newspapers, but, though glad Dunedin juries have " dropped the practice of slating the Press," this journal has a good deal of sympathy with a wholesale spirit merchant, who is also a J ustice of th.3 Peace, and who had been, not laelied and slandered, but somewhat roughly treated by a newspaper. As a specimen of fair-play and good taste the following words of our contemporary are worth recording : — " The other libel, against Mr. Hooper, was also dismissed ; but I cannot help expressing my opinion that the article in the ' Liberator' was extremely unfair and vulgar." There it j is — theie is sympathy for the man of whom nothing was said that was not a t.'.ct and notorious; but there is no sympathy — on the contrary, only blame and sneers — for the gentlemen who have been grossly belied and grievously libelled. Why 1 ! The ' Witness' knows the reason, and so do we. '