THE EDITOR EVENING STAR.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVIII, Issue 33, 10 December 1886, Page 15

THE EDITOR EVENING STAR.

§N another column of this issue will be found a letter from the Editor of the Evening Star. We publish it to-day because it is our intention to make some comments upon it, and because we have already published Bishop Moran's letter to which it is a reply. The Bishop had complained that the Editor of the Evtning Star had afforded facilities to anonymous writers for slandering 1 Catholics, and prote&ted against this practice — a practice at once unjast and impolitic. One of these anonymous writers had written in the Evening Star that Catholics are necessarily persecutors, and gave as a proof of his outrageous assertion that Archbishop Kenrick, of St. Louis, I nited States of America, in a spe>ch published in a Catholic organ, had declared that the Catholic Church had always persecuted and always would when she should have a chance or opportunity of doing so. Such a declaration, if made, coming from such a man as Archbishop Kenrick, would be a serious matter. Consequently Bishop Mohan lost no time in showing that there were good grounds for believing that this speech, attributed to the Archbishop, was a forgery. Notwithstanding this, the i ditor of the Evening Star permitted the same writer, or one giving the same signature, to repeat the charge. The Bishop protested against thi>, and to-day our readers can see for themselves the sort of reply which the hditor of the Evming Star thinks it his duty to give. When statements purporting to be facts are made, particularly it Mich state- i ments bo injurious to individuals or important institution-, ' it is necessary that the public should know the name of h n who makes them, in order that Ins character, his truthfulness, and means of information, may be duly weighed | and ase Ttained to be such as to render any statement made by him nt lea^t probable. he Editor | thinks otherwise. He hold-; that the interests of the public and the freedom of discussion demand that every unknown slanderer shall be at liberty to calumniate even the most honourable and responsible men, and charges the Bishop with an endeavour to stifle the expression of opinion, because he holds that anonymous slanderers should not be afforded an opportunity of renting their slanders in the public Press. We should hope that few will be found to coincide in the opinion of the editor of the Evming Star. See how wicked, i under every point of view, is this practice of the Evening I Star. In the particular case under discussion the anonymous ' writer in the Star published a paragraph of a bp<ech said to | be spoken by Archbishop Keniuck and published in the ' Shepherd of the Valley. And what are the facts, the rpal ' state of the question ? This speech attributed to Archbishop Kenrick was proved, even thirty years ago, to be a forgery, ' and as a matter of fact, it was not published in the Slwplurd \ of the Valley. If the man who stated this lie in the Star had given his name, the probability is that his name would have been sufficient either to warn the public that his statement had no real foundation or that the rabid bigotry of the writer lendered it ludicrous. Again, see how consistent in a wrong course the Editor of the Star is. Notwithstanding that the slander had been unearthed and proof given that this speech attributed to the Archbishop was a forgery, nevertheless the Editor of the Evening Star permitted another

anonymous writer, in a letter, published, we think, in its very next issue, to refer to this forged speech as an authority, and to attribute it to Archbishop Ryan, of Philadelphia. This speech was forged more that thirty years ago, and then it was said to have been the speech of Archbishop Kenrick. This was disproved, and now it is attributed to Archbishop RrAK, who was not then even a priest. Notwithstanding disproofs and denials, the Editor of the Evening Star thinks that Bishop Moran is an enemy to free discussion, because he protests against the publication of forgeries and slanders calculated to blacken the good name and fame of irreproachable and honourable men. We have yet to learn that the freedom of public discussion can be compromised by telling the tiuth and denouncing falsehood and foul play.