A Challenge Not Accepted.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXX, Issue 22, 29 May 1902, Page 5

A Challenge Not Accepted.

Some time ago a public meeting was held in Nelson to protest against the transfer of some members of the police force in that town. The changes were the outcome of a departmental inquiry. Among the speakers at that meeting was the Protestant Bishop, who, in the course of his remarks, said, as reported in the Colonist of May 2, that somebody had sufficient influence to prevent the Government from acceding to a request for a public linquiry. 'If Borne person or body (said the Bishop) had sufficient power to carry their desire they might ask where that body was to be found. Perhaps the Salvation Army had power, or the Good Templars, but ho was not satisfied that either had. He recogniped that there was another body. It was a very unpleasant thing to have the fact brought home to them that some responsible body had sufficient influence with the Government to bring such power to bear that they could carry out their own will. They felt it ought not to be bo, and that it was their business to try and make an alteration. They might be altogether wrong, but if that was the correct solution, then he said they were very closely concerned, because it was evident that some body existed able to secure its own ends when these were not in accordance with justice. It Was evident that one denomination was represented out of all proportion to its numerical strergth.' The inference to be drawn from Bishop Mules's insinuations was pretty plain, and in reply thereto Dean Mahoney wrote in part as follows to the Colonist :—: — 1 The insignificance of the calumniator is betimes magnified by reply ; the helplessness of the victim degrades the aggressor, and the pettiness of the charge nigh disarms the defendant. But when against a section of the community is levelled a serious charge, blurted out in the intoxication of applause on a public platform, by one propped up in position and dignity above his fellows, that charge, owing to its enormity, and in justice to the accused and accuser, exacts convincing proofs. The accused court enquiry, and I, who am their local accredited representative would be a traitor to my people and their cause, were I to supinely allow Fuch unbridled audacity to career unchecked. I therefore defy bishop or layman to substantiate the charge and to prove that I, duectly or indirectly, covertly or openly, by letter or by word, brought any influence whatsoever to bear upon the disrating, the removal, or the dismissal of any member or members of the Nelson Police Force. Should such a charge be pi oven, as an earnest of my good faith, I pledge my word to refund £125 presented to me by my beloved people, to be distributed to non-Catholic public charitable institutions in Nelson.' To Dean Mahoney's challenge the Bishop of Nelson replied a" follows :—: — ' Long and friendly intercourse with Dian Mahoney makes me deeply regret that his letter on Saturday la't took quite the form it did. Not a word or syllable of mine can be shown to have any personal application to him or to any one or more, who might be named among his co-religioniatp, for many of whom I entertain a cordial regard, which will, I trust, never be diminished, nor fail to be returned by them. I deny any wish on my part and any tendency in what I have said to stir up needless strife or pander in any wise to popular prejudice. But I feel I should have been wrong were I to have shrunk from rraing the occasion that lately presented itself for reminding my fellow-citizens that there is at least one body of persons amongst us in New Zealand that is proved, by what seems to me incontrovertible evidence, to be exercising to a considerable extent undue political power in certain directions, a power out of all proportion to their numerical strength.' Dean Mahoney having left the Colony on a trip to Europe, Father Clancy took the matter up in a letter to the Colonht, in which he said : 'As the Bishop of Nelson, from a public platform, had levelled a serious and definite charge against the Catholic body of having unju&tly used their influence in the recent police debacle, Dean Mahoney, then the local representative of that body, challenged his Lordship for his proofs. The latter, with probably a keen perception of his powers, guards an ominous silence, and ignores the Dean's legitimate claim on this particular point, and launches upon themes congenial to himself — friendship and personal bravery, as exemplified in his recent utterances. How a man can hope for amity whilst covering his friends with oblcquy, and show his courage whilst attacking wantonly, is a little mystery winch eve-n a bishop could not explain ; and since hi.s courage sustained him in making a groundless charge, let us hope that the name virtue may inspire him to beat a less ignoble retreat It is not a question of any one or more who might be named, as he would have us believe, but of each and every Catholic laboring under the charge of being an abettor of injustice, and calling on him for the proofs of the charge, or the withdrawal of the indictment. Till the Bishop accepts either alternative, his Lordship must be left poised on the horns of a dilemma exalted, if not unenviable.'

To that letter Bishop Mules replied as follows :— 'In his letter in your columnp, Father Clancy hasapperted that the Bishop of Nelson hap, from a public platform, levelled a definite charge against the Roman Catholic body, of having unjustly used their influence in the recent police charges. Both local papers reported the Bishop's speech. I charge Father Clancy with making by his assertion, a charge against me publicly, which he will be uuable to substantiate.' Father Clancy's reply to the Bishop's letter appeared in the Colonixt of May 8, and was as follow h : ' His Lordship the Bishop of Nelson asks me to substantiate my charges against him. I cordially accede to his request. Selfevident f,)ot« are recorded, not necessarily proven. Their proof lies in their general acceptance, The local papers state that the Bishop made the charge, rmd the faithful record of his utterance is found not only in the columns of these journal?, but is printed in the memory and the heart of every man who applauded him when on the platform, of the correspondents who reported him, of gentlemen who surrounded him, of many dibtinguished members of his own flock, who not thinking it fit to attend the meeting, have read his meaning and expressed their sympathy to me and their disapproval of him. If further proof is wanting, it is found in the deepseated resentment of every Catholic aggrievedc ved clamoring foi proofs or apology. I would remii d his Lordship that it is not a personal affair concerning me alone, neither is it purely a local one. But to him, indeed, it is a personal matter, probably affecting him in more ways than one. How strange a coincidence, too, that his Lordship, now asking for proofs, stands alone, as he stood alone when he flung out the charge to fulfil hia duty towards his fellow-citizens, as he tells us, and to attest his moral bravery 1 How grotepque a proceeding for the plaintiff, in the presence of judge, jury, and court, instead of proving his cape, to call upon the defendant to prove that the indictment is on the charge Bheet ! Tis unique, Sir, in judicial procedure, void of decorum, and worthy of condign punishm< nt to thus flout the dignity of the court. Should his Lordship fly from his present position, I fear he must deny himself the attribute of having the courage of his convictions."