ATTACK BY A 'DEFENCE' ASSOCIATION

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXII, Issue 38, 22 September 1904, Page 3

ATTACK BY A 'DEFENCE' ASSOCIATION

CHARGES AGAINST AN IRISH PRIEST The £ollowm'g further correspondence on the subject appeared during the past week in the D^inedin ' Evening Star ' . Sir,— Some years ago Sir Edward Fry laid down, to lawyers on b,oth sides of a commission of inquiry this golden* rule of discussion : 'So condjuct the case on ciUher sMe as to generate tihe maximum of light and the mininiium of heat.' If thus sound maxim had been followed by the ofhcials of the organisation which caljs itself the Protestant ' Defence ' Association, they would never have let lcyose the hot tornado of violeint personal inivwtwe which siwe^t through two of your columns on last. Sat'unday. 1 happen to have a slight acquaintance with the and the secretary of that society, and I fancied that they, at least, 'had a sufficient measure of self r resjpect to avoid associating themselves witti the authdrsjhip of a letter cointainmg nearly a hundred lines of mere vulgar and irrelevant abuse. Personal vituperation may be a part of the new systemi of ' defence ' devised by the ' Defence ' Association, but It will not defend them against the obligation, to which they are both morally and in honor bound, to either! plrove or withdraw the fearful accusations which they launched, in your issue of August 27, against Father Denis O'Hara, a parish priest in Mayo, Ireland. These charges were set forth in detail in my two previous letters. Briefly stated, they run as follow : — That Fatiher O'Hara organised a criminal ' conspiracy,' '' trumjped up false accusations,' and suborned perjury in order to injure a police constable. I 'have already twice called upon this ' Defence ' Association to make j^ood their fearful attack upon the personai character of Father O'Hara. Each of my ch,alleiniges has been lollowed by certain curious and significant facts Here are some of them :—: — First Curious Fact. — Not so much as the ghost of an attempt has been made by the ' defenders ' to Sustain t^heir qluoted attack upon Father O'Hara. Second Curious Fact.— From the moment tMiat I challenged them to proof of their accusations, the terms 4 comspiiraey,' ' trumped up,' and ' false accusations ' have not been mentioned by them even once. T/hese express tonis 'have suddenly became ' tapu.' And there has been no whisper, not a breath, about suborjiati'on of perjury. Thixd Curious Fact.— Since the publication of my demand fo>i proof of their shocking accusation's against a popiulax ami greatly respected clergyman there has not appeared in either of the lengtlhy communications of his assailants so much as a sentence, p'hmse, or word that, by 'atfiyj stretch of legitimate interpretation, could be To Mean Criminal ' Conspiracy,' 1 trumping up false accusation's,' 'or sutornirig perjury. On August 27 the bold ' defenders ' we^e positive to the point 'of ehth.usiasun when they firfed their volleyi of accusation at Father O'Hiara from behind a hedge. Why did they; take so promptly to their heels as soon as a friend of Father O'Hara stood up and faced them ? Why **%—

Wmtr^i"-" *rcan they no longer write down the words criminal • conspiracy,' ' trumping up false accusations,' and subornation of perjury, and couple them with t/he name pf Father O'Hara ? ' Why, oh Wihy So encliantingly shy '- prr'<>iT~ r * T r"nsH <• , , , ,~ r .^-r-> - r -^ on these matter", yet so vohi'ble on others 1 that are besi.de t|hc present lssxie ? There must be an adequate cause for this sudden dumbness that has seized out gallant 1 defenders ' ! What is that cause ? I shall pause Jor a reply. It is obviously No Proof of Criminal Conspiracy, malicious lying, and subornation of perjury to assert (ovem on the strength of a ' faked 'or garbled quotation) that Father O'Hara spoke to a witness in connection,' with the case. So (according to Chief Secretary Wyntiihani's statement of June 20) did a Pxotestant police inspector. 'And the same is done withlolut the suspicion ot felony, "by police and lawyers in Du|nedin every day m the ordinary course of their duties., Neither does it prove Father O'H'ara to be a criminal conspirator, a liar of diabolical malevolence, and a suborner of perjury to assert (I) that the incriminated constable was ' tUed ' twice, ami (2) that at the first ' triaL * it was decided that ' there was not a single wortd of truth m any of the accusations ' laid against him. The iiribtj of these two statements is untrue ; tihe se/cicind (to which I may again refer) is 'a fabrication. (1) I haye all alojig stated that the constable was ' tried ' by one and only one properly-constituted ' Court of Inquiry. 1 This is precisely what Chief Secretary Wy,rtdham officially declared in the Hbuse of Commons on June 20, 1 There was," he said, 'no second Court.' And again: ' There was no second Court of 'Inquiry. Thje first inquiry was an investigation, not cm oath.'" (I quote from tllie ' Weekly Irish Times '—one of the extreme organs of the Orange party in tins caster-issue of June 25, p. 2.) There was therefore only one ' trial.' That ' Court of Inquiry ' found thp constable guilty on two serious charges, ojne of them being, according to Me. Wyndham, a cha/'ge of ' gross immorality. 1 That judgment constitutes and remains a legal nres'iimption that the Charges referred to are true in point of fact, and 'not ' trumped up.' And this legal presumption must endure until set aside by a higher or at least equal court. (2) Under pressure from the Orange members of Parliament, Mr. VVyndham improperly over-rode, without a fresh trial. the verdict of a regular and Properly-constituted Coiurt of Inquiry. But) he expressly declined .to question the truth of any pait of the evidence adduced at the trial. His interference was based on an interpretation of the evidence and on. alleged ' new facts.' and not on any lack of trlutlh in the evidence. Father O"Hai;a calls for a fresh tnal. The Irish Nationalist party demand it. The constable's Orange friends m the House decline to do so. Their attitude is rough on the constable, who, if innocent, s/hould in justice be afforded an opportunity (of clearing his character. (3) But even if tjhe charges against the constable were proved by a dwen courts' to be ujntrue, it would obviously not follow that Father O Jlara ' trumped them up, 1 or that he entered ihto >a orimiin/al l conspiracy ' and suborned perjury to compass uhe mtan's ruin. I m,ay ada that during the whole course of thp agitation of the lodges against Father O'llftra, t<he Orange members, even when under the protection of parliamentary privilege, never accused him of ' trumpijng u<p ' the case ag;ainst the constable or of inciting witnesses to comim.it perjury. And in the midst of the ' midsummer madness ' (as it is called), the brethren in Ulster did itot go the length of accusing Father O'Hara of criminal ' conspiracy,' ' trumping up false accusations, 1 or Suborning perjury. These shocking accusations have been imported into this controversy by their brethren of the ' Defence ' Association in Dunedin. Our bo I'd ' defenders ' have, however, elected to ruh away from their own published statements in this connection. I now, for the third time, invite them to pluck up their courage, and either establish their accusations by adequate proof or manfully withdraw them. If t^hey adopt either course, well and good. If they do not, I shall claim the privilege of a further word upon the matter.— l am, etc. 4 EDITOR ' N.Z. TABLET.' September 12.