Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 9 May 1912, Page 21

Current Topics

Some Prophecies : . M: The cable messages during the -week include the item that ‘ A writer in The Times states that the Home Rule Bill will inevitably lead, after a period of increasing friction and ill-feeling, to the granting of full colonial independence to Ireland ;’ and the further item that * Mr. William O’Brien declared that the Bill would effect a reconciliation, but the financial proposals were impracticable, and could not be final.’ Except for the reference to this imaginary ‘ period of increasing friction and ill-feeling,’ we believe that these two utterances will prove to be true prophecy—that the financial proposals will, sooner or later, be radically amended, and that the present Bill will prove the stepping-stone to that measure of full and complete self-government to which the Liberal Party stand pledged. What Became of Them ‘Mr. Dooley’ has often expressed his appreciation of the man who can be ca’am whin there’s annything to be ca’am about.’ Acting on his own wise principle the philosopher of Archey Road is not at all disturbed at the ‘ Ulster will fight ’ talk of Sir Edward Carson and his followers. He notes that when Home Rule eventuates the Nationalists will, for the first time in their history, have the police on their side. And how the insurrection will end, he foretells in a few pithy sentences: ‘l’m afraid nawthin’ will come iv it but more wurrk for th’ sthreet department iv Belfast an’ Londonderry. I’ll sleep with me pike alongside me bed an’ be ready to go over at a minyit’s notice. But I’ll not be needed. There’s hardly a chanst that there’ll be anny fun. Our angry little friends frim over beyant will have to go back to wurrk whin th’ whistle blows an’ save their rellijon f’r Sundahs an’ their pollyticks f’r holidays. Th’ jooks an’ th’ earls will go home to England, an’ in a few years ye’ll hear th’ same tired joke about this rivoluchion that th’ boys.who tell th’ old, old wans at dinner have been teilin’ about our rivoluchions for a cinchry. Sir Ed. Carson, th’ inthrepid lawyer who is at th’ head iv th’ bloodthirsty movement, will say: We had ten millyon Ulsthermen armed to th ’teeth to use at a signal.” “ An’ why didn’t they They were pinched be th’ constablry.” ’ Archdeacon Brodie’s Protest According to Carlyle, a he should be trampled on and extinguished wherever found. ‘ I am,’ said he, for fumigating- the atmosphere when I suspect that falsehood, like pestilence, breathes around me.’ Archdeacon Brodie’s recent measured and dignified protest against the, lying slanders launched against the Catholic Church and against all religion by Socialist Lecturer . Way has had the effect, if not of fumigating, at .least of very considerably clearing the atmosphere in the little world of Waihi. It has been interesting to watch the gradually developed effect on the community. First, there was a natural feeling of astonishment—the litter unexpectedness of the occurrence took people’s breath away. : Then came a brief period of discussion and speculation community wondering, in an entirely friendly way, whether the Archdeacon had been ; wise or otherwise in the bold move he had made. Now—as we learn from a reliable correspondent, who is himself a member: of the Miner’s Union-congratulations are. being offered to Archdeacon Brodie all round, and there is a general feeling that great good has been done. People have been set thinking ; and those who, never having troubled to make investigation, have been accustomed to look upon the members of the official bociahst Party merely as over-enthusiastic unionists, ■ have had their eyes opened to the real nature of the propaganda that is being 'carried. on amongst them. The practical effect of Archdeacon Brodie’s protest has been already shown. In Waihi, as elsewhere, a school committee election has just been held: and on the Sunday night before the election the Socialist Party decided to run a ticket.’ The fact became known on Monday;

and at the election in the evening every Socialist candidate was defeated. yOn the following Wednesday, a Socialist candidate was.- nominated for Mayor, and two Socialist, candidates for the Borough Council ; and all three were badly defeated. There may or may not be further developments to - Archdeacon Brodie’s action ; but it is certain that in the meantime he has decisively scored. - , * J Taft and Roosevelt J Apart from the question of personality—and the personality of candidates is a more* or less considerable tactor in all. popular elections— main point of difference between Taft and Roosevelt in the present contest for the presidency is that the former stands for the retention while the latter advocates the removal of certain restrictions which were originally embodied in the American constitution for • the purpose of ■ securing peimanency and stability to the government of the country. The feature of Mr. Roosevelt’s platform which has especially aroused discussion is his proposal to submit to a plebiscite even the decisions of the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of laws which affect human rights. This proposal, he maintains, is real democracy; while Mr. Taft contends that it is a form of anarchy Mr. Taft is making a bold and promising bid for Irish support in his candidacy. Addressing 800 numbers of the Charitable Irish Society at Boston on St. Patrick s Day, he said: ‘ The thing of which I wish to speak to-night, however, is the well-known fact that socialism and anarchy have found no lodgment among Irishmen. They believe in constituted authority; they believe m the institutions of modern society,* they believe in upbuilding our National and State Governmerits; they believe in the preservation of the checks and. balances of our constitutional structure. Not from them^ do we hear proposals to change the fundamental law, to take away the independence of the judiciary or to minimise in any way the influence and power of constituted authority. They welcome progress; they are enterprising and active to further prosperity. They are not fiill of diatribes against the existing order/ They struggle for equality of opportunity and recognise the value of liberty ordered by-law. They are not reaching out for new gods of Government. They are not seekmg to invent anew society and turn the present one topsy-turvy. They are on the side of law and order, hey are partaking of the civilisation, the good fortune, the prosperity and the happiness as that is possible under our American Government; they are grateful for it, they value it, they will fight to preserve it,’ * aim There is, in all this, an implied appeal ; and that appeal as we have hinted, seems likely to be successful Two of the American Cardinals have spoken in Cardona i u r^ akabl \ fr r dly to the present President. tW d C ] K^* bb °? S J * time ago told an interviewer Won An?- -^ aft 7 aS entitled to a renomination And immediately after the speech from which we have just qimted, Cardinal O’Connell, replying to referred f of Civil and . Religious Liberty/ pointedly eferred to the danger of interfering with the Judiciary 7 and closed his speech with these words ' My words aredear expressions of the unbiassed principles of all those patriots who have lived and died for the glory and pei manency of this great Republic, and among all these fearlessly voiced these sacred principles so clearly so earlessly, so uncompromisingly, whatever the results, headed state JUdlci f h lm partial, big-hearted and coolthe United irr wl 3° A now P over the destinies of • Jll t ed r, States of America, our President.’ According to the Sacred Heart Review report of the function This concluding tribute to President Taft by the Carnal brought the assembled hundreds to their feet d p °™ t of applause again broke out in honor of cue- President. Again and again-“three cheers - were given for President Taft, and when one of the diners aiose to ask three cheers for him as “ the next President ’Ltd -tr the request was hearty fTdc U l ; ft would appear—so far as we can judge i sident'TaS'Ut ‘ lhrou Shout liis administration Predent Taft has shown unmistakable evidence of a desire

to give Catholics, in all things, a ‘ square deal and that is all they expect or ask for. A Ferrer ‘Mare’s Nest’ The noble army of nationalist, Anarchist, Socialist, Masonic, and anti-Catholic writers generally who have been doing their best to elevate the -living and foulteaching Ferrer into a hero and martyr have just made a brilliant discovery, which they are working for all it is worth, and for a great deal more than it is worth. It appeared in a London paper just three months ago, and already it has found its way to New Zealand. We have noticed several references to it in the Christchurch papers; and we have a suspicion that it was to some extent the inspiration of the recent inglorious attempt to rehabilitate Ferrer made by a lecturer at Waihi. The discovery ’ is the achievement of Mr. William Archer, the stodgy and flat-footed writer who is so mercilessly slated in Crosland’s Unspeakable Scot , and who has become one of the ■ later apologists of Ferrer and it is brought to the light of day per medium of the following paragraph, contributed to the London Daily Chronicle of January 26: ‘I have not seen,’ writes the oracular Mr Archer, ‘any mention in the English press of a noteworthy fact which has just come to my knowledge—namely, that the Supreme (Civil) Court of Madrid has practically reversed the judgment of the Barcelona Council of War, and declared the innocence of Francisco Ferrer. The Court declared, (1) that Ferrer was not concerned in the Barcelona disturbances; (2) that none of the rioters who were prosecuted acted under his orders; (3) that in none of the 2000 prosecutions arising out of the riots was any trace discovered of Ferrer’s participation or inspiration. The Court, therefore, orders the restitution to Ins hen’s of his confiscated property. This news is communicated to a Belgian paper by one of Ferrer’s executors, and there seems to be no reason to doubt its authenticity. * It is significant of Mr. Archer’s knowledge of the facts, and of his acquaintance with the first-hand sources of authentic information that he. should have taken this casual statement from a Belgian paper, instead of going to Spanish papers for the full and actual facts of the case. The regarding the matter is (1) that the Supreme Council of War and Marine—wrongly described by the blundering Mr. Archer as the ‘ Supreme (Civil):Court of Madrid ’—has not in any way nor to any extent ‘ reversed ’ the judgment of the Barcelona court-martial; (2) that the Supreme Council of War and Marine merely dissolved—under circum- " stances which will be immediately explained—an attachment against Ferrer’s property which had been ordered ..a*by the Barcelona court-martial; and (3) that the alleged W’ Civil Court made no findings whatever concerning Ferrer’s connection with the rioters, the only findings of the Supreme War Council being that no civil judgments for damages had been found against Ferrer, the rioters, or the municipality, no assessment of the damage done during the riots having ever been judicially made. A full statement, of the position is given by Mr. Andrew Shipman—whose first-hand knowledge of Spain makes him a specially competent authority in the pages of America; and we quote herewith the salient portions of Mr. Shipman’s article. ‘The Spanish military Law,’ he writes, ‘ provides (Sec. 238, Code of Military Justice) that when a prisoner has been found guilty by a Council of War (court-martial) he may also be adjudged to make compensation for all damage and • destruction caused by his acts. It is the usual proviso attached to the judgment or sentence, where the case is aggravated; In the Ferrer sentence, besides the sentence of death and this proviso, it was ordered that ‘ all property of said Ferrer y Guardia be, until the amount ■ of damage can be ascertained, held applicable to the discharge of such civil liability.’ This, of course, threw the matter of ascertaining the damages into the civil courts, and acted as an attachment (embargo) of such property as Ferrer had within the Kingdom of Spain. ‘Shortly after Ferrer’s will had been established, according to the formalities of Spanish law, Jose Ferrer,

the, residuary legatee under it, x and Soledad Yillafranca, filed a petition for the dissolution tf of such attachment of Ferrer’s property. They alleged several technical grounds, which may be briefly mentioned. .. In the first place they pointed out that according to subdivision 5 of Section 142 of Criminal Procedure the attachment should be dissolved, because the death sentence should not have also adjudged his civil liability, since that was a matter for the civil courts. Article 593 of the Code of Military Justice contains no provisions for ascertaining or passing on the amount of damages for which a prisoner may be found liable; being unlike the Penal Code in that respect. In the second place they set up that, even the Penal Code in such case presupposed that the prisoner should be a defendant and litigate the amount of damages for which his property was to be held liable, but as Ferrer’s sentence resulted in- his death, it was impossible to enforce any civil liability against a deceased person, who by the very act of the court itself was prevented from defending. In addition to this the military authorities were unable to produce any evidence that Ferrer had directly used any of his property in causing such damages or had turned it over to any of the rioters to use in causing damage. As a matter of fact the amount of damage has never been judicially ascertained in anv Spanish court, "civil or otherwise. Even the poor Sisters, whose convents, schools, and hospitals were burned over their heads, have never obtained a penny of compensation so far for their property destroyed.’ ‘/r - ‘ It will be seen that this application for a release of the property of Ferrer from attachment was in no sense an appeal, review, or retrial of his case, only involved it incidentally, and was founded largely upon technicalities. Attachment of a defendant’s property in a criminal case following his sentence under the Penal or Military Code could not be perpetual; there must come a time when either ,the property should be applied in payment of specific damages found by the c.'.vil courts, or must be released. . , . The rule of Spanish law is that such damages should be ascertained within two years after the seizure or attachment .of property, although in proper cases such limitations have been extended. In connection with this, the technical objection interposed by the Ferrer petitioners became effective, for Ferrer being dead he could not be cited in a civil court, and consequently damages could- not be assessed against*him or his property. The petitioners themselves made use of and won out by the very fact that Ferrer had been executed. Had he been spared by means of a life sentence he could' have been cited for a civil trial to ascertain the damages for which his property should respond. On January 24, 19.12, the Supreme Council of War and Marinethe highest tribunal in the Kingdom having • jurisdiction. over matters arising out of court-martials—dissolved the attachment against the property of Francisco Ferrer and turned it over to his executors and residuary legatee. It reached this conclusion almost wholly on technical grounds, and did not retry or review the facts of the court-martial under which Ferrer was executed.’ * From this very full and detailed statement it is clear that in the proceedings before the Supreme Council of War and Marine—i.e., Mr. Archer’s ‘Supreme (Civil) Court of Madrid the judgment of the Barcelona court-martial, so far from being ‘ reversed,’ was never so much as in question; and in respect to the guilt or innocence of Ferrer the original verdict still stands.