The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-10-01
The Sheriff of Dublin Released from
Prison.

On Aug 1G, Mr.. E. DIVER GRAY, the High
Sheriff Of Dublin, member of Parliament.
and the editor OF the Dublin Freemdns Jour
Nal, was sentenced to three months impris-
onment for an alleged contempt OF court
After six weeks incarceration, this man, who
will henceforth figure among the martyrs Of
free speech, has been released from imprison-
ment by the Judge who sentenced him.
The reasons assigned for the remission of an
unjust penalty are OF the fecblest and most
disngenuous kind and the fact doubtless is
that Justice LAWSON has been forced, much
against his will, to obey the will OF high
executive authorities, whose opinion of his
conduct comedies in all likelihood with that
30 forcibly and unanimously expressed by
the people Of Ireland.
That the treatment of Mr.. GRAY involved n
serious infringement of the most precious
liberties Of the press will be manifest when
we recall the main features of the case and
point out the futility of defending Justice
LAwsoN's action by the far-fctched plea that
the victim of his severity was an officer of
the court. The offence for which the
editor Of the Freemdn's journal was
summarily arraigned, and for which,
without being allowed to retain counsel or to
call witnesses, he was flung into Jail, was the
publication Of II letter written by an eye
witness OF the behavior OF the jury in the
HYNES case, and OF brief editorial comment
suggesting that the charges called for in
Quiry. The misconduct OF which they
were accused was subsequently denied
by the members Of the jury under oath,
but 1t was attestcd by the atlldavits Of five
witnesses, so that, to whichever side we may
think the balance of probability turns, there
seems to have been, indisputaby, ground
enough for an investigation. II categori-
cal assertions imputing the grosscst
misbehavior to men on whose de-
cision hangs the life Of fellow
being are not proper subjects of pub
LEGATION, and do not justify an editor in
directing attention to them, it is hard
TO see what the press and the community
which 1t serves have gained by the lcgisla-
ton of the last hundred years.
We must bear in mind that the Freeman 8
Journal did not vouch for the cor
rectness of the statements made by
Its correspondent 1t simply insisted that
such charges, impeaching the character OF
the trial just concluded, called for scrutiny
at the hands Of those who had it in their
power to grant new trial or to modify the
penalty imposed upon the convict. In taking
this position Mr. GRAY simply did his duty,
and We do not hesitate to say that he
would have been basely recreant as an ed
itor and man If, in view OF the
facts which had been laid before him, he had
not stretched forth his hand to arrest the
arm OF Justice and compel the court and the
country to examine whether the unhappy
prisoner at the bar had been allowed that tC
which the meancst and the worst British sub,
iect is entitlcd-a trial at the hands Of sober
and conscientious men.
When II wac found that the attempt to i'm.
pugn the right Of newspaper to raise the
question OF the competence Of particular
jury to render a verdict Of guilty in trial
for murder had provoked an outburst of in
dignation from all parts Of Ireland, and ever
on the part Of many representatives OF The
English Liberal press, another iustilica
tlon Of Judge LAwsoS's action wa.
put forward, and an effort was made to i'm
pale Mr.. GRAY on the horn, OF dilemma
He was, it was pointed out, at the same tim,
editor Of the newspaper in which the jury
conduct was criticised and Sheriff Of Dublin
TO whom the SUPERVISION Of the jury be