The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1889-07-20
DUBLIN'S EX-MAY0R TALKS.
He Denounces Balfour's Prison Policy
and Roasts the Government
It's Irish Policy.
HON. CHAS. DAWSON'S ADDRESS.
He Moves a Series Of Resolutions In
Dublin UitY Council and
Speaks.

At meeting of the Dublin council
ex-Mayor Dawson moved a series OF
resolutions On the treatment of political
prisoners in Ireland, on which he de-
livered the following able address:
The broad distinction between ordi-
nary social crimes and political offences.
was one that was universally approved.
Under the international law Of civilized
nations, there was a right to the extra
dition CT criminals against social law
The forger, the thief, the robber, the
murderer could find no haven OF rest
from the consequences OF his CRIME
under the law, and in every nation this
outcome of the civilized consensus of
opinion was such, that criminal was
not only an enemy TO his own country
and its institutions, but tnat such a
person was an enemy to social order
and morality all the world over, and
therefore by the law of every country
he was rendered up to justice in his
own country. But when it came to
political offensos; when it was found
that acts were done, not for individual
gain nor Individual revenge; when it
was found that the acts were done. not
for any individual reason, nor through
any hope of reward, nor instigated by
the passion of individual revenge, NO
matter though the acts were done by
an individual and affected individuals,
then the protection of foreign govern
ments was extended to prisioners from
other countries. There Was therefore
established the grand and broad dis
tinction by International practice OF
separating the political prisoner from
the ordinary criminal against social
order. What was
THE PRACTICE OF CIVILIZED NATIONs s
in this matter? One OF the most strik-
Ing instances Of the practice OF civil
lized nations with regard to it was the
manner in which political prisoners as
such were treated in France. That
pracJice had been formulated in very
clear language by such eminent French
statesmen as M. Guizot and M. Theirs.
M. Guizot, writing on the subject in
1884 said:
"The Government has judged it to be
suitable and in conformity with public
opinion not to confouDd in any case
political convicts, purely such, with
other convicts destined for houses Of
force and correction; and [ have even
decided that they should receive a
better alimtntary regimen, and that
they should not be forced to work."
These prisoners in France were sepa-
rated from the ordinary criminals, and
they were allowed visits from their
friends and other privileges not ac-
corded to the ordinary class of crimi-
nails. He came next to the political
prisoners committed during
THE CHARTIsr MOVEMENT.
and they had in that movement most
dUOUSlI0 NlCaIlo VI CO4 pol AoOA "AiA cAO
present movement in Ireland. If they
took up the Chartist movement they
would find that che "criminals' who
were then leaders Of the people stood
exactly on all fours with the prisoners
taken up under the present Crimes Act,
because the attitude taken up by Mr..
Balfour at the present day wa3-''I
grant that political prisoners should be
treated differently from ordinary crimi-
nails, but though you are not criminals
we will pass law to make you crimi-
nails, and we will treat you with every
indignitY and cruelty, and we will place
you in the same category as ordinary
criminals" Now, what did Lord John
Russell say of the Chartist movement.
According to Lord John Russell, then
81 ONE Secretary, who addressed an
official letter to the magistrate Of Man
ches ter in August, 1889
Attempts haye been made to obtain
money from shopkeepers, householders,
etc., by means of intimidation las by