The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-04-18
TIE TIMES AND PARNELL.
some London Opinions on the Other Side
The Times Praised forIts Pluck.

some London Opinions on the Other Side
The Times Praised forIts Pluck.
Having by request published com
ments Of foreign papers rejecting
on the Times, we are asked to give
the following extracts that may
modify judgment Of the matter:
The London Standard of Feb.
28th says; Mr.. Parnell, we frankly
admit, has, in regard to the Letters,
suffered a grievOus wrong; and, as
we observed yesterday, it Is not al
together unnatural that the sym
pathy felt for him on that account
should extend for the time being to
the cause with which he is connected.
But the most sentimental and i'm
pulsive of mankind must see upon
reflection that the merits of the
Home Rule controversy are still ex
actly what they were. If the conse-
quences Of an Irish Parliament,
sitting in St Stephens Green. would
have been disastrous before these
Letters were made public, they Will
be disastrous still. The two CUES
ions do not really touch each other
at any single point. And as soon
as the excitement created by an IN
wOnted exhibition of credulity on
the one hand and yillainy on the
other has passed away, the public
opinion Of this country, even if it
has been stirred for an instant by
the suddenness of the disclosure, will
fall back upon the exercise of its
sober judgment. 1t is not to be ex
pected that, in an arduOus and pro-
tracted struggle like that which Is
now carried on between the sup
pOrters of the Union and those who
would virtually dissolve it, no vicis-
STUDIES shall occur
The following is from the London
edition of the New York Herald,
February 9th: We have no dis
position to anticipate the judg-
ment of the Parnell Commission
We note in several journals, how
ever, a disposition to attack the
Times, and to visit its managers
with oPprobrium because of recent
revelations in the trial. If the
Times can be discredited and des-
trOyed it will be an immense gain in
some way to someone.
Whatever the verdict of the Par
nell Commission, credit is due to
the Times for having alone, single
handed, with no possible motive but
high public duty, entered upon a
costly, harrassing and thankless
task. The director of the Times is
as much entitled to the respect and
confidence Of English gentlemen as
the Lord Chancellor or the Prime
Minister. He directs a great trust
as much an institution of England
as the House of Commons-a trust
identified for a century with England
in all her hopes, successes, and dis
asters. If he believed that he could
make good the charge that a revolu-
tionary party in English politics had
descended to worse than revolution
airy methods-had made assassina-
ton a weapon and an argument-it
was surely courageous to spare
neither money nor pains to prove
his case.
1t was a thankless, because, unless
looked at from the highest standard
of journalism, an unnecessary task.
There is journalism and journalism.
The Times, rich, respected, powerful,
with nothing to gain by controversy,
and nothing to lose by silence, had
simply to go on printing the news,
amassing money and paying divi-
dends IN a fat, lazy, irresponsible
way, caring little whether Mr.. Par
nell was in Downing Street or the
Tower, so long as the money came
in. 1t preferred the controversy
The battle has been severe, the ex-
penditure of money vast, without the
hope of gaining a new subscriber or
a new advertisement. The disclos-
ures yesterday would indicate that it
has lost its case. And the losing
would be a qualification to all who
would believe that men who direct
great political movements are not
assassins. But, in frankness and
justice let it be said that the Times
made a stern. lavish, honorable,
heroic contest, to be remembered, as
it will surely be, to the honor of that
journalism, which, III a sense of duty
to the people, finds no labor a sacri-
fee.