The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-04-23
THE TIMES AND PARNELL.

Some London Opinions on the Other Side
| The Times Praised for It's 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.
18th 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-
actlys hat 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 ques-
ions do not really touch each other
at any single point. And as soon
as the excitement created by an I'M
wonted exhibition of credulity on
the one hand and villainy 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
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-
ionary party in English politics had
descended to worse than revolution
Try methods-had made assassina- {
ion a weapon and an argument-it
vas surely courageous to spare
leither money nor pains to prove
lis case.
It was thankless, because, unless
ooked at from the highest standard
f journalism, an unnecessary task.
There is journalism and journalism.
The Times, rich, respected, powerful, .
nth nothing to gain by controversy,
nd nothing to lose by silence, had 0
imply to go on printing the news, -
money and paying diyi- ,
ends in a fat, lazy, irresponsible
,ay, caring little whether Mr.. Par !,
ell was in Downing Street or the
over, SO long as the money came
l. It preferred the controversy. "
he battle has been severe, the ex-
enditure of money vast, without the
ope of gaining a new subscriber or u
new advertisement. The disclos-
res yesterday would indicate that it
as lost its case. And the losing 81
ould be a qualification to all who
ould believe that men who direct .,
.eat political movements are not
3sassins. But, in ffankness and PI
Istiee let it be said that the Times
ade a stern, lavish, honorable,
eroic contest, to be remembered, as
will surely be, to the honor of that - :,
which, in q sense Of duty :
the people, finds no labor sacri-