THE “GUARDIAN” AND ITS CORRESPONDENTS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 202, 8 June 1933, Page 6

THE “GUARDIAN” AND ITS CORRESPONDENTS.

Sir, —I cannot compliment you on the treatment you are, meting out to your correspondents. Take my own case. I wrote to you first on May 17, and my letter was published with minor excisions. Writing again on May 22, mainly in answer to your Methven correspondent, J. C. Thomas, and, as well, making merry about the smug rusticity of the residents living in the shadow of Mount Hutt, my letter did mot appear. A day later, in an “Answer to Correspondent” you said: “The phase of the matter which yon refer to may well be considered as past, and publication of your letter would do no good, but rather harm.” On May 30, my letter pointing out the apparent inconsistencies of certain Hospital Hoard members received better treatment and saw the light of day, your blue pencil being sparingly used. But yesterday’s letter lias lor some reason or other raised your ire and the points I so carefully set out to make have been deleted and the letter made absurd and pointless. And you add a footnote regarding “personalities.” But, Sir, was my yesterday’s letter not a good deal less personal than that of J. C. Thomas ? I know it was, and so do you, so why allow J. C. Thomas to write, and you publish so deliberately provocative a letter, full of personalities and mis-statements, and then carve up my letter till my points are lost? Why this marked favouritism? Explain, if you can, why you are “making fish of one and flesh of another” • whether the barred “personalities” refer only to Dr. _ Billcliff, whilst Messrs Wells, Gallagher and Oakley may still, be sniped at; and what phase of the eontrovery is now banned?

I realise that the publication of all or part of letters is entirely a matter of editorial discretion and would not write thus if you had not given J. C. Thomas carte blanche on .Tuesday. Would it not he : - possible to delete or even moderate words if you think them too strong, rather than destroy the whole sequence, by cutting out sentences and paragraphs? An answer to the above questions would be greatly appreciated by FT AT LUX. [This letter is dealt with in the editorial to-day.—Ed. Gdn.]