THAT DEPUTATION.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17321, 6 December 1921, Page 9

THAT DEPUTATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir,—As yon have charged me with! "misquoting" the "Dominion," I trust you will insert this explanation, seeing that you have decided not to publish the whole account of the interview. In my letter of 2nd inst. I quoted the remainder-of the "Dominion's" report of the dialogue, and. you must remember, the first portion had appeared in two previous issues. I considered it was necessary, irt order to show the connexion, to add Mr Barber's nam® within brackets, showing tnat it was an addition. You may, technically,: oall this a misquotation, but I submit; that it was and not .a; material addition. This is apparent,: because the statement by Mr 0. -J- J Ward, yiz., "That this matter had not. been understood," could only refer toi the dinjogue, and to "Mr Barber. In 1 closing this correspondence, I trust you understand that the "misquotation j was not an intentional one, as such, ! but because the dialogue had appeared fa two J [We have several times published the ■tfhold of that portion of the "Dominion's' 1 report which waa under discussion. Our correspondent's explanation of. his misquotation ol; another part of the report we j readily accept. It was not only | "technically," but actually, a misquotation, but it is now plain that 'our correspondent merely intended to explain what, in his opinion, Mr Ward meant. It is unfortunate' that , the Protectionists need so much explaining by each other.—l Ed. "The Press."'!