THE DOUGLAS PLAN

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21133, 7 April 1934, Page 9

THE DOUGLAS PLAN

tu the n,iTua or rnt miss. Sir,—l must sincerely thank the general secretary of the New Zealand Bank Officers' Guild for providing me with the exact wording of the cables sent and received about me attitude of the English Bank Officers' Guild; also the actual correspondence which passed between Major Douglas and himself on the same subject. After reading once more my own letters ana most carefully the two replies received from your v/ellington correspondent, I must really confess to a feeling that in his case the f mountain has been in travail and has brought forth a mouse. If the sccre- J. tarv of the guild is really attempting ( a replv to mv letter he is unfortunate g in replying to something I never said. ~ If he is merely being tempted to take . advantage of my letters as providing r a further opportunity to undermine f the growing faith any of your reaa- t crs may have in the Douglas theory c by discounting the Major's bona hdes, t he is of course, within his rights .o j do so: but if so, it is only right that your readers should be acquainted ; with the inten.ion. . } Your correspondent is labouring the ( point (which was never raised by ( me) that the English Bank Officers , Guild had not "publicly" supported the s Douglas scheme. That word "publicly { he tells us, was used by a Welling- ( ton supporter of Douglas: and, bear in ( mind, the cable to the English Gui d , ; was baldly worded: "Reported guild ! publicly supporting Douglas scheme, ] I cable r'cplv." The reply must obviously , !be interpreted in terms of the cabled ( ! question, without reading any more , into it than it actually warrants. The ( reply was: "Statement absolutely tin- , true." Now, in the tail end of your correspondent's last letter he suggests , by implication that I evidently belong to the class which draws much wider j deductions than are warranted by the facts. Might I now ask your correspondent carefully to compare the cabled "fact" received and his Deductions therefrom? The cable does not give the slightest hint whether the English guild is in sympathy with the Douglas scheme or not. It merely answers his plain brief query whether the guild is "publicly" supporting the Douglas scheme, and it states that the rumour is "absolutely untrue." Try anain! The comment by mail, following the cable from Home, throws not a glimmer of light more than the cable itself. On "the strength of the cable and the letter I am frankly prepared to accept the statement that the guild is not "publicly" supporting the Douglas scheme. It is evident from the letter from Major Douglas to your' correspondent that, the Major thinks the assumption of "public" support by the English guild would be, on the face of it, "ridiculous." a very strong word' that docs not merit either of the uncomplimentary adjectives, "side-stepping" and "unsatisfactory," used to describe ■ the Major's attitude when facing the issue. To tell the truth, this word ' "publicly" looks to me suspiciously like a "red herring" to draw readers' attention from the very probable fact 1 1 that a goodly majority of the English ■ guild's membership is quietly sympa- ' thetic towards the Douglas scheme. It • is extremely likely that Douglas knew ' the situation intimately before voicing 1 his impression of the guild's friendli- ' ness. But that the English secretary i ; or anv other officer of the guild would , be likely to put his head in the noose . by answering any letters or cables in - black and white implying support of J the Douglas scheme 1 hardly think < likely; nor would it be considerate to forward any such test. 3 The following resolution of the Eng- <, lish guild, passed at its annual con-

l'erence. is perhaps a straw showing which way the wind was blowing as far back as June. 1932, and it has had plenty of publicity since: "That this annual general meeting of the Bank Officers' Guild desires to direct the attention of the directors of British banks to the increasing body of opinion that the present system of currency and credit control is unsuited to modern requirements. It considers that unless drastic scientific reorganisation of that system is undertaken voluntarily by the banks, such a course is likely to be forced upon them by a public opinion and/or economic pressure. It is generally accepted as a fact that modern production, with the existing abundance of natural products, if properly organised, is capable of giving to our people a high standard of comfort, and the opinion is widespread that the present system of money and credit control is an obstacle in the way of a better distribution of commodities." That is not. of course, "public'' support of the Douglas scheme; but, I think, any average observer outside of the overheated warring factions would suspect that guild members, even so long ago, were hovering dangerously close to the Douglas camp. Anyway, the more facts ventilating the pros and cons the better, and this friendly correspondence should do no harm.—Yours, etc., ONLOOKER. April 6, 1934.