REPLY TO HON. W. H. TRIGGS

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 52, 10 September 1928, Page 10

REPLY TO HON. W. H. TRIGGS

(To the Editor.) Sir,—ln the Hon. \V. H. Triggs'a article in "The Evening Post" he clearly indicates his inability to answer seven of the nine questions we submitted to him. It these questions cannot be answered by the chief apologist for the Bill, is it not a fair inference that they are. unanswerable.' These seven questions were of such tundamental importance that inability to answer them proves the unsoundness of the Bill. Mr. Triggs attempted to answer two questions. Regarding question three he maintains there is nothing in the Bill which could make possible the registration of normal persons adjudged "carriers" of mental de-. feet. If so, the Bill on its promoter's own showing fails completely as a piece of machinery for eradicating mental defect. On this head Dr. Gray is explicit in his report. He says "it is established beyond doubt that the progeny from a defective person or "carrier" mated with a normal person will include a certain proportion of bad stock. . . . -Many of the normal parents are 'carriers,' and the stock should be eradicated." Thus the Bill is calculated to have every harmful effect we have attributed to it without doing what it pretends to do. In reply to question five Mr. Triggs refers to the alleged shiftless immigrants of the early 'seventies. The late Dr. MacGregor's opinion, which he quotes, was, however, merely a prophecy as to the probable character of their descendants. Instead of quoting as lie does from the prophecies of Dr. MacGregor, Mr. Triggs ought to have cited some evidence that these prophecies have been fulfilled. Evidently he cannot do so. So far as Sir Robert Stout's statement is concerned it merely shows that sometimes poor children have poor parents. What has this to do with the Bill?? We note that Mr. Triggs for reasons best known to himself has seen fit to ignore the many constructive suggestions which have been made by Auckland critics of the Bill. We deeply deplore his personal attack upon Professor Fitt if only for the reason that ProfeEjqr Fitt does not in any sense stand alone in his opposition to the Bill. He has co-operated from the beginning with a large number of people with various interests and occupations. The imminent danger to personal liberty entailed in the Bill is surely sufficient reason for united opposition to it.—We are, etc., H. K. Archibald, M.A., headmaster, King's College, Auckland; A. Beasley, president Assistant Master Association; G. Gordon Bell, M.A., vicar of St. Sepulchre's; C. W. Boswell, M.A.; (Mrs.) Jean Boswell; Thomas Bloodworth; Marguerite W. Crookes, M.A., lecturer on botany,. W.E.A.; A. ICenner, welfare worker; W. 0. Lamb; Edna Graham Macky; (Mrs.) Victor Macky; Agnes Mackay; M. H. Moon; (Mrs.) S. W. Moore; R. MacGregor, lecturer in zoology, Auckland University College; H. Kanstau, M.A., Litt.D., Methodist •.training College; (Mrs.) F. M. Rainger.