WANTED—INTELLIGENT CRITICISM

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 71, 20 September 1930, Page 8

WANTED—INTELLIGENT CRITICISM

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—After the devastating snub administered by.your correspondent, "The Public," in your to-night's issue, I hesitate again to expose myself to the malice of his pen. By dismissing my first letter as "beneath contempt," he has but adopted an old, worn, and flimsy refuge which will not avail him. I would point out to him, however, lest he be honestly blind to my purpose, that my first letter was a consciously facetious reply to a letter which admitted of and deserved no other treatment. Neither in his first letter nor in his latest attempt has he shown any knowledge of the subject he expounds so vigorously and so pointlessly._ I do not wish categorically to reply to the arguments in his latest effusion. I leave that pleasure to your correspondent who has been honoured with a reply. But let me at least catalogue his latest inconsistencies. He attacks the banks for curtailing the issue of 10s notes; then he says the banks are under no obligation to issue any notes at all. Next he suggests they issue gold to the value of £6,000,000, then throws doubt on the fact of their possessing so much gold. So ha gropeson in the dark created by his own unwillingness to verify his information. Now he places the draper, the cobbler, and others in the same category as the banks as public utilities, then denies the latter the common right to conduct all sections of their business on.a profitable basis. By some obscure process of reasoning he denies that an institution which first cares for the interests of its shareholders canals' be a public utility, and perform a social service. Then, in his own words, he "takes off tlio. gloves." We look for something that will silence the banks' defenders forever. What do we find? He merely tabulates

the paid-up capital and: the reserves of half a dozen banks. He does not consider it necessary to include the banking liabilities in his table. Does he understand the nature and purpose of banking reserves? In his concluding remarks he returns to the admonitory style of his first enjoyable letter and drops the amusing dignity so evident in the opening of his second. The banks are open to criticism, but let it be intelligent and informed criticism. The public are all too ready to listen to nny criticism of any quality with slight or no foundation provided it be levelled at moneyed institutions. But let the public not be misled and deceived into thoughtlessly condemning what are —despite your correspondent's wordy denials—great public utilities. Above all, once~more beware of political tinkering with the machinery of banking. In conclusion, may I make a kindly and "disinterested suggestion to your correspondent. I do not consider his pen name sufficiently distinctive and descriptive. May I humbly suggest "Polyphemus" as being both classical. and apt.—l am, etc., WATTA KNARK.