CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 105, 6 May 1931, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

THE BUSINESS MEN'S LETTER

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The column headed "Facing the Facts" in your issue of this evening calls for comment. It refers to "the original memorandum presented to Mr; Forbes and Mr. Cbates urging the formation of a National Government." Then follows a further statement by some unnamed persons who claim to have been amongst the signatories of the original memorandum. One is left to guess how manyior how few—of the signatories of the original memorandum endorsed this further statement, or had even been made acquainted with the fact that it was to be issued. It must be remembered that the original request was for one of- three things; but the proposal actually" made by Mr. lorbes—for the formation of an entirely new part};—was not in line with the request contained in the original memorandum. I have reason to believe that a largo number of those who signed that original petition would therefore strongly dissent from this further statement now issued by one or two of their number With regard to the original petition 'or letter itselt, although this was published and featured" by "The Post," we remember that the list of signatories was not published. So far as the public are concerned, the document was'anonymous That is rather a pity. The public would probably have been pleased to learn who were the persons, and what were the interests behind the movement. There were, of course, some good Reformers amongst those who signed, men who at the moment were persuaded that the course suggested would be in the best interests of the Dominion—and several of whom, on reflection, have since changed their opinion. But the public might be much interested to learn who were the prime movers and the active canvassers in getting siguatures for the document, and how many of these were closely associated with the inner circles of the United Party. You know, Sir, and I know (my information having been given by some of the signatories themselves). But could not we let the public also into the joke?■ ' . . ' Of course, if the petition *br letter had been of a private nature, one could not no;v have raised these points. But it was publisher! in the Press. Even though published, if it had appeared in the ordinary way over a noni deplume, to be considered simply on its own merits without reference to authorship, still one would have raised no objection. But when it was impressed upon the public that the weight of the document depended upon the weight of the names - (unnamed) behind it. then oiie is entitled to ask that ;the whole of the story should be told. A very interesting story it is.—l am, etc.,A. E. MANDER. sth May.