THE BRITISH CONNECTION

Evening Star, Issue 23833, 13 March 1941, Page 8

THE BRITISH CONNECTION

M MILNER'S STATEMENTS CRITICISED “ LED ASTRAY BY VOCIFEROUS VERBOSITY " EXPLANATION BY NON. DOWNIE STEWART “ Mr Milner, like most orators, is sometimes led astray by the vociferous violence of his own verbosity. When that happens, his memory fails him before bis imagination,” said the Hon. W. Downie Stewart, this morning, commenting on the statement made by Mr Frank Milner at a meeting in Oamaru on Tuesday night. . , , , t T “Ho says he is astonished that X passed certain statements in a-book entitled ‘ Contemporary New Zealand.’ Ho forgets to statetbat I was the first to draw his attention to tho passages complained of while tho book was still in manuscript. 1 consulted him as to tho chances of getting these passages amended by tho Editorial Committee in Wellington. If I remember aright, it was Mr Milner who pointed out that in spite of these passages the author saved himself from censure by ending his chapter in words of high praise for the value of the British connection, saying: ‘We are British and proud of it . T . in the existence of our common and co-ordinated political system wo see a chief guarantee of world peace; to depart from it is to go forth to seek destruction. But even were it not so, the absolute value of the connection remains.’ ” The ' Editorial Committee, said Mr Stewart, while divided in opinion, insisted on the chapter being retained, as tho book made clear that each contributor was expressing his own views. Tho rest of the book was an admirable survey of New Zealand affairs. After months of correspondence the Dunedin group of the Institute of International Affairs failed to persuade the Editorial 'Committee to cut out the passages objected to. They were then faced with the fact that unless they gave way all the other dominions would produce their handbooks at tho Sydney conference, but New Zealand delegates would come empty handed. “ Mr Milner quotes Dr Sutch as wishing to cut tho painter from Britain,” Mr Stewart continued. “ For all I know Dr Sutch may do so, but is it not disingenuous of Mr Milner to imply that he does so in this book?

“ Finally, why did not Mr Milner disavow the passages complained of at the Sydney conference, where I think he spoke only once. Anyway, it seems belated to raise his voice three years after the incident occurred.

“ Mr Milner says that Dr Findlay was imported from South Africa. Is this meant to imply some inferiority on the part of the South Africans who are fighting go bravely that General Waved has given them unstinted praise? There is an old saying that a man should be judged by his actions rather than his words, and I notice that Dr Findlay has just cpmpleted a strenuous period of training in a Territorial camp.” PEACE-TIME REMARKS PROFESSOR FINDLAY DEFENDS WRITINGS Professor J. N. Findlay, professor of philosophy at the Otago University, also took Mr Milner to task when asked if ho had any statement to make. “ Mr Milner, in an exceedingly unmannerly outburst, has chosen to attack me for being the author of a passage quoted by Dr Beaglehole in ‘ Contemporary Now Zealand,’ a work with the writing of which 1 have been in no way concerned,” Professor Findlay declared. “ The passage in question is from an article written several years ago, which deals with the bad effects on the general mentality of New Zealanders of certain forms of spurious and exaggerated imperialism. The general view there developed, that our primary loyalty within the Commonwealth is to ourselves, and that our primary concern is with our own regional problems, is by no means original. Professor Condliffe, a New Zealander, formulated similar views'at least 10 years ago. _ . “In any other dominion such opinions would be commonplace; they would merely boro people in England. I can see nothing in them which is contrary to a belief in the profound value and necessity of intimate co-operation among the various members of the British Commonwealth, a co-operation which is certainly imperative now. Nor do 1 doubt that, at present, England is leading both the Empire and the world.” Professor Findlay said he did not, however, think it a proper occasion to discuss the contents of an article written several years ago in time of peace. He could only say that it seemed to him the expression of a legitimate and arguable opinion, to which ho still, in the main, adhered, and that some things which ho should not now say were perfectly proper things to say in that very different time. ~ , , , “ As regards Mr Milner’s charge ot impertinence,” he said, “ it appears to me that most Now Zealanders would regard me as, on the whole, a far less arrogant and impertinent person than Air Milner.”