INCORRECT REPORT

Grey River Argus, 19 March 1941, Page 8

INCORRECT REPORT

Mr Frank MiHer BACKS DOWN OVER BOOK DUNEDIN, March 15 In a further statement with reference to his condemnation of certain passages in the book “Contemporary New Zealand,” and his criticism Of 1 Mr Downie Stewart in his capacity as president of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs for having passed these passages, Mr Frank Milner, says:— “Perhaps as the target of so many vocabularic attentions I may be allowed a further word of explanation. My only regret is that Mr Downfe Stewart should apparently have been put by myself in the dock. Let me say emphatically that my address to the public contained not a single word of disparagement of this gentleman, whom I have always held in the highest esteem, and to whom I personally owe very much in the sphere of international affairs. His name was mentioned as president of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs merely to show its status and prestige. Any other inference drawn from his mention was certainly not i intended by myself. I “After the address, in response to the inquiries of a reporter. I mentioned that the passages in “Contemporary New Zealand” to which I took exception had got past the president’s opposition through the insertion of a final qualifying paragraph. I certainly expressed in this private conversation my astonishment that these passages had evaded the presidential barrage. As Mr Stewart had most courteously consulted me as to their eligibility, I must, as he says, share the blame. But the Press Association wire was, of course, for him exacerbated by the agent’s utilisation of a criticism that was definitely not made in public. The mere fact that the objectionable statements In “Contemporary New Zealand” were held up by the president for months must surely show in view of the ultimate triumph of their author, the strength of the Leftist sentiment in this organisation. Another proof Is the recent. rejection of Mr Downie Stewart as president in favour of Mr W. E. Barnard.

“As for Dr Findlay's protest let me say that, like him, I thought that his characterisation of New Zealanders as feeble-minded victims of illusory British loyalties (a criticism loudly acclaimed in certain university quarters) was buried in Its coffin, in wit, the Socialist paper “To-morrow” when is was consigned to oblivion by Government veto on its sedition. The revival by Dr Sutch of Dr Findlay’s structures as a brilliant and penetrating valuation of our crepuscular life in the current issue of the official journal of New Zealand primary teachers gives me the opportunity of saying that many of use are not satisfied that our university education is free, even in the hour of the Empire’s peril,, from the vitiation of Empire citizenship. This sort of subversive thing goes on more by Implication than by direct teaching, more by sneers than by explicit facts, and may in our training colleges pollute the very font of education. The object of this tendentious teaching is to promote republicanism and economic anarchy by depreciating Britain and Imperial unity. “I was told recently by two New

Zealand Rhodes scholars that they and their New Zealand confreres held a session at Oxford on ‘How to Socialise New Zealand in the minimum time.’ They also told me that it was their considered opinion that New Zealand could function better and more safely as a republic outside the Empire than as the present-day exploited victim of British capital. ' “Knowing what I do of certain ‘Bolshie’ utterances by New Zealand delegates at the last Empire Relations Conference at Sydney, I shall continue to protest most emphatically against any depreciation of our Empire connexion in the interests of camouflaged doctrines of republicanism, self-sufficiency, and Socialism. The truth of the matter is that Britain, because she is the stronghold of individualism and private enterprise, is malinged by a pert, disgruntled, and synical university set whose appropriate environment is Eire, if not Russia. Hine illae lac-rimae.’’

Pointed Replies TO MR MILNER MR DOWNIE STEWART'S ATTACK. DUNEDIN. M.rch 13. “Like most orators. Mr Mi’a r is sometimes led astray by th? vociferous violence of his own verbosity. ’ was the comment of the Hon. W. Downie Stewart on the criticism expressed by Mr Frank Milner in a public address at Oamaru on Tuesday evening. “When that happens his memory fails him before his imagination.” Mr Downie Stewart was referring to Mr Milner’s condcmnatiin of passages in the book, “Contemporary New Zealand,” which was compiled for the 1938 conference on British Commonwealth Relations. Mr Milner expressed astonishment that M'r Downie Stewart had passed some of the statements in the book and criticised sternly passages from an article by Professor J. N. Findlay, professor of philosophy at the University of Otago. “Mr Milne r says he is astonished that* I passed certain statements in the book,” Mr Downie Stewart remarked. “He forgets to state that. I was the first to draw his attention to the passages complained of. While the book was still in manuscript, I consulted him as to the chances of getting these passages amended by the editorial committee in Wellington. If I remember correctly 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 connexion, saying: ‘We are British, and proud of it. In the existence of our common and co-ordinated political system we see the chief guarantee of world peace. To depart from it is to go forth |o seek destruction, but even were it not so. the absolute value of the connexion .remains.’

“While divided in opinion, the editorial committee insisted on the chapter.being retained,” Mr Downie Stewart continued, “since the book made it clear that each contributor was expressing his own views. The rest of the book was an admirable survey of New Zealand affairs. After months of correspondence, I,he Dunedin group of the Institute 1 of International Affairs failed to persuade the editorial committee to cut' out the passages objected to. It was then faced with the. fact that unless At gave way all the other Dominions \ would produce

their handbooks at the Sydney conference, while the New Zealand delegates would come empty handed “Mr Milner quotes Dr. Sutch as wishing- to ‘cut the painter from Britain’,” Mr Downie Stewart continued. “For all I know, Dr Sutch may do so; but it is not disingenuous of Mr Milner to imply that he does so in ths 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 South Africans, who are fighting so bravely that General Wavell has given them unstinted praise?” ,