CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXVIII, Issue LXXVIII, 14 June 1919, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE BOLSHEVIK MENACE,

(To the Editor .)

Sir, —With your indulgence I appear before the curtain for one brief minute to comment on P. J. Power's last let_ ter. Hi« pertinacity i s worthy of a 'better cause. His inconsistency reminds us of the individual who sang in "a whole bunch of keys." The firat quality impresses one forcefully with those lines in Tennyson's poem "The Brook"—

"For men may come and men may go, But I go on for ever."

An anecdote relating to Sir F. E. Smith, the new Lord Chancellor in England, aptly illustrates your correspondent's position in this controversy. In one of the former's early cases he was opposed by a lawyer who spoke for six hours in his concluding address. Tien Sir Frederick rose. Looking at the judge and jury, he smiled slightly and said: "Your Honor, I will follow the example of my learned friend who has just concluded and submit the case without argument." Good old uLaw and Order" will be well backed by the publicy a unit being— "63."

(To the Editor,);

Sir, — As. I have become a "bone of contention" between "63" and Dean Power, I desire to state that I entered the lists not in support of "63's" views, but in defence of Mr Lloyd George.

Although I took an independent line, Deam Power devoted to "63" the whole closing paragraph of a reply addressed to me. And he finally declared that "63." and I had fallen out. Such attempts to firs* unite, and then anr tagonise two- independent writers, are unworthy of a- Dean. I have proved that no similarity exists between the remedies proposed By "63" and those applied by Mr Lloyd George. On this issue "6S"r declares there is no difference between he and I. In any case, the Dean built up his indictment of Mr Lloyd George on an asserted similarity. That was his only justification for a long and bitter attack on Mr Lloyd George, introduced under cover of a reply to "63." He had neither the grace- tfo prove his assertion nor withdraw it.

"63" is correct in his surmise that I "dropped out through feelings of contempt for my opponent's tactics." I deny having employed "abuse," though I regret the use of the word "notorious,"--which I withdraw.

When Dean Power chr Hordes allcomers to "controvert3" his "facts and' arguments," he has no right to insult his challenger for withholding* his name. I gave you, Sir, at the outset an honorable reason for withholding my name, but if tlie Dean desires to; know it, I will readily gratify him. I deeply deplore the need for personalities when I only wished to have the real facts recognised, and an injustice' to an eminent statesman rectified.

Controversy on a high plane becomes difficult when an opponent consistently evades the points at issue, quotes unfairly, and indulges in controversial trickery, while posing as the exponent of a lofty morality far beyond that attained either by "63,"' Mr Lloyd' George, or even A LLOYD GEORGEITE.