THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18350, 14 September 1921, Page 2

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

TO THE EDITOB. Sie,—-My vvnlten draft of the letter published on the 6th inst. shows that the • lotu” was typed the 18th ult., as the date of Trolessor Henderson Pringle’s letter, but your printer is solely responsible lor altering the date 1033 to 1880 as that

of tho Convention of Berlin. iliese obvious misprints wnicn, arc after all of no consequence, are with his repeated assertion of being unacquainted oven with the name of Mr E. P. Hewitt, K.C., the smaii points upon which Professor Henderson Pringle basts big charges ot incorrigibility, sloppiness, inaccuracy, and muddle. This, however, is as nothing compared with the positively fraudulent —if intentional—use be makes of a quotation ot mine Horn Mr Aiiiscn Phillips, tor he omits ,tho vital word “Thenceforth” which changes the meaning of tiie sentence, and as if “never” were used instead of “not”: Thenceforth the Holy Alliance was not even the semblance of a universal union but franMy the league of three Monarchies for the defence of autocracy against revolution." Alter his triumphant parade of such a hall-truth, which amounts to something else, your corI respondent throws aside all pieience ot | argument or refutation with regard to my warnings against the perils 01, and the parallels between, the Holy Alliance and the League of Nations. He must surely have seen that my statements and quotations are unanswerable, for, while still continuing to babble about “criticism of my plausible historical inaccuracies,” he now merely , adopts tho method of the shuffler. The Holy Alliance was as much a fact of history and was responsible for some of the same kind of work as another "Holy League” .between Rome, Spain, and i’Tonebmen over 200 years previously —a "Holy League’' that used as its chief weapon “The Holy Inquisition,” and was directly engaged in the bloody massacre on St. Bartholomew’s Day, 1572. The, “Holy Alliance” was, : in its day, quite as real as, or even more so,, than the present League of Nations. I cannot in your columns be drawn by Professor Henderson Pringle into combating th. books, etc., he quotes;.but, with regard to the Pope and ex-President Wilson will accept his assurance —lor all it is worth! Love of peace and hatred of war must not be allowed to blind us against daggers of leagues and covenants with other nations which do not share our social, political, and religious ideals. Perfervid appeals to emotion, prejudice, and untruths such as those in which Professor Pringle indulged at Bums Hall last month, out no ice. 'Heads j are not carried away so easily as hearts. I am now- prepared to recognise Professor Henderson Pringle rather as a platform orator than as a writer of fact and n critic of history, Personalities do not buttress even a weak case; they destroy Professor Pringle’s. The facts are plain that, whilst we all hate war and desire * peace, the League of Nations will not prevent the one or ensure the other. It is based on a : covenant so drawn that the enemies of the Empire (and they are many) may use the provisions for our prejudice and undoing. If the League of, Nations is such a marvellous creation., why is a Disarmament Conference hbedtid? Why, again, does President Harding, Mr Wilson’s successor, so mistrust. and ' repudiate the' league ?r ?. Professor Pringle has more on his hands than he appreciates when he undertakes to uphold a league horn of intriguers and mistrusted of leaders throughout the Empire. ; —I am, etc., HowanD Elliott, i Wellington, September 10.