MR DAVID LOW

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21975, 9 June 1933, Page 16

MR DAVID LOW

CRITICISM OF HIS CARTOONS REFERENCE TO MOSCOW TRIAL. (From Oue Own Correspondent.) LONDON,-April 20. Mr David Low, the New Zealand cartoonist, who has produced many excellent: cartoons for the Evening Standard during the last few years, is now being severely criticised by . readers of that journal. • : /• On April 18 he published a cartoon dealing with the trial of the Metro-politan-Vickere engineers in Moscow. On the picture is quoted a statement from a British correspondent in Moscow, who wrote: — ‘ The lack of positive quality ... of the defence came as a shock. . . . If the British Government had devoted to the direction and co-ordination of the defence a tenth part of the thought and energy employed in framing an anti-Russian embargo, the result might

have been happier for the prisoners. The picture beneath shows the. Foreign Secretary in legal gown driving a steam roller in front of the Moscow Courthouse. On the front of the roller is the word “Embargo.” Following the roller are drummers. On one of the drums are the words: “Chronic Rnssia-Haters’ Band,” and above the band are the words: “ Meaningless Noise.” The title of the cartoon i s “ Counsel for the Defence.”

Regarding this particular cartoon , the Rev. Ernest H. Gallop, of Ongar, writes: Mr Low’s cartoon “ Counsel for the Defence,” in your issue of April 18, bears no relation to facts. The three best attested facts in the Moscow frame-up are these:

(1) Not even H.M. Ambassador was permitted to make any kind of reference to the accusations against the six British subjects or to discuss the matter in any way when visiting them in prison. (2) No efficient legal aid was iallowed to these isolated victims in the preparation of a concerted defence. (3) The Soviet counsel for the defence knew well enough that if they presumed to expose facts o r use arguments in any way detrimental to , the prosecution they would be “ for it ” as certainly as some of their predecessors in previous trials. Under such circumstances what "direction and co-ordination ” of the defence is possible to Mr Low, or anyone else? Lieiit.-colonel K. B. Barnett, of Oakwood, Beaconsfield, also protests against the cartoon. “It is unjust, untrue, and not warranted by any political leanings of your paper,” he says, "and is certainly not humorous. I hope you may receive many similar protests. It is positively disgraceful.” VULGAR ATROCITIES. An earlier letter from Mr E. S. New, M.1.E.E., of Grosvenor Gardens, London, offers a general condemnation of Mr Low’s work. This writer says:— . I wonder how long it will be before you realise that your cartoons are an offence to your readers. I have asked about 100 of my acquaintances what they think of them, and they all, without exception, agree with me that they can be most aptly described as being •' vulgar, without being funny,”’ and that in design and subject matter they are a poor imitation of those seen in a second-rate Continental paper, but without the crude humour of the latter. The only thing about them which really rings true is the very suitable signature to them, “Low.” V What a pity it is that the man who can draw when he takes the trouble should perpetrate such vulgar atrocities. „ . . You can easily get confirmation of this opinion by an appeal to your readers if you wish to do so. The best possible tribute to your paper is that in spite of these eyesores we still read it as the best otherwise. I can only hope that you will have the courage to nublish this letter. “The Worm Has Turned.”