THE ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23857, 11 July 1939, Page 15

THE ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE

XO THE EDITOR Sir,—Cr Connolly seems concerned about only securing an eight-inch report of his speech on tramway matters at the recent council meeting. By the way, is there no provision in the council Standing Orders limiting speeches to 10 or 15 minutes on any one subject? But Cr Connolly is in good company, because Mr Adam Hamilton in his speech in the Address-in-Reply debate was also annoyed at the paucity of real political news in the GovernorGeneral's Speech. He was apparently concerned that the newspapers perforce had to print it all, including the 50 inches of Labour propaganda. But he had no right to be upset because of the report you gave him. Someone else could have been. Mr Hamilton spoke for one hour, Mr Savage for one hour and a-half, yet Mr Hamilton secured 66 inches of your valuable space, while Mr Savage got 38. Allowing that both are slow, deliberate speakers, I would say that Mr Savage should have got 9'e inches. That is, you cut out almost as much of his speech as' Mr Hamilton spoke altogether—surely a slight on the Prime Minister's first speech in this Parliament. I listened-in to both speeches, and both were in good fettle and humour. Also, both speeches had a lot of padding and claptrap, but all listeners-in will agree that as far as facts and figures go, Mr Savage delivered the greater proportion of these. It was this " pith " that was the political value of the speech, and yet, as anyone can see who read the paper, you omitted almost two-thirds of the speech. Were both speeches telegraphed after delivery, or was Mr Hamilton's forwarded to you the day before, as is the Governor-General's? There must be. some such simple explanation.—l am. etc. Why Smile? [The speeches were telegraphed from delivery. It should be noted that a considerable portion of the space given to Mr Hamilton was taken up by the lengthy Opposition amendment to the Address-in-Reply motion. —Ed. 0.D.T.l