MR SEYMOUR AND MYSELF.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18344, 2 June 1931, Page 9

MR SEYMOUR AND MYSELF.

AV/ L 1 i y U iLUI a j Sir, —Although I refused to continue any controversy with Mr Seymour, I think I may, he allowed to remind your readers what this correspondence was primarily associated with. Mr Seymour stated publicly “That he was an unrepentant, wholehearted believer in free trade in goods, labour and money; but free trade in goods was impossible without free trade in labour.” I replied, pointing out that there was never again likely to be free trade In labour, and if free trade in goods was impossible without free trade in * labour, then I suggested there seemed little to discuss on'the free trade question. Obviously, the onus r was on Mr Seymour to explain the error in my reasoning or admit that he had given wholehearted support to a theory of social organisation which, fortunately, very few persons are bold enough to advocate. He did neither, but played the old, old game of evading the point at issue, and endeavouring to cloud the issue by asking me a number of questions and, incidentally, making a few offensive remarks. To evade the point at issue and seek to make your opponent the culprit, and if possible make him angry, is, as I have said, a very old trick, but cannot be considered a very high form of intellectual honesty. I admit that he did make me angry, and I fear I replied to Mr Seymour in more vehement, terms than a sense of dignity warranted. At the same time, ho was the aggressor, and the whole blame of the controversy ending as it has done on Mr Seymour. His last letter is merely an extended form of endeavouirng to put the onus of evading the original point at issue on myself, and as such is not worth, serious notice. 1 am perfectly content to leave to your readers the decision as to who is the real culprit m dodging serious discussion of me primary statement of Mr Seymour, and there the matter rests. . With your permlsison, Sir, I will quote the latter part of Mr Seymour s last letter, as I think it is particularly Illuminating as to Mr Seymour s conception of controversy. He says: “A man who cannot state his case accurately or logically is much safer on the platform, where by confining himself to the ‘broader issue which Mr Sykes mentions, he is relatively free from the carping critics who insist that he should stand up to the letter of what he puts in writing. Into the Agapemone of true believers to which Mr Sykes now retires 1 do not wish to follow him, hut if h makes admission, by ticket only, and imposes a ban on rude questions, he will And himself at home in _ the atmosphere of the true protectionist. I thought this a particularly choice bit of rodomontade, plus an amazing conception of what Mr Seymour obviously deems permissible in any controversy. “Carping critics and “rude questions” have never aPPeale t'to meo asihonestthl /‘Uept or iikcly t 0 add .anything- of value to the discus sion of any subject. Obviously Mr Seymour thinks otherwise, else why mention them in whit I feel sure most of your readers will conclude was a rather lengthy and perfectly needless attempt to indulge a cheap form °f sarcasm. And here I finish definitely with. Mr Seymour. Many persons have asked me when I Intended holding a public meeting to deal with the question of free trade and protection. I thought it unwise to do so until after the show; and, further, like hundreds of others, 1 have had a sovere cold for weeks. I hope within the next fortnight to come up to the scratch, but it had not occurred to me to “make admission by ticket," and I shall be ready to deal with any questions which may be relevant to the subject matter of my speech.-! am, etc, Hamilton, June i, 1931.