THE “CHALLENGE” OF MR MASTERS

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19452, 17 December 1934, Page 11

THE “CHALLENGE” OF MR MASTERS

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Unfortunately 1 have not retained copies of Mr -Masters’ letter in which he issued his “challenge, which he says was “tolproye that our proposals were other than honest, clean straightforward law-abiding and constitutional. Quite a iormidable array of virtues —one might almost describe the programme as superethical. . Now although my memory is not ot the best, the grotesque silliness of,this challenge so impressed itself on. me that 1 clearly recollect, a part ol’.; It that Mr Masters omitted to mention. That part was that Mr'"Tid'd- and .Mr Gilbert were to be “the judges. ’ Now, however satisfactory the conclusions of these gentlemen might be on other issues, I am not (in the absence ol further evidence) able to accept .their,, judgment on lh6 question ,of eonstH tutional law, raised (quite unwittingly, of course) by Mr Masters. , But there were several other delicious features of this “challenge.” Mr .•'Masters evidently despairs of proving any positive virtue for his plan and has attempted to foist upon me the obligation of proving a negative 1 lie apparently knows nothing about any logical principle in the “onus of proof.” Further, lie has chosen for his criteria half a dozen of those woolly adjectives in which his appears to work and of which there is no touchstone by which a judge or anybody else can reach a decision. To prove that a proposal is “lawabiding” proves npthing, because the Douglas!tes merely make the law to lit the plan! And as to proving that the miserable fake is “clean”' —the only sense in Which the term is applicable Is “clean daft." However, if Mr Masters wishes to proceed lie.can,start out by defining his term's. When he is able to say precisely what each of these terms means lie will perhaps begin to understand to what a ridiculous proposition he appended his name. In any case, I do not propose to traverse afresh the muddled thinking and insincerity which distinguishes the advocates of Douglasism. I observe, however, that the advocates of Douglasism had the grace to drop overboard the A plus B theorem and the national dividend when they appeaued before the Currency Commission, When I reduced Mr Masters to silence I did not mean that I expected this silence to be permanent. I have neither the means nor the desire to prevent him from being rowdy. All I wanted or needed to show was that his contentions could not stand examination.—l am, etc., . DOUGLAS SEYMOUR. Hamilton, December 12, 1934.