THE INDUSTRIAL "REVUE."

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19138, 22 October 1927, Page 13

THE INDUSTRIAL "REVUE."

TO TH» IDITOB Of THI T&SSS. , Sir, —I havo no desire to become involved in newspaper controversy, but as your footnote to a letter ill your correspondence columns this morning seems to fasten upon me a responsibility as to fairness And accuracy of part of your report concerning Mr Daly's reVue, 1 am obliged, in lairness to Mr Daly, to say that 1 did not characterise any portion of his script as not lit for presentation to school children. 11l reporting upon tho document, I stated clearly" that a lot of it was to be re-written ami that I had advised Mr Daly that, in my opinion, some portions" of it were not suitable for presentation before audiences of school children. My letter to Mr Daly, which was written a week ago, was to tho effect that- 1 did not think that parents or teachers would appreciate the language of the play, ami as it is to bo performed before- tho pupils of many schools in the vountry, I suggested his re-writing some of it. There was certainly no suggestion that ;the review was in any respect Unmoral. The report appearing in your paper has the. flavour of holding Mr Daly and the Association up to ridicule in res;>ect of his suggestion, but possibly that was because his letter read at the meeting attacked the ..Editor of Tun Press, and it was oh that account that your reporter was given some license to refer to matters which were moro or less in committee* as is evidenced by the absence of report of sucili matters in both,the other papm, The t'nKSs has a curious bias against manufacturing industries, which is difficult to understand in a paper which has a high reputation and an Editor who has had the advantage of a University education, which should mean a wide outlook, and who is in other walks of life not so prejudiced, and a pleasant fellow withal.

The general attitude of your paper towards seebridhry industries is certainly not helpful to the manufacturer, nor is it helpful to The Pews as the commercial side of the paper suffers therefrom, nor is it helpful to the ordinary reader, who would bo compelled to infer that the manufacturer is always asking for. sbthethirtg excessive;, which he is llofc, or that the country co\ild pet along qUite well without manufacturing industries, which it WUld hot.

Personally I am sorry that Thk PitEßs should, ho antagpnistici Hut I watit to be quite fair to Mr Daly, and place him in a better light than dbes your report with its special headlines for effect.—Yours, etc.. DENTS HOARB. Oliristchiirch, October 2lst. P.S. —If the above is accepted, I hopo. it mtty be published in full.

[Our readers will recognise that we should not print this deplorable letter if the circumstances did not oblige us to do so. The material point, is the correctness of our report of the comment of our correspondent, the secretary bf tli6 Association, upon Mr Daly's ''reVUe." He was reported as saying of this production that "there were some portions not fit for presentation to school children." His denial of this is immediately followed by the' statement tliat he advised the ailthor that, in his opinion, "sdhle portibns of it were not suitable for presentation before audiences of school children" ! This is altogether beyond Us. The suggestion that the discussion was "inbre or less Mn committee' " must bo reprobated. D'iscussidris eitlief are "in cbhimittce" or they are" not. this drie Was not. the incidental impertinences in our correspondent's letter may bo left to the judgment of cur readers and to the censure of our correspondent himself when lie Sees them ih print.—Ed., Ths PItESS.]