SAWMILL V. NATIVE FOREST

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 125, 28 May 1937, Page 8

SAWMILL V. NATIVE FOREST

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The very great importance of the'part which will be taken by our native forests, in the future prosperity of the Dominion, has of late received much prominence. It is; an admitted fact that if we do not retain the remnant left to us, then New Zealand is doomed to a depression from which there will be little chance of recovery. Indeed, some that are well qualified to' express' an opinion, question, and consider it niay be, even too' late now to remedy the harm done by the wholesale destruction of the forest by the pakeha. • . ' , The present Government has earned the heartfelt thanks of all lovers of our country, in its expressed determination to put into practice "Hands off our native forests," and New Zealand feels that it will stand firm, when no doubt strong political action will be brought to challenge its good intentions. The agitation, recorded in your issue of yesterday, coming from ' the saw-milling interests on the West, Coast of the South Island, to fight the Government policy is alarming. One can sympathise with the men, in having their livelihood interfered with, and New Zealand must provide other channels for these men in some othef industry or work. Their present wants cannot be allowed to weigh against the wholo future prosperity of our little Dominion which, will one day surely be the Britain of the South, provided we retain the remaining native forest. If we do not, then good-bye to all such dreams of pakeha and Maori alike. I sincerely hope, Sir, that should it be necessary, then all associations, institutions, and clubs of many diverse interests, but all having a love of their country will spring into collective action and stand four square behind the Government and resist in every way the efforts of any interest that would harm our beautiful and valuable forests—the very life blood of our productive lands and all our future prosperity.—l am, etc., WIRIHANA. MR. SAVAGE !N LONDON (To the Editor.) Sir, —I desire to thank you for the publicity given to the points raised by me respecting your captions appearing in your issue of the 24th instant regardIng the above matter. I had no intention of making a misleading case, or misrepresenting you in any way. My point was—and is—that "The Post" superimposed direct statements in captions on a message which was based on .supposition. (1) I pointed out that Mr. Savage's views were not quoted; (2) that there was no indication of what line he had taken; (3) that there is nothing in the, cable message to indicate that Mr. Suvagc was "coi-rcclcd

by fellow delegates." In your reply to these points, you say: (1) What are "believed" to be Mr. Savage's views are quoted; (2) the line he is "believed" to have taken is indicated; (3) his attitude necessitated "some delegates, more experienced in European affair? having to explain that the position is not so simple as 'some' imagine." In regard to your first two replies: How can you assume that Mr. Savage said something, or what were reported as his views were actually his, when you base your captions on what someone "believed" he had said? How can you, in your third reply, make the ambiguous plural "some" apply .to Mr. Savage? . ' ' ■ M%y I quote your captions again, as follows: —"European Affairs," "Mr.'Sav T age's Views," "Strong Line Taken," "Not Quite So Simple." "Corrected by Fellow Delegates." Now, with these captions before you, Sir, will you tell your readers and me: —(i) What were Mr. Savage's "views" as outlined in the. cable messaga: (2) what "line" did he. really take-1 (3) was he "corrected by fellow delegates"? . ■ ■ ',' : (1) If you can indicate anything in the cable message which justified your attributing a direct statement to Mr. Savage, or (2) point out where the cable message indicated >that.; Mr. Savage had been "corrected by his fellow delegates," I will be satisfied, if you cannot give such indication, I am prepared *to leave it to.. your good judgment as to the best action for "The Post" to; adopt.—l am, etc., P. M. BUTLER. [In his first letter Mr. Butler stated that the captions "had no bearing on the cable message itself and that the captions give an entirely wrong conception of the. cable message." He supported this by omitting from his quotation of the message the vital part: "His , (Mr. Savage's) attitude necessitating some delegates more experienced in European affairs having to explain that the position is not quite so simple as some imagine." When this misrepresentation by omission is exposed, Mr. Butler shifts his ground to a quibble regarding the meaning of "some" and the indirect nature of the report. This quibble is fully answered by our previous statement that the captions were to be read with the following cable, not divorced from it Such a quibble should certainly not be raised by a critic whose controversial : methods permit him to make* a charge and omit from his quotation the very sentence that answer it.—Ed.]