CORRESPONDENCE.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 3 September 1910, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[Our correspondents' opinions aro their own; the responsibilitj of editorial ones makes sufficient halast for the editor's *>\r Iders.]

THE RECENT DERATE,

To tlio Editor,

Sir, -The so •tone.3 il your report of tI;o recent competitive debate between teams representing the Shannon audi Levin 'I.M.C.A. Societies runs thus:— "Levin did not have the opportunity to reply and in this they feci that Shannon lincl a considerable advantage."

In justice to the Shannon team wo would point out that Levin did not have the opportunity of speaking last, and deliberately refused it In accordance with'a system suggested by the Y.M.C.A. men themselves the following method was adopted:-(]) Levin challenged .Shannon, conferring 'upon the latter team the right of choosing the subject. (2) This being done, Levin was given the option of supporting that side of the question of which they most approved. (3) Levin deliberately chose to speak first, although they knew by so doing, the last speaker in the debate must necessarily be a Shannon man. However, a week before the debate, these doughty warders communicated with Shannon to this effect. They desired to make doubly sure of winning. They wished the wording of the question altered, They preferred to have all the advantages, accruing to what they considered the easier side, plus thb dJuhioius advantage, which lay in speaking hist.

Could anything be more disingenuous? Further comment on that point is unnecessary.

Hut we desire clearly to states another jx)int. •• A casual glance at your report of the. debate might tho impression that no opportunity was given Levin of remitting our arguments. Such an impression is quite incorrect. It suggests that tlie first member of the Shannon team spoke, only after the last, member ol the opposing loam h.*i:l_ concluded, his remarks. Such an impression, we repeat, is quite incoi rect. To two-thirds of the Levin team, tbe opportunity of replying was given, ns the memburs of the two teams spoke alternately. Obviously to the last Shannon speaker uo reply could be given, but this was compensated, by the fact that the first representative of the Y.M.C.A. team had nothing to reply to. He was thus able to devote all his energies to a purely constructive case, free from the trammels of destructive criticism. Then comes the last straw which breaks the camel's back, the straw which, at any rate, has overstrained, our patience: "Levin did not have an opportunity to reply ,and iii this they feel that Shannon had a considerable advantage." Is it small wonder sir, in the face if these facts that our estimation •if the sporting" qualities of our late opponents lias fallen dangormsly close to zero?—We are etc W. H. GUNNING. ' R, E. SICLBY. GKO. H. GIBB. Shannon, September 1. SUGGESTIONS TO CORRPiS. PONDENTS. The follmv'ng subjects aro suggostd to readers of The ChronieJo as ia.tte.rs upon which letters to tho ditor would bo opportune: — Progress and Settlement in the district. Educational Topics. Progress of Public Works, New Buildings, etc. Agricultural Operations. Horticultural and FloriculturaJ. Suggestions as to what Industries might profitably be undertaken in the district. Accidents and Offences. Sta,te of Bonds, Bridges, etc. Public Wants and Grievances.