“NOT UNDERSTOOD”

Hokitika Guardian, 2 May 1932, Page 2

“NOT UNDERSTOOD”

(Otago Daily Times.) It is complained by Mr J. O’Brien, M.P., in a letter which we published this morning, that in a comment on the disclaimer which lie and M-r Barnard, M.P., felt constrained to make in respect of a published report of their speeches in Wairarapa. on a recent Sunday, w e have cast doubts on the integrity of his Labour colleague and himself. We have, it- is claimed, been setting rt> a main of straw for the purpose of knocking him down. It sounds like a pleasan* pastime. But Mr O’Brien will not admit that he even momentarily lest his balance. He dislikes our suggestion that it is safer to rely on the reported notes of a speech than op what a speaker says is his recoil ctioii of his utterance. He points to reports of “our meetings” in certain newspapers which he and his colleague considered “reasonable.” this pi;esum ablv meaning that they contained nothing that the two members wished to disavow. But he would hardly suggest that., as conclusive proof that a particular report is erroneous, mere variance in reports—the presence- in one of something that does not appear in another—is entirely satisfying. Sometimes speakers do sav surprising \things of the utterance of which they have apparently ho recollection afterwards.

As. Mr O’Brien insists, however, on having been niisreported, we are left with the mystery of how it came about that he and Mr Barnard were so singularly misunderstood. Public men are naturally vexed when that happens, and their desire to rectify erroneous impressions is laudable Mr O’Brien returns to another matter We had the temerity to observe that it would he of general interest if he would furnish some enlightenment a« to the occasion of the default alleged hv him. on the part of tho Britis'i Government in respect o r ' interest pay ments. His attempt to provide tin's enlightenment is of such a kind as may bewilder our readers. He invites a re-, trospective glance at a. cabled message of December 16, 1930. That will he found to contain reference to the payment by Great Britain of fifty-four million dollars to the United States under the funded debt agreement twenty-eight millions representing the repayment of principal and the balance payment of interest. How such, a transaction affords illustration of default in payment must really puzz’o everybody except Mi O.’Brien himsrlf It is rather tantalising on his part to keep his secret knowledge of these matters to himself, with, perhaps; the. connivance of the United States. Mr O’Brien is confident again that we will find ; food for thought in the cabled message published on April 21, meaning presumably that in which Senator Borah was reported to have been upset over an omission in the British Budget to make specific provision for war debt payments this year, -But wh v so much eagerness on Mr O’DrienN part to take his cue from Mr Borah and to share his alarm? Later cable messages should have reassured the member for Westland, even as they reassured Mr Borah’s colleague, Senator Reed, an<l moved him to say: “That is fair enough.” Officially the United States, was not outwardly perturbed. A message from “Washington recorded that official circles there received with satisfaction the announcement, that the omission of debt payments from the British Budget did not constitute a declaration of policy. The Lausanne Conference on war debts and reparations is due to take place in June In a. responsible quarter the opinion has been expressed that, after that, Great Britain will either make additions. to her Burgeti to meet in full the payments to the United States or seekreadjustment of her debt if the repara, fiions due to her are curtailed or eliminated. Apparently Mr O’Brien has never heard of such things as supplementary budgets and supplementary estimates. But his effort- to get Mr Baldwin into the same boat with Mr aLng, whose policy seems to commend itself to him, is simply amusing.