Untitled

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume 4, 25 February 1916, Page 3

(to the editor.) Dear Sir,—As Mr Melling has now conceded practically every point I made with regard to the absurd stand taken by Industrial Compulsionists towards Military Compulsion in time of war, I suppose I am justified in concluding that so far as that controversy is concerned, the incident is closed. With regard to the new matter he introduces, I had almost decided not to notice it, as it does not in any way affect the original issue, but as it is likely to do harm to the superficial reader, it seems necessary to point out that evil happenings of a hundred years ago, or ten years ago, or last week, can in no way justify evil doing now. Mr Melling will admit, that anyone reading his two last letters would naturally come to the conclusion that he was attempting to justifiy, or at least excuse, the German atrocities, by some thing done by someone else years ago. I hardly think this can be Mi Mel ling’s intention, for one cannot conceive of any decent minded man, especially a married man with children, thinking about these atrocities but with the greatest abhorrence. Mr Melling is, I believe, an anti-militarist, but surely his desire for a peaceful world, will not make him willing to purchase peace at the price of the fearful brutalities which the Germans have inficted on Belgium men, women and children. Even in a peace loving world totally disarmed and untrained it would surely not be allowable for a party of hooligans to cross the border of a neighbouring country and to ill-use the inhabitants without restraint. If so, the peacoe would be of little value-.

It would seem that Mr Melling has / yet to learn that right should be done for righteousness sake, that in any case of doubt, one has to consider, not what the other fellow has done or will do, but what is right. I trust Mr Melling will make it quite clear that he does not wish to justify or excuse the Germans for their frightfulnessj and that he would at least take up arms to defend his own wife and children in case of invasion by these savages. Having done that, he will be able perhaps to explain why, with his great love for humanity, he is against another man, who is overwhelmed by the opposing force, being helped by those whose hearths and homes are not immediately threatened. I have tried to understand his position with regard to this matter but have failed and a little enlightenmen would be welcome.

Mr Melling speaks very harshly of the private owners of wealth, and charges them with being the cause of all ills. Does he wish us to believe, that,-if all wealth were owned by public bodies trade unions for instance —all competition would cease V Surely not. People who have ta ken notice of the actions of men who are advanced to positions of former unions, or are raised from ranks to positions in which it is their duty to direct or control the work of others, say that for real autocratics way and grinding oppression, they are the limit. Any workman will tell you this. This being so, would they, if

entrusted with tho control of great wealth, suddenly change their natures, and begin to administer in a spirit of love and tenderness ? I would like to be able to believe it, but can’t. The tail end of Mr Mellings’ letter contains what appears to be a compliment, but he let me down so badly over the last apparent compliment he paid me that I take it with a grain of salt. I admit it tickled my vanity for a moment, but reflection soon brought me to my senses. lam, etc. NOT ONE OF THE 34,000.