CORRESPONDENCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1776, 15 January 1918, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

(To the Editor). Sir. —In your issue of Saturday last I noticed a letter signed “Willing” in connection with a local appeal case. Well, my object in endosing that letter is to draw public attention to what I term the deliberate misuse of the term “public interest.” If there was a vestige of “public interest,” why did his employers not appeal for him. If they had no interest in appealing for him, then where does the public interest come inf is one of those appeals which is rousing public anger about the judgments of the appeal court. Writing as one who knows the duties from A to Z, I am open to do the work, or pick others to do it, in 24 hours. A junior clerk can do all the clerical work necessary, There is another aspect in this appeal which to my mind is misleading in regard to the junior clerk who is leaving. Did the appellant want the court to think the junior was going to the front —a physical impossibility. Another aspect of the. appeal: “The only son.” I can name others locally who have given their only sons, yes, sons who had to leave wives and children behind. Did they cry “Public interest” and “Only son.” Yet these are the very men the country wants, who are filling the gaps made in the population by the war. In conclusion, I would ask that, when an appeal such as the above is heard, why not evidence be called by the court from those who are thoroughly acquainted with the different industries, to satisfy the public that their interest is at stake (not national existence), instead of arousing such biller feelings as is manifested locally. Thanking yon, Mr Editor, I am, etc., ONE OF THE PUBLIC.

[WE have deemed it necessary to delete a. large portion of the a - hove letter. —Ed.H.]