CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 May 1921, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

REPLY TO MR. H. W. BAXTER.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Before your correspondent starts to instruct anyone else there are one or two things that he ought to- learn. First of all he should learn,to be truthful. He should not refer to the "Wellington League” when he actually means the “New Zealand Welfare League.” That sort of weak attempt at misrepresentation does not enhance the reputation of the person who resorts to it. Further your correspondent might learn the difference between wit and assumed smartness. If brevity is the soul of wit, then Mr. Baxter J.s certainly much lacking in that direction when he requires to hug the poor joke about his patient for such a length of tiime. Your correspondent’s comment about English composition is a ratter empty quibble for the reason that he should know that, though for form's sake the latter is addressed to the Editor, the reply Is in realitj- io the correspondent who is being replied to, and there is no rule which would restrict a writer tc addressing the correspondent in the third person. Further, many of the best writers of English ignore the rules of pedantry altogether in favor of common sense principles of explicitness. The reasons, !.f Mr. Baxter wishes to know them, why the League publishes impersonally are, first, that Its writers are not seeding any personal advertisement, and secondly- that we have found that when the names of the president (Mr. Skerrett), and the secretary (Mr. Harper), have been published the result has been to draw attacks of tte coarsest personal abuse. Your correspondent is under an illusion if he thinks that his name tells who or what he is. Besides, we do not want to know as we are dealing Iwth his argument not his personality. It would amount to the saune thing were the names of the League’s writers given. Mr. Baxter should realise that in this correspondence we are not discussing persons, and, therefore, personal names have no bearing on the questions under discussion. For general information we may say that one of the objects of the League ia to Induce frank discussion of economic, social and political questions on the impersonal ground of the merits or demerits of the views presented. We wish to lead the public mind away from the bad habit we are all more or less addicted to of judging not on the evidence but on our bias regarding the persons who present it. When your correspondent, in his heavy attempt at humor, suggests that we have used invectives against the Labor Unions he is entirely misrepresenting the League. We challenge him to produce one single quotation in which the Welfare League has used any invective against a Labor Union or Unions. It is quite true that we have criticised the policies of both Labor Unions •id Employers’ Associations, and have opposed any policy that appeared to us to be wrong. How, otkerwlse, can there be any free criticism? Surely , your correspondent does not suggest that Labor Unions should be above all criticism. That, In our opinion, would he the worst that could happen as far as the Unions are concerned. No rational minded Labor man would support such an idea. By a little more reasoning it may be found that Mr. Baxter and the League are not so far apart in Ideas as it might as first be thought.—l am etc.,

G. R. WEIR. Hon. Sec., New Plymouth Branch of the New Zealand Welfare League.