BRITAIN'S WAR DERTS

New Zealand Listener, Volume 3, Issue 65, 20 September 1940, Page 24

BRITAIN'S WAR DERTS

Sir,-My delay in taking advantage of your permission for a concluding letter arises from the profusion of targets and the limited space you can allow me. I may first comment, however, on Mr.

Vaile’s vehement denial of using the term "robbers." "Never have I used or suggested this abusive term," he says. A letter dated May 19, 1940, and purporting to be signed by E. Earle Vaile, contains these words: "By the devaluation of the dollar, the United States robbed (sic) English investors." While I appreciate his anxiety to forget what he has said he should recognise that, until withdrawn, it can be legitimately used by his opponents. This leads me to the original attack of Mr. Vaile on the U.S.A.-now admitted by him to be "abusive." In my first letter I challenged the wisdom of this outburst, as well as the groundwork of facts on which it purported to be based. In pointing out that the United States had some rather serious comment to make in its defence, I claimed in particular to have evidence-which appeared to me "conclusive"’-that Britain made no real effort to hold to the gold stan-dard-that she had, in fact, "slumped off without a kick." I had facts to establish that statement, but Mr. Vaile did not call for the facts. Apparently they did not interest him. He immediately challenged my motives. He described me as "one of those whose pleasure it is to display their hatred of

England and do their utmost to besmirch her name and detract front her greatness." Now most people believe that Britain was "forced off." In challenging what to many well-intentioned but misinformed people amounts almost to an article of faith, I was of course aware that it is a simple matter for an opponent to transform an issue of fact into an emotional stampede for large numbers of people, whose reaction to such questions is one of coma in time of peace, and hysteria in time of war. I therefore wrote privately to Mr, Vaile (I enclose for your information copies of my letter and of his reply), and may here quote a relevant paragraph: "I do not wish to hamper you in your choice of weapons. If you find it desirable to refer to your opponents as you have done, I do not feel embarrassed in meeting you, but the only effect is to give the controversy a personal turn which distracts attention frem the real issues. If you think that your aspersions are justified by what I said in my letter, I will be glad if you would be good enough to refer me directly to what you find exceptionable. While your remarks stand as they do at present in the columns of The Listener, I can hardly fail to take notice of them, irrelevant although they may be." I had supposed that such an aggressive claimant to the title of Englishman would have either retracted or justified, Mr. Vaile refused to do either. I then turned his chosen weapon on himself-I challenged his own sincerity. But with this difference — in each instance, I quoted his words, on which I based my comment. If the comment is justified by them, I am, vindicated. If not, I am accordingly convicted. The complaint of "abuse" now brought by Mr. Vaile is irrelevant-except as coming from an offender now self-confessed.

DOUGLAS

SEYMOUR

(Hamilton),

(This correspondence is now closed.-Ed.).