Margaret Macpherson Replies

Radio Record, Volume VIII, Issue 36, 15 March 1935, Page 50

Margaret Macpherson Replies

To the Editor Sir-Your correspondent, Mr J. 8. B. Smith, is barking up the wrong tree. I am accused of charging Pope Leo XIII. with holding shares in the Monte Carlo Company, whereas I did not mention that Pope, but another. The whole history of the company, floated by M. Blane. may be found in Baring-Gould’s book. "he Riviera." Nor did I say that churchmen are now shareholders. What I did say was that the entire revenue of Monaco is derived directly or indirectly from the gaming tables, and that all the public institutions there, including the ebureh, are supported by the proceeds of the Casino. Finally, Mr Smith visualises thousands of listeners cutting me off when I made the remarks The contrary seems to have been the case, as the 8YA authorities informed me that they received quite a large mail. complimenting them upon the talk, , The ‘truth is, that if all regrettable historical incidents were. cut out 4f broadcasting, there would be very little broadcasting. left. sinee history is almost entirely a chronicle of regrettable incidents; and this-applies to the history of Protestantism, Moham medanism and every other ism, in cluding Catholicism. I take Mr Smith's letter philosophically, however. since the last complaint made about me ws that I was a Catholic’ propagandist. and had been using the radio for such

propaganda., This, if you remember, was after my "Yorkshire" broadcast. when [ praised the educational work of the Yorkshire monasteries. In couelusion, nay I again invite those who ave interested in the formation of the Monte Carlo company to read up th" \vhole subject in Myr Baring-Gould’s book. The matter is factual not con troversial. Upon hearing that a Catholic gentleman had complained, I wrote to the Right Rey. Dr. Brodie, Catholic Bishop of Christchurch, who replied with the utmost kindliness and understanding. Like Mr. Smith, he did not know which Pope I had mentioned, and therefore Was not qualified to pass ‘judgment. fe did not, however, issue any challenges Mr. Smith is surely perfectly aware that the London Chamber of Commerce is as unlikely to have’ a genuine list of shareholders as the Gore Chamber of Commerce tvould be: suraly. too, he does not expect you ‘£0 devote two or three issues of your paper solely to printing lists of names? I appreciate sincerity, and shal] be glad to hear what Mr Smith hag 10 say after reading the book I recom-mend.-I am, ete..

MARGARET

MACPHERSON

Timaru,