page 15

Editors Risk Student Image

Sirs,—One who reads the Dominion will soon discover that this paper overwhelmingly supports anything that will promote a good image of the National Party and plays down or ignores anything that will damage that image. Students are putting the National Party on a spot. Hence the failure of this paper to give fair coverage of Student activities may well be due to that cause and not to "lazy petty-mindedness."

This bias extends into a wider field and is not confined to one paper—though the Dominion is more actively engaged than others —but one must read in order to discern the veracity of this statement. It is in marked contrast to the claim made in Newspaper Proprietors Association advertisements that they enable an informed public to make judgments in respect of voting at Elections. Be assured that the lack of fair treatment complained of in Salient Vol. 28, No. 6, Page 1 is as nothing compared with that meted out to those seeking reforms in the field of finance.

At least you have done the writer the courtesy of printing his letter in full and without alteration. As to Whether Salient is read it is suggested that Mr. Rennie study the Ian Cross article (No 3, Page 8) and, in the scientific spirit; examine my earlier letter and his own reply. To assist be it observed that the possibility of Mr. Rennie being narrowly read is given added weight by his statement: "that magazine run by Douglas Credit exponent Kelliher." Sir H. J. Kelliher has been an advocate of reform for many years but one will search in vain for evidence of his giving support to Douglas Social Credit. In the Mirror. November 1, 1944, in introducing an article by F. W. Williams. BA, it is Editorially remarked: "This Journal has never advocated Social Credit doctrine!" Does Mr. Rennie believe that Professor Soddy, a man of high intelligence in the field of Science, is automatically a moron in another field? Is Mr. Rennie an Economist, himself?

Is he a scientist of Professor Soddy's standing? Or is he just an Editor with power of closure when the questions get close to home? Mr. Rennie does not know the full circumstances of the Albertan Act relative the Press. Lord Tweedsmuir (John Buchan) a Canadian Governor-General, wrote in "A Prince Of Captivity" (1935) . . . "There is a great and potent world which the Government do not control. That is the world of finance, the men who guide the ebb and flow of money. With them rests the decision whether they wilt make that river a beneficient flood to quicken life, or a dead glacier which freezes wherever it moves, or a torrent of burning lava to submerge and destroy. The men who control that river have the ultimate word."

No, Mr. Rennie, you are not so well as you proclaim. Or is this opinion also of no worth because Lord Tweedsmuir was not an economist? Quotes to the same effect are available from many persons of standing but they receive no publicity, Why? This particular quotation was chosen for the Canadian connection. "The Act to ensure Publication of Accurate News Information" was proposed and passed for the following reasons amongst others:—

"Because control of the news and the control of credit are both exercised by financial interests. Because "the freedom of the Press" has become a licence to distort news, misrepresent facts, and withhold information from the public. Because this anti-social aspect of the Press, under inspired direction, is being used to thwart the people of Alberta in their struggle against finance."

In common with most peoples of the world Albertans were starving in the midst of plenty. But the question of the Press in Alberta is irrelevant, Douglas's whole philosophy and his writings had one object. The greatest amount of Freedom for the Individual. If Mr. Rennie is widely read he would know of this and plain honesty would have required mention of the fact in his writings. Is it possible that Social Credit Theory is not so wacky as Mr. Rennie believes? During the depression years and at the 1934 monetary inquiry Social Crediters particularly were described as charlatans and worse when they maintained that trading banks created credit whereas banking experts and economists stated categorically that they did not.

Witness, however, the evidence of Mr. Whyte, Chairman of the New Zealand Bankers' Association, before the New Zealand Monetary Commission. 1955, Vol. V. P.1368-1370, relative to bank creation of credit. "They were doing it but they didn't quite realise it, and they did not admit it," and so on in similar vein. You have the avenue to influence a thousand student minds: pray use it only after an intelligent and complete examination of a subject and not on the basis of what your own minds have been conditioned to believe. Not an easy task!

Finally, Sir H. J. Kelliher is "Kelliher" but mark this "Martin Nestor." The closure has been applied and there is no right of reply. This is the treatment we have been accustomed to from the daily Press and true to pattern it follows an opinion that does not stand objective examination and uses a reason that does not apply to the letter published.— Yours, etc,

J. A. Cameron.

President, N.Z. Social Credit Association, Inc.

PS: "A certain blindness to the duty of thinking." And you, too, Brutus?

PPS: The statements of Soddy, Buchan, Kelliher and many others are not matters of economics but of observation of events: do they make these statements for their own perverse personal amusement? Certainly the mind rebels! But are they incorrect?

With this we must leave you to the contemplation of the Student Image as it is unlikely you will risk "loss of face" by publishing this letter and letting it stand or fall on its own merits.