Dear Sir,—I have to thank you for the opportunity of seeing Hooey's letter. Very suitably signed, I think.

Evidently Hooey doesn't read the dally papers: if he did, he would know what being partisan in the press really is. They are rather more subtle about it than myself. I want to say right away that my report was as biased to the left as Mr. Miller's address was to the right. I considered that he was incorrect, misinformed, and misled in many matters, and I said so. The report was strong, yes, but the reason for that is simple: Mr. Miller is gaining the reputation of an authority on the foreign policy of the U.S.S.R., and it is a dangerous thing that this should happen when he is so bitterly opposed to that policy, and that Government.

And, lest Hooey be tempted to reply: "Oh, but he isn't opposed to the Soviet Government," let me quote part of a question by a member of the audience, who began: "In view of the speaker's apparent bitter hatred of the Soviet Union . . ."; and Mr. Miller's reply began: "I don't hate the people of the Soviet Union . . .," implying, as there was no qualification later, that he did hate the Government of the Soviet Union. Then how can he pose as an exponent of Soviet policy, and also claim to remain unbiassed?

As for the cheap sneer in Hooey's second paragraph, may. I say that the writer was at the meeting, he did hear the address, and did give a report on what was heard, namely, anti-Soviet propaganda. And I must say that Mr. Hooey is rather illogical in calling Mr. Miller an "apparently irresponsible newsgiver"—which, as I took my "news" from the speaker's lips, is the only possible construction of his remark. I am glad, too, that Hooey, in his closing sen tence, realises, that he is dead. And. if we are to go on quoting Extrav. at each other, then let me close with:

"—Who have you been reading?"

"—Oh, Eugene Lyons, Jan Valtin, Leon Trotsky.... All very reliable—they're our sort, you know."

—Whui.