Correction!

Sirs,—The Law Faculty Club committee has requested that we reply on its behalf to the report of the Faculty's Agm in the edition of Salient dated April 13, 1965. There are four points raised which require comment.

The writer refers to the majority which favoured the anti-boycott motion and states that it was "probably due to the fact that only the group backing the motion was aware of its impending introduction at the meeting." In actual fact no more than 10 or 12 of the majority knew of the proposal. Does the writer's remark imply that if it had been widely known then the boycott supporters would have thronged along to the meeting? Surely any person interested in a club's affairs should attend its Agm.

Secondly, we cannot see that this motion was of an "unusual nature." The whole campus at the time was alive with proposals and counter-proposals, arguments and counter-arguments and it could well have been expected that reference would be made at a Club Agm held at that time to the boycott movement. Such an item as this can surely come under the heading of "general business" and does not require prior notice.

The third comment to make is in connection with the newspaper reports. The Faculty committee assures you that the Press had no foreknowledge of the move. The motion itself was not finalised until half-way through the day of the meeting.

Perhaps the sketchy reports are indicative of the lack of public support for the student boycott and therefore the Press was not prepared to devote much space to the issue.

Finally, we would like to make the point quite clear that it was not the intention of the mover and seconder of the motion to imply that they disapproved of student feeling on the questions of fees, bursaries and accommodation: the motion was aimed directly at disapproving the method used to bring these questions to the notice of the Government.

P. von Dadelszen.

R. Chapman.

For the Committee.

We wish to thank the mover and seconder of the motion referred to for their comments.—Eds.