My Dear "Spike,"—I write more in sorrow than in anger. As a former Editor of your columns, former Assistant-Editor, former Secretary and Vice-President of the Students' Association, and once even the Librarian of the Heretics' Club, I feel that the letter headed "The New Fascism," appearing in your June number, is an undeserved sock-dologer.

I do not propose to deal at length with your indictment; it is true that neither my partner nor I have any confidence whatever in the New Zealand Labour Party, but we are not unacquainted with the writings of John Milton. (Indeed, I kept my first year's terms largely by the aid of "The Age of Milton"—and Professor Mackenzie.) As for trampling Truth in the mud, that is not a periodical I either read or subscribe to, as I much prefer "The London Mercury;" if my partner occasionally glances at "Truth" it is solely on account of its financial column.

While we shall for the present withhold the issue of a writ, you will of course understand that this letter is written "without prejudice."——Yours faithfully,

Sir,—We thank you for your invitation to reply to the sarcastic effusion of "J.C.B." in the last issue of the "Spike," headed "The New Fascism." We do not-intend to embark upon a detailed criticism of that letter; it will suffice to make a few remarks-remarks which we should have had the opportunity of making before "J.C.B.'s" letter went to press.

We do not regret our action in moving the motion which is the subject of so much concern to your correspondent; nor do we regret that we created an impression that we are loyal—that was exactly the impression that we hoped to create. We are loyal, and we are proud of the fact. We wonder if "J.C.B." has any British blood in his elegant make up that he should sneer at loyalty. We have, however, one apology, and that is for our extreme youthfulness. We feel that we cannot adequately express our apologies for this atrocious crime. We humbly crave "J.C.B.'s" pardon, and would ask that, in view of the fact that our age is a matter about which we were not consulted, and therefore about which we could raise no objection, "J.C.B." will forgive us to some extent. Had our parents been aware that our age would have been such a handicap to us in 1924, no doubt this apology would not have been necessary. Possibly in another forty or fifty years we will have lived down our wrong.

Despite "J.C.B.'s" clamour for fair play, he begins by misquoting our motion. The motion as put to the meeting of the Students' Association, and as before your correspondent when he was writing his letter, read:—" . . . the team or teams of debaters representing the V.U.C. Debating Society shall speak only for that side of the motion which does not involve advocating, page 36 speaking in favour of, or commenting Favourably upon any matter or principle savouring of Bolshevism, etc." It is significant that the word "favourably" was omitted by "J.C.B." No, my boy, that's not garbling. Nevertheless, this omission would create the impression that "The Fascism" object to any discussion of such matters. They do not. But they do object, and strongly, to the fact that the "red" motions passed by the Debating Society were advertised throughout New Zealand's newspapers as the views of V.U.C. students as a whole, whereas these motions were carried in every case by less than a score of students. Misrepresentation.? No. Fair play by "J.C.B." and his confreres. In all seriousness, however, the position was that it was necessary for the "Fascism" to attend the debates and outvote these "red" motions in order to prevent themselves from being misrepresented to the public of New Zealand.

Your correspondent accuses us of being responsible for the "Dominion" report quoted by "J.C.B.":—"Speaking on behalf of the Association, Messrs. Nicholls and James both emphasised that the minds of the public, etc." We are also directly charged with "wilful distortion" and failure "to abide by the truth." Now, twofold Sir, we emphatically deny each and every of the above allegations. We admit that we supplied "The Times" with particulars, and although we take no credit for the "ridiculous garnishings," we have to thank you for your very liberal admission that that report was "in substance correct."

We ask you, "J.C.B.," as Editor of the "Spike," is this fair play? Would it not have been a more manly way to have challenged us personally with this alleged dishonesty—for that is what it amounts to—and, if you were still intent upon publishing your letter, to have published our reply in the same issue? No, Sir, that course probably did not occur to your broad, impartial mind which is so concerned about fair play. You make serious accusations against us, give us no chance to reply, and also abuse your position as Editor of the "Spike" to further your own interests and to catch votes for the Debating Committee. Another point. Why was a proof of your letter posted in the Hall and also in the Women's Common Room several days before the "Spike" appeared? Are all letters to the "Spike" given this publicity? No. Possibly the majority of the other letters are not calculated to create an effect at a general meeting. We doubt your statement that you held no brief for the Debating Society. You cannot honestly say that you had not even a "tacit" brief, if we may use the expression. We know that before your letter was printed it was shown to, and approved by, at least two members of the committee. We would not have mentioned this matter had you merely endeavoured to ridicule us by means of a letter which was "in substance correct;" but when we are so directly charged with untruthfulness and distortion we feel that an injustice has been done us. Enough.

Dear "Spike,"—Messrs. Nicholls and James misapplied my reference to age. God forbid that in my own extreme youth (or even if I live to a doddering old age) I should make youth a reproach to anyone. By my parenthesis "(whose age, I suppose, averaged somewhere about twenty-one)" I intended to imply that a body of men and women of that age might reasonably be thought able to discuss a question of College interest intelligently. I profoundly regret that my English was so ambiguous.

My quotation from the famous motion was taken verbatim from a copy supplied per telephone by the Secretary of the Students' Association. I noticed the apparent absurdity in the wording, but took it as being quite in character with the rest of the semi-legal jargon of the motion.

As for the "Dominion" report, Messrs. Nicholls and James admitted responsibility at the Special General Meeting before mentioned, and at other times, for statements the truth of which was subsequently denied by the President of the Students' Association, and it seemed reasonable to attribute to them another inaccuracy in the same "Dominion" on the same subject. They were perfectly free to explain their position at the meeting, but made no attempt to do so. Why not? (I believe, though, I did hear some ejaculation from Mr. James about a printer's error).

I objected to the posting of that stray proof in the Hall. It was, however, if I remember rightly, initialled by a member of the Executive according to regulation, and so was apparently in order.

Your correspondents' knowledge that before my letter was printed (I take it they mean set up in type) "it was shown to and approved by at least two members of the committee" seems very positive; it suffers, however, from being quite inaccurate. A corrected proof of the letter was in the printers' hands long before it was seen by any member of the Debating Society Committee.

I have no intention of traversing the rest of the letter. Let it stand in naked beauty, unglossed, unadorned. As Messrs. Nicholls and James rightly remark: Enough. Quite enough.—I am, etc.,

Dear "Spike,"—Ye gods! "The Spike" improves with age! We have been shown "J.C.B.'s" reply to our letter, and have been asked for our comments thereon. We hope this will be taken as a precedent; the opportunity of replying in the same issue to controversial letters to "The Spike" should always be given to those whom the letters affect.

Your correspondent endeavours to cloud the true issue (that of misuse of his position as Editor) by denying his responsibility for the posting of the proof of his first letter in the Hall. We did not conceive the possibility of some member of the Debating Society stealing the proof from the editorial precincts.

"J.C.B.'s" lucid and all-embracing reply merits no further comment.—We are, etc.,