THE EXCESS PROFITS DITTY.
[To TEE EDITOR OF TEE " SPECTATOR."3
Srn,—I notice an article—or, rather, a letter—which appeared in your paper on June 19th last referring to the action of this Union with regard to the Excess Profits Duty. Your corre- spondent, who signs himself "Onlooker," distinctly infers that our opposition to the Excess Profits Duty has taken the nature of a personal attack on Mr. Austen Chamberlain. This is abso- lutely incorrect. My committee and those responsible for the management of the affairs of this Union have the greatest per- sonal regard and respect for Mr. Chamberlain as a man. Our objection is to the tax, and the fact that Mr. Chamberlain
happens to be Chancellor of the Exchequer at the moment has nothing at all to do with the case. We should fight the tax just as bitterly if anyone else were at the head of the Treasury. I am particularly anxious to make it quite clear that we have no feeling of animosity towards the Chancellor. It is to the incidence of the tax that we object, and nothing else.—I am, General Secretary, National Union of Manufacturers (Incorporated). 6 Holborn Viaduct, B.C. 1.
[" Onlooker " writes in reply :—" The article to which your correspondent refers contained no suggestion of any intention on the part of the National Union of Manufacturers to conduct a personal campaign against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, the criticism contained in the article was directed rather against attacks made in certain sections of the Press. Since the article to which your correspondent refers was written, however, it has become impossible to ignore the advertising campaign conducted by the National Union of Manufacturers. The vehemence of the attacks on the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer in the advertisements which have appeared are, I may say, nowhere more deprecated than in leading banking circles, where the retirement of the Chancellor would be regarded as something in the nature of a misfortune." —ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
