ETHICS OF CONTROVERSY.
[To sax Erman or sax "Srscrerox:'1
Si,—Is it a fact that Lord Murray has "increased his funds by bets on the St. Leger and the Oaks or by systematic speculation on the 'tips' provided by the Star "? To the ordinary reader your expectation that the Trade Union secretaries may "follow in his footsteps " by adopting either of these courses can have only one meaning—that he has set the precedent. I say "to the ordinary reader." I presume, however, that a few of your readers who happen to be familiar with your attitude towards members of the present Ministry will read between the lines and see in them an innuendo that Lord Murray has been guilty of a, course of conduct analogous to, or comparable with, that specified as above. Such an innuendo would be unworthy of the traditions of the Spectator were it not for the fact that party warfare permits the use of such weapons; but I would most respectfully submit that the readers of your columns (and there are many) who are not as courant with the political dialectics of the moment will, with- out doubt, infer that Lord Murray has been guilty of the conduct referred to. Is this not a violation of the elementary ethics of controversy P—I am, Sir, &c., [Lord Murray set the precedent by speculating with the Liberal Party funds in Marconi shares, with the object of increasing those funds. We expressed the hope that the Trade Unionist officials would not be tempted to follow in his footsteps and try to increase the Union funds by putting portions of them on the racing " tips " provided by the Star. Mr. Gardiner cannot pretend that speculations such as that made by Lord Murray with the party funds have no analogy with bets. Our meaning was perfectly clear, and the ordinary reader will draw from our words the right conclusion—i.e., that betting on a racing "tip" and speculating for a rise on a Stock Exchange "tip" are analogous. They are not crimes per se, but are unpardonable indiscretions in the case of persons in a position of trust. Mr. Gardiner's cant phrases about party warfare leave us cold. Our readers know our record on this matter. We criticized members of the Unionist Party when we felt they were not careful enough in the matter of invest- ments, and were applauded by the Liberal Press for our freedom from party feeling. When, however, we criticize Liberal Ministers for very much graver indiscretions we are denounced by our Liberal contemporaries for using poisoned weaponsl—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
