[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sta,—I wrote to you
immediately after the publication of your issue containing my letter on " Saving and Spending," but as this letter was not printed, I am writing again.
It appears to me that your comment on my original letter does not at all answer the point which I was making, for it was based on a complete misunderstanding of my meaning which would have been impossible had the whole of my letter been printed. In stating that you treated the trade depression as an act of God I pointed out, in my letter, that I agreed with you that errors of forecast were frequently responsible for slumps, but that the effect of these could be offset by action of the banks or of the Government. You omitted to print this part of my letter, thus making your own comment, which otherwise would have been quite irrelevant, appear as if it really answered one of the points which I raised.
If letters are curtailed I think it is highly desirable that this fact should be stated, since it is inevitable that sonic distortion of the writer's meaning is bound to result from alteration of the original.—I am, Sir, &c., 1'. A. SLOAN.
University College, Bangor.
[Unfortunately, it is not possible always to publish letters in full. When a curtailment is considered to be important, it is noted at the foot of the letter. We did not consider that we had curtailed our correspondent's letter sufficiently to render this necessary, and certainly did not intend to alter the sense of it, nor are we convinced that we did so in any vital particular.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
