THE PLUMAGE BILL.
[To THE EDITOR or THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—In your issue of July 24th I find the Hon. Secretary of the Plumage Group contributes an amusing perplexity of " per cents" and dates concerning the collection of moulted plumes of the Venezuelan egret. He asks whether the trade and its defenders will decide to stand by the figures quoted by official documents of 1909 or upon my statements before the House of Lords Committee in 1908. I should like to remind him that we are now in the year 1920 and that the 'evidence collected by this Committee of the London Chamber of Com- merce has, during this year, been amply confirmed by the Venezuelan Minister Plenipotentiary in London. The trade and its defenders take their stand upon the latest evidence available—not the oldest. During the many years of this controversy it has been clearly seen that the trade has been able to obtain evidence far more reliable than any the Plumage Group has been able to produce from old official reports or is able to produce from any other source. I venture to ask whether the Plumage Group will decide to take its stand upon the evidence of 1920 or upon Sir Vincent Corbett's report of 1909 which even then confirmed the collection of moulted feathers to the extent of 25 per cent.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
