I.TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—In the Spectator of
January 23rd there appeared a letter over the signature of F. Horace Rose (Maritzburg) in which exception was vislently taken to the method adopted by the Rand Daily Mail in reproducing the sense of a communi- cation addressed by Mr. Creswell to you with reference to his views on the question of the importation of Asiatics into the Transvaal. Mr. Rose charged the Rand Daily Mail with (1) having deliberately " perverted " Mr. Creswell's meaning by making out that he had recanted his opinion ; and (2) that it had suppressed Reuter's cable message on the subject. Will you permit me to state that there is not a word of truth in these allegations ? It is true that, owing to the absence of a word in our cablegram material to the clear meaning of the message, Mr. Creswell's letter to you was unfortunately wrongly reproduced in our issue of January 20th, but it is also true that, on discovering the error next morning, the correct meaning of the letter was duly acknowledged in the issue of the day follow- ing. I may add that Reuter did not supply 113 with any message bearing upon the letter, therefore we could not have suppressed it. As to the mendacious and scandalous language employed by your correspondent in referring to the alleged mole fides of our London editor and of ourselves, I have only to remark that I am astonished that the Spectator should have seen fit to give publicity to a letter whose terms were so manifestly a libel on journalists who are as jealous of their professional reputation as are their English colleagues, and who are perhaps more fully acquainted than are the latter with the two sides and the economic and general bearing of the Asiatic controversy.—I am, Sir, Sze., Gico. ADAMSON,
Previous page
