92 Correspondence



COMMENTS ON MR. MARSDEN’S LETTER


Madam,— I have read in your current issue the letter signed John W.

Marsden, and I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that so ill-advised

an attack on the editor of that famous little weekly, Cage Birds, should

have found space in a publication so widely read and of so far-reaching

influence as the Avicultural Magazine.


In my early days as an ardent aviculturist, I sought and received advice

from Cage Birds which has been the basis of whatever success I may subse¬

quently have achieved, and I have no doubt that many others are in a position

to offer a similar tribute. That the advice was free from the recommenda¬

tion of the products of particular producers did not minimize its value ; on

the contrary, it gave me confidence in its genuineness and solidarity.


Your correspondent ignores, possibly quite unintentionally, the business

point of view. I doubt whether any independent journal concerned in

aviculture or in any other hobby or business would enhance its popularity

or usefulness by boosting the wares of specific manufacturers. Advertise¬

ments are an essential adjunct in the support of a journal, but they must

speak for themselves. Editorial suggestion and advice must concern the

product; to boost or accept for publication criticisms on particular sources

of supply would surely result in the antagonism of numbers of advertisers to

the detriment of the journal, as a book of reference for its contributors, and,

internally, as a business proposition.


In view of the attitude he assumes, is not Mr. Marsden’s appeal for “ fair

play to all ” somewhat incongruously inept ?


F. E. Thomas.



Madam,—A letter in last month’s Magazine, signed by John Marsden,

calls for comment, and I do not think that such statements should pass

unchallenged. Personally I have no financial interest whatever in Cage

Birds, although I am an admirer of this splendid weekly bird paper; but

when I see in cold print such allegations as Mr. Marsden makes, then I feel

that such uncalled-for and undesirable remarks should be resented by every

reader of the Avicultural Magazine. I have always found that the editor

of Cage Birds never refuses to publish any fair criticisms provided he has

the necessary space. One constantly reads of such criticisms of the various

writers, and I may be allowed to mention an incident which would serve

to prove that the Editor gives preference to letters that disagree with his

writers. Recently Mr. F. E. Thomas wrote a letter to Cage Birds and in very

plain words refused to accept a statement I had made in an article I had

written for Cage Birds. I am not suggesting that Mr. Thomas wrote in an

unpleasant manner, far from it, but please note that when I wrote my reply

and endeavoured to explain why I had made this statement, the Editor did

not publish this letter. I felt slightly peeved, and asked him for a reason

and I was very graciously informed that the correspondence column was

filled for that week. I accepted this explanation in a sporting manner, and

that was the end of it. It is more than possible that in Mr. Marsden’s case

a similar explanation would have been forthcoming, and it is grossly unfair

and unsportsmanlike of him to impute unfair treatment. I am informed on

good authority that the Editor of Cage Birds receives weekly many letters



