TWO RESIGN FROM ANTI PARTITION LEAGUE

Seumas O'Cleary four weeks ago first drew attention to the Communist threat to the Irish Anti-Partition League.
Last week his statements were denied by the chairman and hon. secretary of the League, but were supported by the former priest-chairman of the League.
Two members of the Committee of the League have now resigned, as reported on page one.
Below, Seumas O'Cleary replies to the letter of the chairman and hon. secretary of the League which appeared in the CATHOLIC HERALD last week.
My original report on the Communist threat to the Irish AntiPartition League has been characterised by the Chairman and Secretary of the League as " string of inaccuracies," yet in their reply no inaccuracy has been answered.
There was no " juxtaposing " in the original report of bomb explosions ano the affairs of the Anti-Partition League other than the impression of the average manthat both are attempts to remove the border.
The object of the report was to find out whether the League is able to answer tlie suggestion ilia', it is being used by Leftist elements. The purpose of the League is declared to be " edueative—not militant," This is true, yet in a paper which has been publicly welcomed by the Press secretary of the League, it was stated that progressives should enter such movements and should attempt to win others over to their side. The League itself was not stigmatised as Communist, But it was suggested that there was a threat of Left influence. Will the chairman and secretary deny this? Have they not been aware of it for a considerable time? Are they not also aware that politicians in the League have fostered political ends and have in some cases propagated " progressive" teachings? Will they repudiate their
Press secretary's letter In a Leftist Irish newspaper?
TWO POINTS
Two points have been singled out from my report as inaccurate:
1. " The priest chairman was unseated.'' 2. " The view was held that priests should not be invited to sit on the platform!'
The first statement is a correct quotation from my report, and the person in question has stated his case In last week's issue of the CATHOLIC HERAI•It. The second statement was not mine at all. I did not say that " it was the view that .. But I did say that it was suggested that priests shouldnot be invited. Is that statement Inaccurate? Was it not suggested by members of the Committee? Was the hope not expressed that priests would accept cept the invitation which was being sent to them, lest their presence should prejudice the issue?
" DISCRETION"
It is further stated that handbills, etc., were distributed at the " discretion" of committee members. The indiscretion by which some of these were placed in a Left bookshop was raised, we are Informed, and dealt with at a subsequent executive meeting. The matter was raised, no doubt, but was it dealt with? What action was taken? Responsibility for the sale of papers outside the hall at the meeting is denied. Yet it is said that an article in one of these papers was written by a member of the committee, who does not deny his authorship. (CATHOLIC HERALD, 24 /2/31) And there is a letter of approbation in the current issue from the Press secretary of the League. Therefore I repeat my original state
ment: " It is clear that there was some reason for the suspicions of those who regarded the Anti-Partition League as tainted."
Many of the members of the may have ve been unaware of any danger, but it is surely their duty now either to remove the cause of the danger or else answer the charge in explicit terms. It has never at any time been suggested that the committee as a whole is Communist. Nor is it suggested now. But I still maintain that the suspicions of Catholics must be removed if the movement is to gain who are genuinely the .support of those
interested in Ireland's cause.
TOO LATE
Finally, I am puzzled by the following statement in the reply to my report: ',If we cannot do this without falling prey to aubversive political elements, It is regrettable, but surely the time to deplore and condemn is when such a lamentable stage has been reached." What is the use of a protest when such a stage has been reached? It is precisely the object of the Catholic Press to inform its readers of the true state of affairs and to prevent, where possible, any misuse of a movement to which it would normally give its unqualified support.
The issue, to my mind, is clear. Either, a
there is, or there is not subversive e w facts which nt at elemork. In face of ich have been disclosed, it can hardly be denied that tlere is. The question before the executive committee now is: Will they deal with the matter now, before the "lamentable stage has been reached " ?