The Coronation Fiasco.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 118, 8 December 1915, Page 2

The Coronation Fiasco.

[TO THE EDITOB.I Sir,—"All tbe world's a stage, and all men aod women merely players. . . . And one man in his time plays many pans." And so, Sir, Mr James Roulston has taken the "cap" so plainly held out in my last letter, and it evidently fits him so well that the jingle of its appendages can be heard at the farthest outpost of this "be-walled city." Yes, Sir, one and threequarter columns (of what a Bevere critic would call the veriest "twaddle" ever penned by mortal man) that the writer can onlj designate as disjointed, illogical phrases, evidently the result of the mental and physical strain incidental to the organising—save the mark—of the late Coronation fiasco, How gratified Messrs Barter aod Fulton must feel after reading of the high estimation in which they are held by so great an authority upon organisation and other subjects as Mr James Roulston. ia recognised to be; but surely, Sir, it was not in tbe best taste to disturb the well earned rest of the ladies after their highly successful, though extremely strenuous and splendidly organised exertions; would it not bave been t3 his greater profit, although he is so highly skilled; if Mr James Roulstoo had copied tha ladies' organising abilities and- introduced even a moiety of such intu his larger but, unfortunately, less successful spbere of labour, How highly gratified the public must have felt upon reading tbe emphatic statement made bv so eminent an authority as Mr James Roulston "that they had lost a proper sense of perspective if they did not realise that the efforts of the committee were focussed on the desire of inducing everyone -to come along and pa; up to witness what he describes as certainly a farce!" And, oh! vou gloriously ignorant raoble—you Pukekobe people fancy anyone trying to convince you that wire-pullers exist in your midst, and that they invariably "jockey" themselves into responsible positions, or daring to suggest that a function provided by public money was "muddUd,' tor do you all not know that both statements are absolutely true. Will any of you dare dispute Mr James Roulaton'd statement "about "theatrical flourish " Don't you know, my masters, that his environment entitl s him to pose as an expert upon "theatrical flourishes." Will anyone dare dispute so eminent an authority when he states that direct questions ar3 "innuendo," or that your poor scribe was foolish to formulate definite charges, "as it gave the victims a chance to refute them with some show- of dignity." "Same show of dimity!" fjrsooth! Yes, show of dignity is distinctly good; but by what standard, ye rabbi?, will ye attempt to measure tha "show" or th? "dignity?" By honest labour, or by the power of the "Almighty Dollar?" Will any of you rabble dare dispute Mr James Roulston's statement that "he was one of the 'organisers' of the Coronation fiasco?" Yes, the word "organiser," when used with correct accent, is decidedly impressive; bnt when used as an . adjunct of the late "fiasco" is extremely tunny. In fact, its a purJ "Jack O'Malley." Will one of you dare .U assert you would not "be weary," but on the contrary most interested, it Mr James Roulston, in his wisdom, would attempt to reply to the long list of questions—not charges—in my last, commencing with, "Was it Cardston's fault" and ending with the history of the Crown. Will Mr James Roulston deny that tbe Urown was delivered to bim very early on the Monday morning preceding the Coronation Day, and that he was informed that it required pudding? Will Mr James Ro'ilston deny that wtjen the Crown was required for the rehearsal on the afternoon ot Wednesday, in the Hall, it could not be found, but was eventually, discovered, in all its nakednefs, in a box on Ihe sh:w ground? Ob, glorious organisation! Entrancing ineptitude! Will anyone dare assert to the contrary that tbe fact of Mr James Roulston having lived in Pukekobe practically all his life is not sufficient proof of his ability, knowledge of detail, and wide experience of an everyday common function such as a coronation, and that constquenlty he should certainly be able to organise and carry one through equally as well as Cardston, the professional. And now, Sir, just a little personal matter between tbe writer and Mr James Roulston re jockeying into public position:—Did not that' gentleman ask the writer, during tbe progress of the late Byelection the following question, viz.: "It elected and the question of Saturday afternoon opening came before the Council, would you vote for Saturday opening?" And that in receiving my reply in tbe affirmative, be stated "he could not vote for me," my retort being: "I have not asked you for your vote, and in any case you could not buy my principles." Was that an attempt on my part to "juckey" myself into a public position, or an attempt on his part to impress the writer with his importance.

Regarding the other position held by me, viz., ths Coronorship, I will give £25 to some public institution it one man can be produced in this Dominion who can truthfully apsert that I asked any per ; aon, high or low, for that appointment. On the contrary, unimpeachable evidence can be produced that the appointment came absolutely unsolicited by me. Does that look like "jockeying" myselt into a public position? Nj, Sir, the "jockeying" business can he well left in the hands of the "spineless ones," who are so glaringly on evidence in this go-ahead and pri gressive town.—>l am, etc, CECIL ROADLEY.