CHAUTAUQUA.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 12017, 25 March 1920, Page 5

CHAUTAUQUA.

■*' To the Editor. # . ■ SIR, —I hesitate to trespass on your yaluahle space again as 1 feel that little good can come from this controversy. However there are certain statements and inuendoes in the letter signed J B McKenzie that I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. As a good deal of that letter does not deal with the questions raised in my letter I must touch lightly on that portion/ The writer does not proceed Very far before confessing his profound ignorance of the meaning and purpose of the Chautauqua. That may be pardonable in one so young and inexperienced. Our chief complaint is that he has made no intelligent attempt to remedy that grievous state of alfairs. He says in the very next sentence that he afcendod but two ot-the entertainments out of the ten. Yet he has the audacity to criticise every one of them and declare them to be amateurish in the. extreme. I prefer to take the opinions of those who did attend all the meats and I am not surprised to hear ’ that their opinion happens to be the opposite of your correspondent’s. There may be some reasons for his distrust of their business mettods. It seems to me rather late in the day to make these discoveries, and they have nothing to do with the merits and demerits of the Chautauqua movement as a whole. Personally I favour the method adopted’by the Wanganui Committee for next year. They proposed to the Chautauqua Association that sixty guarantors should take £5 worth of tickets and pay for them. Then they have just to sell the tickets to get their money back and after that their responsibility ceases. I now come to the main portion of j;our oorrepondent’s letter. We find right away that he is “up against” several things and persons. He is up against Chautauqua. Ho is up against the Americans en bloc, up against Prohibition and np against yonr humble servant. Let us take these in their order. I don’t consider Mr McKenzie a competent critic of the[Ohantanqua programmes as he confesses that he wasn’t present at many of them; 1 Probably-he knows a good deal more about the programmes submitted at Fuller’s than I do. I hear some strang e things about them. lam afraid that I cannot discuss with him the merits of the other performers on the musical side, but admitting the truth of his statements we must remember that in all these things an average must t be struck. I disagree entirely however, from his remarks about the subject matter of the lectures. I can claim to have heard more public speakers and preachers in my dav than your correspondent, and I can say nnhesitatingly that the subject matter of all the lectures was excel- j lent in every way. Then again your correspondent says that we have plenty of talent in New Zealand and ! Australia equal to the Chautauqua. I admit it, but the point is this that people like your correspondent won’t patronise them when they do come along. I attended a lecture given j by Dr Truby King in Marton, and j for such a lecture and suen a lecturer the attendance was disgraceful. We can politely ignore nine of your correspondent’s reasons why the local barbarians are not overfond of Americans. Your readers will remember that I stated much the same opinion myself, but I also stated that the presence of bad features in the life of a nation j shouldn’t prevent us from taking . advantage orthe good ones. If it is j true that Mr McKenzie hates America and all things American with such a holy hatred it seems strange to me that his firm is so fond of pushing American motor cars and machinery so assiduously. No 9is worth more than passing notice. Ho dislikes the Americans for wanting to force Prohibition on this country. Could anything be more absurd ! He ought to know that we are a democracy, ; and that when Prohibition is coming it will come by the vote of the . people here. We are certainly going | to bo influenced by the present and j future efficiency of America as the ■ result of going dry. Ir> any case the ; so-called tyranny of Prohibition is not to be compared to the present tryanuy of drink. I wish here to express my disgust at the attitude ofthe local publicans in refusing accommodation to most of the Chautauqua entertainers because they were supposed to he Prohibition- 1 ists,. Let me just briefly discuss the j comments of your correspondent on four of my ‘‘ill considered remarks”: (1) I grant that in spite of the slowness of the British they have obtained a great deal of commercial supremacy. Why ? Because of the superiority of their [goods. They have W’oa by sheer merit and nothing else Everybody also knows ‘ that at the present time we are being badly left in many of the world’s markets because we won't hustle and advertise our goods (2) My references to the farmers and businessmen of this country who have learned the gospel of grab and no other. I challenge your correspondent to name any Rangitikei farmer or businessman who has ever put up a few thousands for an educational, philanthropic or religious institution Look at Auckland that can’t scrape together a few thousands for a much needed University college. Then compare it with Dnnediu, the home •of the “Canny Scot” and think of the millions that have been given for the cause of education and philanthropy; (8) The stodginess of Marton. The best evidence I can adduce is the letter, of your correspondent. It is a perfect embodiment oi that spirit.

Ohn I name a cure ? I can. It is this: that your correspondent and others like him should take alive, interest in the instituti 6ns of our town, religious and unsectarian, that make for tha uplift of the inhabitants as a whole (4) I referred to the Chautauqua as the finest combination of talent that lias ever come to Marton*. I don’t think we can argue about this because it is the only'combination of ihjkind that has ever com© here with one particular, object in view. Could your correspondent name another that has put on so many men and women who happen to be the leading lights in their particular line ? In conclusion I may aay 1 don’t care a great deal for the cynical tone throughout you correspondent’s letter. - A cynic has been well defined as a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing I am glad, however, that he has promised to keep in the backgroun d henoef orth. It is a very appropriate place.

Thanking you again for your courtesy.—l am, etc, “ L. H. HUNT, The Manse, Marton. . ■