THE JOCKEYS' DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 124, 25 May 1920, Page 7

THE JOCKEYS' DISPUTE.

IXTTER TO PRIME MINSTER.

IN REPLY TO PRESIDENT,

The Jockeys' Association have penned a reply, through their secretary, to the statement of the president of the Auckland Racing Club regarding, the suspension of the three jockeys, Hewitt, O'Shea, and Rae, and forwarded the same to the Prime Minister.

Dealing first with the aontention that * the suspension had nothing to do with ' their connection with the Jockeys** ' Association, the letter inquires why the president of the association, E. C. Rae, the founder, l<. H. Hewitt, and J. O'Shea ' (who was warned that he would be punished at Palmerston North when he , alone refused to resign from the. associa-1! tion) have been singled out. At Avondale twenty-seven jockeys refused to ride, and the association contends that I all were equally guilty for the responsibility of stopping the meeting. The association disclaim that they have only to do with owners and trainers, but are interested in all matters affecting the calling of jockeys, and hope that the Prime Minister will make the clubs amenable to the law. Regarding the rules it is contended that neither the Avondale Club nor the Auckland District Committee conducted the case according to the rules of racing. The stewards of the Avondale Club committed a breach under rule 1 part 4, in that they failed to adjudicate upon the breach at their meeting, but merely forwarded the evidence, taken in the absence of the jockeys, to the Auckland committee. The letter adds: "Will Mr. Mitchelaon. tell you why he sat on the committee, knowing full well that the Avondale stewards had acted wrongly? The Auckland District Committee .may try and hide behind rule 3 part 20, giving them power to cancel a license, but in my opinion they cannot in this case, as the- previously- mentioned rule prevents them." The anomaly of the position of jockeys Hanson, Reed and McCormaek is also referred to, these men being guilty of the game offences as those who were suspended. O'Shea is charged with breaking an engagement for which the penalty is a fine of £20 or suspension for the meeting. Justification of his attitude in not attending the meeting of stewards is measured, by hia solicitor's advice that he was entitled to particulars of the charge. This and the fact that the jockeys were not allowed to be represented by counsel was the reason for non-attendance at the meeting. ever, the first exception to the above objections was made at the meeting of the Auckland committee when the men were supplied with the reason of their' attendance. O'Shea's attitude in alleged inciting on the first .day and refusing to ride on the second day of the Avondale meeting are also justified by the secretary's letter.

Special reference is made to the part of the president's letter which stated that the suspensions had nothing to do with their actions on the first day. This is criticised aa misleading, as the charge made against Hewitt in writing by the Auckland committee was that on the 7th and 10th he incited. The association contends that the whole trouble emanated from the first day. The fact that Mr. F. Earl, K.C., represented the Auckland committee while the jockeys had no counsel is also stressed. The letter, in conclusion, denies that the trades union were misled, and the aid of the labour organisations was only invoked after all conciliatory measures had failed, and points out that the secretary of the New Zealand Racing Conference mingled with the jockeys, seeking their resignation from the association, at the Christchurch Royal meeting in the jockeys' room, from which the representative association was debarred.