THE FAIR AGNES COLT DISQUALICATION.

Press, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5453, 12 March 1883, Page 3

THE FAIR AGNES COLT DISQUALICATION.

TO THS EDITOB OF THB PRESS. Sib, —There appears a letter in your columns on the above subject, purporting to be signed by Messrs Robinson and Lance, but which I certainly at first looked upon as a cruel hoax upon those gentlemen. However, they have since acknowledged their authorship, and therefore I must deal with it as theirs.

It must not be forgotten that both Mr Robinson and Mr Lance are members of the Canterbury Jockey Club. Mr Lance is Chairman of its Committee and a steward, and Mr Robinson is also a member of the Committee. Mr Lance took an active part in preparing the rules of the Club, and, under any circumstances, it "must be taken that two Buch experienced men in racing matters must be perfectly conversant with those rules under which their horses are entered for the various races. One of these rules is to this effect—" The decision of the Stewards, or of the Club, in case of appeal, shall be final, and shall not be questioned in any Court, except by leave of the Stewards by whom it was made." The other is as follows:—" Every objection shall be determined by the Stewards, and their determination shall be subject to ■ appeal to the Club, through the Stewards of the meeting, and with their consent and that of the Club, and not otherwise."

I If a man enters a horse for a race which is to be run under the C. J.C. Rules, and all our races are so advertised, surely he must be taken to be aware of what those rules are, and more especially if he happens, as in the present case, to be not I only a member of the Club, but also 1 Chairman of its Committee. But what is the case here ? Messrs Robinson and Lance absolutely defy the Club of which they are members and disregard one of the most important of its rules, and under circumstances which are grossly insulting to the whole Club. They now assert "that the Stewards of the Canterbury Jockey Club gave no opportunity of either defending ourselves or producing evidence on the occasion of their hearing the protest." As a matter of fact, both these gentlemen were present at the races. The notice of the protest was posted as usual, and both gentlemen were present and might have gone into the room if they had chosen. Mr Lance, I believe, spoke to one of the Stewards and told him of the protest having been entered, and asked him to go into the Stewards' room. The owners were represented by their jockey, Derritt, and his evidence was taken at length, and he was also asked if he had any further evidence to bring on behalf of the owners, when he replied in the negative, and I am given to understand, and indeed Messrs Robinson and Lance's personal friends who are amongst the Stewards admit, that it was principally on their jockey's evidence that they decided the case, and they had no hesitation, much to their regret, in disqualifying the colt. Messrs Robinson and Lance say in their letter that they, as well as a large number of the public, were dissatisfied with the disqualification, and that it was known they were considering what course to adopt to secure a consideration of the case. If this was so, why did they not apply" for an appeal under the rule r Are we asked to believe that gentlemen of Messrs Robinson and Lance's experience in racing, were not cognisant of the rule? Are we asked to believe that they were utterly ignorant of the rules under which their horses were entered, and that they have been completely done by the wily Stewards (some of their own personal friends amongst them), and Committee of the Jockey Club! They also say that the Committee expressed "great dissatisfaction" at the idea of two members of the Clnb going to law, and then follows an utter non seguitur in these words, "but the appeal to the Club here seems little more than a farce."

In the first place it is not true that the Club expressed great dissatisfaction at the fact that two members of its body threatened legal proceedings against the Club. What the Committee said was, that the members " regretted exceedingly that gentlemen of so many years' experience in racing, and who have so long been connected with the C.J. Club, both of whom are also members of the Club and of the Committee, should have considered it necessary to threaten the Club with legal proceedings, under the circumstances." I feel confident that every member of the Club wiU agree with the Committee. .in the expression of that regret. The passage I have quoted above as to the appeal to the Club being a farce is certainly one of the most deliberate insults that any man can offer te another. Here we have the Chairman of the Committee of this very Club, signing a letter in which he deliberately accuses the whole Club of being unfit to discharge its duties under the rules. If an outsider had stated this it would have been bad enough surely, but that the Chairman and a member of the Committee should gratuitously insult the whole body of members in this manner is what I trust the Club will not tolerate.

What ground has Mr Lance or Mr Robinson either for saying that an appeal to the Club would be a farce ? Have they ever made an appeal to the Club under its rules against any decision from which they have had experience of their appeal being treated as a farce ? I never heard of such an appeal being heard by the Club. Surely these gentlemen must have khewn that they should have applied at once to the Stewards for their consent to have an appeal heard by the Club. The Committee answered their application by a simple fact —viz., that they had no power to deal with the matter. But even supposing the Committee to have been wrong, Burely that did not justify these gentlemen in grossly insulting the Club by saying that an appeal to its members is "little more than a farce." But not content with thus gratuitously insulting the Club, they make the matter infinitely worse by accusing the Stewards of deciding without taking evidence on their side.

La addition to the first accusation that i the Stewards gave them no opportunity, of either " defending ourselves or producing evidence," they say further fon, they would be willing to abide by the decision of the Stewards in any case where " as owners, our side had been heard by them; but to interfere with a man's private property without giving hi— an opportunity of defence, is neither law nor justice." Now considering that several of the , Stewards at the late meeting are intimate personal friends of the two persons who signed these remarks, it really seems almost incredible that these words could have been written with any thought as to their import. ! I have already pointed out that Messrs Robinson and Lance's jockey, Derritt, was examined, and that it was on Ids evidence principally that the colt was disqualified, but in addition to this suiely it does not become these two old experienced racing men to insult their own friends apd other Stewards by such a statement as this. Did Mr Lance or Mr Robinson offer any further evidence to the Stewards?' They were both on the ground, and there 'was nothing to prevent them going into the Stewards* room and offering any evidence they had. They both were aware | of the case being heard, and if they had ! wished to be present there was nothing to ■ prevent them/ But their own jockey said he had no further evidence to bring, and without any hesitation,the. Stewards decided unanimously that the colt must be disqualified. I am perfectly convinced of one thing, and it is this/ that not only will Messrs Robinson and Lance's personal; friends -regret the course they have taken - in deliberately ignoring one cf the principal rules under which: they entered their; horses, but every member of the Club, and every man who takes -an interest in racing, will fully reciprocate the feeling of the Committee, that they" exceedingly

regretted the under the circumstances. With regard to the references to what Admiral Rous said, it is only necessary to say that they do not apply at aU to the present case. Persons who enter horses to be run under the C.J. Club rules are bound by those rules, in the absence of fraud, as a matter of course, and Messrs Robinson and Lance should be the last men to turn round and decline to abide by the very rules which one of them, at any rate, has framed, and they cannot possibly plead ignorance of them: The last paragraph, quoted as Admiral Rous'B, is a mere truißm. Of course no Jockey Club or any other body can deprive any man of his "lawful right to refer his grievances to a legal tribunal." And certainly the Committee of the CJ. Club have not attempted to deprive these gentlemen of their lawful right. If they were dissatisfied with the decision as they now say they were, and had applied to the Stewards under the rules for an appeal to the Club, no doubt the Stewards and the Club would have granted it. But Messrs Robinson and Lance, not having availed themselves of the appeal, now deliberately assert that such an appeal would be a farce. They also blame the Committee for not doing that which they have no power under our rules to do, as that is clearly a matter for the Stewards and for the Committee.

The final paragraph of their letter is surely very significant. They say—"We bow-to the supremacy of the law." There is some little consolation, at any rate, in these words, as they indicate that MessRobinson and Lance, although quite prepared to defy the rules of the Club, are not quite prepared to defy the supremacy of the law. As the matter has been brought before the pubUc by Messrs Robinson and Lance, it is only right that the whole correspondence shall be published, and I will forward you a copy for that purpose. Tours, &c./ H. Wynn Williams.