SECONDARY SCHOOLS' FOOTBALL.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17292, 2 November 1921, Page 6

SECONDARY SCHOOLS' FOOTBALL.

1 _ MOVEMENT FOB SEPARATE COMPETITIONS. A! letter received by the .Management Committee of -the Canterbury Rugby Union laat night, from the Rev. E. C. Crosse, headmaster of Christ's College, stated that at a meeting of the headmaster .and sporte masters of Christ's. College, Boys' High School, St. Andrew's Colleib and St. Bede's College, it had been unanimously decided to ask the union to consider the desirability of holding ai secondary schools football competition between those schools. The chairman (Mr 8. F. Wibjon) said that he considered the idea tx splendid one. Such a competition, if carried through successfully, would prove of advantage to football. It •would still be under the official control of the union, but would more or Ie« 8 be controlled by the sporte masters of the schools. Mr A. Dey said'that the competition would obviate the present difficulty in regard to matches during the schools' vacations. On the motion of the chairman, it was decided to approve of tho principle of a secondary schools' competition, and that tho Union should give it every assistance. In answer to Mr A. E. McPhail, who said that separate authority not be permitted, Mr C. Buchanan said that it was not proposed to have- a schools' sub-union, but only a separate competition. Messrs Wilson, Dey, and G. P. Payne were appointed a sub-committee to confer with the headmasters and sport 3 masters of the schools concerned. try, and at the present time he did hot see his way clear to make more concessions. He had to be careful not to overrun the constable. There was another point that had not been mentioned. He was quoting tho figures from memory/ Piiorto the war, the amount of land tax collected was about £603,000 ner annum. To-day the same land, which was not producing any more per acre, had to pay tax amounting to no less than £1,700,000. The talk of one or two lion, members that the Bill had been brought in to benefit the large landowners waa absolute nonsense. There could be no discrimination in such a case as this. Members must not forget that last year higher taxation had been put on large landowners with a view to the subdivision of their land. Tho Hon. W. Nosworthy replied to the statements of Messrs Bartram and Veitch. The country, he said, was carrying at present as much taxation as was possible, considering the prices that were being got for produce. The passing of this legislation would be some relief to people who were carrying a heavy load at the present time.