BOXING.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17645, 23 December 1922, Page 10

BOXING.

™ E DISPUTE. «« THJ EIIITOB Of «< ra „ • Sir,—As WMidetibl# given to U* activities ol S, Association, and to th , vi the committee thereof, oa Zealind Boxing Council \ the "ITS lcaving th > »«\n."" matched, the Council ask, (,7^ U »* the attached two tetter* b#in» receded itom the 0® fe, 00 ' >Uj and the WcUW^iy l - WH^r n ' N^ OXAGO ASSOCIATION'S LETTER Secretary, N.Z. * attention to my letter of Mm* which wo usked that, in * ophuom wo had obtained/ had no . J unsdiction vo coMidjl „ on a question of fact, and thuvou?r W should reconsidar iu previous a.»? 5 did not asfc the Cou ß cU to^i O n T"W' las you had already dealt witluil,a-*'-dance as submitted to you), butJi a course by which it could' vioub decision, which might ha™ f> at erroneously, in faco of tha My Association knows of no which a control council would a oisiona of its afflliated associate? on questions of fact. unices, on grounds, and these grounds wAIt? 'H, been made acquainted, wift (rife}™ cil considered they were wsrianL; *»- riding the decision of this Tfeel that the Council has cast }* tion on, this Association as not b*i»» u 6control its own tournaments Id ference with the functions'oU& body is, under the civaumsUnce, to all associations' efforts in k-..:'"' 10 •port clean. We regret th. pfeir tunato position, but as this is * as between your Council and thUw? tun, we. fail to see how the coffin two participants in the contest <7* sideration of the matter was of aa assuredly if one objected 4 be no further advanced. We fwl ft«lv whole matter was instigated by tha of money (hat was at st&ke\on and we iwl quite assured that hid iMii any other boxer than. McCleary would have been beard of any appeal, S«V we at, this end have a better knh«uS. all the facts than members, oftju fef can possiblv obtain unless they hare «&»! that we are not acquainted with." :.r«i We hftva made the position u pliij ui can, and trust tin Council will wcind oJ previous resolution, so that it cnnoM that the Council were assittinjj hihJj. bookT lUn SpMt lralt In conclusion. I-tnav add that fte rif&y decision bein? final is aupDorfed hyroM th • letter of November Ist, in" which jm-M 1 1 t« McDonald's nt tto AmlnUfc.' Cbam-pionslups; and ri«U& ?JUI 1 t»ke the, pood with the bad and usnt th • if 1 ., a t Pl ' ion '' Wl,tl » Proper smiW spirit."—^ours faithfully:, ' •<•••-.• • wr%y 11. DIVERS, , j .. . Secretary, Otago Boxisu Awl, (Copy) " ( < ' THE COUNCIL'S ChristcHUrcli, December'llUl IMI Mr H. Divers. , ■ Dear Sir—Tha Council rtgritj tk( in u , knowledging receipt of your jeltsrA inst. it is compelled to retor::to tbe ji^Ni' taste displayed therein. HMingiiidUiii £ Council prefers to take n© noliww : present of the lmp-uUtions: contalnei fa. tbi lettor. The Council M un»]>l»!,<fl.'|iji : td : the letter any reasou for recoa«d«r»tioji of ' its decision. [ /' *•> The Council docs not ccnsidtl &tt its"decdsion' "was arrived at orronwiriiWj tt tij therefore no need to look for ur "itnM br which it may rescind" that dtadciK; ground upon which the decision v nj{kiii was that referee's action wu b> the rules, as was your refusing to admit a contestant's ; i$V tl appeal. • , . As to. your fetlfag that, tie Cotmdl4» cast a direct reflection'-' an the. Otigo,)j» diation, the, OduncjJ htd t . »nd. hit, tention of castm? refltctiiM' iny i or person. '• As to your stitement that the OmUJifl ««Uon ; is "a meaace to , *ll wtoelaUoai l'itforts in keeping ths sport ilcin," that'll I matter upon which, the -Council »nd oQm aasociations mey hold viaws diflerinj irea i yours. The Council .gave its decision is tt eflort to keep the sport dean. y.> - . Ag to your inabiuty'to "iee htfir fe cossent of the two, participants invtlii'eoaiefi to a rtoonsidtsation of the- msttp t»* il ls; avail," the Council would point ontJlat'its docision gave to the contestants njhtyiidt oanpot bo taken away, except by dvSproua Failing the consent of both conte«tuU tl» matter may be reopened only in MconElttt with the settled principle# oases, ' " As to your , attempted analogy McDonald case atd this, the Conacil'iroold point out that they are not oomptrtl)!«,'clt : McDonald's case the referee du»B| the «es; test gave a < "decision" on a., question which decision as such analf'we ftliot of the refereo m the McQui?ffo-Mcodj; co&frest vrixa not euch a deciaion^M-ii'Wß* templated by the rule, making nfirict* df cisions .final, and ■ involved a breach of"t& Council's rules.—Yours sincerely s \ W. 6. ATAGK, ' Council SKreUqi'r