OTAGO RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION.

Evening Star, Issue 9386, 7 May 1894, Page 4

OTAGO RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION.

THE AFFILIATION QUESTION ' NEGATIVED.

A special general meeting of the Otago Football Union was held in tho City Hotel on Saturday night to again consider the question of the Union’s affiliation with the Now Zealand Rugby Union. Mr R. Chisholm (president) occupied' the chair, and there were about fifty delegates present. After tho roll had been called Mr HUNTER asked if it was in order to bring on a motion which was discussed and shelved at a previous meeting. If so, there might be no finality to a matter at all.

The Chairman said that any delegate was in order in bringing any question up, provided he furnished the secretary with a requisition signed as required by the by-laws. The fact that it had been dealt with at a previous meeting offered no obstacle.

Mr Cohkn sa'd that apparently Mr Hunter again wished to stop the mouths of those opposed to him. Mr Hunter : Not at all.

The Chairman sai I the whole question was thrashed out at the annual meeting, and delegates should now refrain from making any personal remarks and simply discuss the matter on its merits.

Mr Cohen said he did not wish to impute motives to Mr Hunter. Ho was dealing with a hard fact, and that gentleman must swallow it whether he liked it or not. At the annual meeting the business was intercepted and prolonged by a discussion raised on a point of order which was no point of order at all, and now the same tactics were being pursued. If there were no rules governing their procedure then common sense came into play, and, from that point of view, if a resolution were lost at one meeting, and the minority wished to further test the feeling of the meeting upon it, they could bring it up again if they gave the necessary notice and sent in a requisition signed by tho it amber required under the by-law. The minority in this case had done that, and he thought they had a right to complain that the spirit and tenor of the by-law had not been carried oat, for the meeting shonld have been held seven days earlier—(hear, hear)—and as they had been prejudiced to that extent it cor' 1 tainly did not come with good grace from anyone to say that they should not now be hoard. ~(Hear, hear.) In moving the motion he had given notice of, ho said ho would be complying, he understood, with a general desire if he did not occupy their time by covering old ground, or by raking up, as his opponents had done, what he had hoped was buried in the grave of the forgotten past. Nor was ho desirous of trying the patience of the meeting, nor would lie risk losing the votes of his supporters, as he was told he had done on the former occasions, by the length rather than tho strength of his aldress. The arguments he had used on a previous occasion had not been replied to as a matter of fact they were left absolutely unchallenged—but he had been met with a string of invective, gross abuse had been directed at him and his profession, and there hid been a rather free imputation of motives on his part. The statement that had been made on that occasion that the N.Z.U. was primarily —according to some speakers solely—formed to provide cheap trips for a few favored individuals had received an unqualified denial from the Executive of that body. He maintained that the Otago Union Lad no right to (question the motives of those who were responsible for the existence of the N.Z.U., because they were quite within their rights in doing so, and were entitled to seek to control football within the limits of those they represented. It was no answer to the contention of those who said that the New Zealand Union had done work and was capable of doing a lot more good work, because a bare majority—whether it was one or should prove to bo five—of the Otago Union insisted on pursuing a policy of isolation. It had also been contended that the New Zealand Union’s policy was to break up existing unions in order to give a preponderance of voting power to the North Island small unions, but the facts entirely dispersed such a contention. Auckland’s control over her clubs was quite as firm as Otago’s; the New Zealand Union had la?t year prevented splitting up in Wellington Central district, and this year an application from the West Coast of this island had been dealt with in a way that showed that the policy of that union was to discourage the formation of small unions. The objects and scope of tho New Zealand Union were set out in the preamble of their constitution with sufficient distinctness to show that they were more than the mere Bending of a team to England. President Campbell said : “The banding together of tho Unions of the colony had already proved of great advantage to football, hut they must not gauge their strength by the large number of unions affiliated, but by tho good results they hoped to bring about. The functions of a New Zealand Union were to deal with matters of colonial importance, and not to interfere in the business or local concerns of affiliated unions. On this point the actions ami intentions of the C’.hcershad been misrepresented in somequarters. They had never contemplated in any way embarrassing affiliated bodies.” Another matter that had been fixed up was the establishment of an Australasian Union, concerning which Mr Campbell said : “ To some it miglt seem merely a high-sounding phrase, hut it was not so. It was a practical scheme to bind tho unions together under one code of laws. . . . An Australasian Union would make disqualifications general, and would also obtain fair representation in the Old Country. It would also prevent small innovations in the rules. The Australian unions were at one with the New Zealand Union on the subject.” As to the proposed visit of a team to England and the allegations of professionalism so rashly made, Mr Campbell spoke the mind of his Union with no uncertain sound. “ There was no such thing here as professionalism, but surprise bad been expressed at the strong hold it had obtained in the Old Country, and it behoved the colonial unions to unite and maintain our present freedom from it. . . . "With reference to sending a team to England, nothing which had been done had committed the New Zealand Union to it. There had been correspondence, and it was an undertaking which no sensible body would Undertake without knowing the ground they were going on, and it would requhe the utmost caution and fear. Unions need not fear that they would be committed to it without full consultation. It was objected that tho team must become professionals, but there was no reason •why they should not go to England and return as amateurs, and there was no reason why a colonial team should not begot together without leaving their wives and families starving in the c dony, as had been alleged. ... That it would unfit men for their work he did not believe. , . . If the direful consequences which had been prophesied were at all likely to accrue, he could say that no team would leave this colony for England.” He de-ired to call particular attention to the statement that the affiliated unions would be consulted before any definite action was taken, and that no such step had yet been taken. Therefore, if the majority of tho unions declared against such a step as tending to encourage professionalism or to injure the men physically or morally they might depend on it that no such trip would come off. The pronouncement of Mr Campbell re professionalism or mischievous consequences was the authoritative pronouncement of his union, and must be accepted as such. There had been no committal as yet; the project was still in the air, and could be prevented if the weight of opinion was against it. Some individuals, to suit their own purposes, had asserted that he (Mr Cohen) spoke with the authority and as the mouthpiece of the New Zealand Union, hut here was a clear disproof of that. Ho had merely expressed his individual opinion, and repeated it, that sooner or later the New Zealand Union would despatch a team te England, whether Otago joined them or not. As to tho allegation of professionalism, that evil had not occurred to the Executive of the Otago Kugby Union when they sent a team round the colony and pro]nosed to send teams to Australia and England.—(Mr J. U. Chatman : “No.”) He had made that statement before, and it had been contradicted by Mr Chapman, but he challenged the old Executive to lay on the table their letters to Brisbane, New South 'Wales, and England, and their instructions to Mr Sleigh. Mr Chapman said that he had flatly contradicted this statement at the last meeting and so also had Mr Allen, and it was now for Mr Cohen to accept that denial or move his statement. He simply told Mr Cohen that there had been no communication between the Otago Kugby Union and Brisbane, and if Mr Cohen doubted his assertion he could get all the correspondence. Mr Cohen held in his hand a so-called unofficial document signed by Mr Horne, who was known as the secretary of the Otago Rugby Union. He would read one passage: “ Although, of course, we shonld be delighted to be able to send a team of footballers from our colony to visit the Old Country, still we must recognise, and: past experience has emphasised the necessity of recognising, that it is a great undertaking to free anv such venture from the taint of professionalism ” If that letter meant anything at all t meant a desire the part of ,the Otago Union, if certain contingencies were favorable, t j send a team Home.—(Mr Chapman : “No.”) There were similar letters to New Sooth Wales. He invited the meeting to use their judgment and say whether they did not place on that passage the interpretation he put .upon it. He invited them to believe that the Otago Rugby Union Committee had it in contemplation, if circumstances favored them, to despatch a team tj England ; and if that contention was right the charge of encouraging professionalism could not lie against the Hew Zealand Union, who were

oiily flesfrona of following In the footsteps of Otago. If these tetters wen authorised by the Executive of the Otago Rugby Union thetf he. was entitled.to construe tnem -as ho had done and to ask the meeting to endorse that construction. They had heard moving tales of the terrible evils which would result from sending a team to Australia or England, but ho asked the'meeting, as reasonable men, whether it was possible that all these dire things could, happen. How many men could get away froiin Otago? —(Mr Montgomery: “None.”) If they had no men available for such a team none of the evils could happen to Otago players, and surely the men who regulated football in the other places were responsible to their own constituencies that their men did not lose their status or meet with harm. Since Canterbury and Southland had broken away from their alliance with Otago, and the latter stood alone t it had become a question for the footballers of Otago whether they could afford any longer to continue a policy of isolation. lie thought, so far as the votes and actions of the players wore concerned, that the answer was strongly in favor of his side.—(Applause.) If the ordinary course of procedure had been adopted at the annual meeting of this Union, they would not have reached the unfortunate position they had occupied at midnight on that occasion. When ho know that by an unfortunate accident some of his friends were t»rc vented from voting, and when two of ns supjiortcrs left the room without casting their voe*, he claimed that he had a right to come there and ask for a settlement of that vexed question. If it unfortunately happened that so far as the Executive were concerned he was in no better position that night than before, the circumstance was very much to be regretted for reasons that were known to them a’l. If the question was to be settled once and for all, ho did trust that the determination of it would bo left to those most concerned—the playing footballers of Otago. He had been accused of using threats on the previous occasion. That was furthest from hid thoughts, and he did not intend to pursue that line that evening. It had been strongly put to the country' clubs by a section of the Press that the object of those who supported him was to constantly send their best team on tour, so that the country clubs would never again sec a goldfields team; that the town v. country match, instead of being an annual alfair, would be a thing of the past. He asked the meeting whether that was the object for which their football was to be maintained ? He thought rather the object was to encourage their footballers to persevere until they reached the top of the tree in competition with the other unions, and he asked if tha* was to be achieved by making the town and country match an annual fixture? He claimed that if Otago joined the New Zealand Union it would lose none of its powers, and that professionalism, which most of them contended did not exist within its bounds, would not, even then, rear its head. For these reasons he moved the resolution standing in his name.—(Applause.) Mr Kestieaux seconded the motion. Mr Chapman said Mr Cohen had not advanced a single argument in favor of the Union joining the New Zealand Union. If anything, he had weakened his case. They would remember that at the last meeting he told them emphatically that the New Zealand Union intended to send a team to England, and he led them to believe that if they did not join they would bo left out of that very good thing. He (the speaker) had already told the delegates that the first and prime object of the formation of the New Zealand Union was to send a team to England. He held a letter in his hand, dated October 12, 1891, from Mr Hobcn, asking the Otago Union to appoint -delegates, and saying: “ Among the matters to be considered at the Conference will be tlio suggested Now Sou: hj Wales trip, and the possibility of extending, it to England.” Anybody who had studied the question knew that was originally their intention, and if Otago, Cantcibury, and Southland had gone in he believed the team would have been an accomplished fact by now, and the team would have been Home. Footballers in New Zealand could thank tlr-se throe provinces for standing out and for so far preserving the purity of the game. Mr Cohen had referred to the coarse abuse used by the opponents of the New Zealand Union, hut ho (the speaker) thought they would find that the abuse was on the other side. —(A Voice : “ Question.”) If the New Zealand Union had no intention of sending a team to England why did they not deny ic ? At the meeting of the Union in Wellington Mr Campbell said the Union were not committed to it, and they had seen various statements in the Press about trips to America, England, New South Wales, and other parts of the globe, and why did the Union not contradict these statements? So much for the scope an t object of the New Zealand Union. Then Mr Cohen had not dealt largely' with the representation question. That had not been altered in the slightest. If they read the speech by Mr Crcaswcll at the last meeting of the Canterbury Union they would see that lie pointed out that a great deal had been gained by Otago, Canterbury, and Southland holding out as long as they had.—(Mr Cohen : “ Where, is the gain ?”) They had now an appeal committee belonging to the New Zealand Union—three from the North Island and two from the South. And supposing an appeal went up from Otago, how would it lie settled ? 'J he secretary, no doubt, would make copies of the correspondence and forward one to each member, who would send written replies back to him. The secretary would then take the balance of opinion and forward it to the Union concerned. He would ask Was that a proper way of settling appeals, and could they be settled satisfactorily by that method? And if they were going to bring the Appeal Committee together, then the New Zealand Union would have a heavy hill in the way of expenses to meet every year, which expense affiliated unions would have to bear. The speaker next referred his hearers to his first and chief objection to the New Zealand Union, and that was the difficulty of being represented. —(Hear, hear.) They could not be properly represented except by men from their own City. People in Wellington could not know the feeling of Dunelin footballers or of footballers in any other part of the colony. At the Union’s meeting in. Wellington last week there were fifteen delegates in attendance. Thirteen or fifteen unions were now affiliated with the New Zealand Union, which allowed of twenty-five or thirty delegates having seats at the meeting, but only fifteen of that number considered the business sufficiently important to go to Wellington to attend to it. As to how many came from Wellington he was not certain, but subject to correction ho would state that the number was four or five at the most. He was of opinion that until they got more rapid communication they should have noTiing to do with the New Zealand Union. Another point was this : that the tendency of the English Union was to discourage the formation of central bod'es. That Union, three years age, being overburdened with appeals and disputes from the affiliated unions, delegated the whole of their powers to the various unions. They gave the Otago Union full power, and to other unions they gave the same power to deal with matters within their own borders, and by way of emphasising their position they provided in the rules that any club appealing against the decision of the local union should first deposit £SO, which sum to he forfeited if the appeal was found to be frivolous. That showed that the object of the parent union was to discourage central unions. Some of the gentlemen who now supported affiliation did not, he believed, desire it. —(Cries of “Oh.”) He had been told so, at any rate. They were in favor of joining so that they might have a chance of splitting the New Zealand Union up. He was not a supporter of that kind of tiling, and they should have nothing to do with it. At present they had full powers within their own borders, and until they found that they could not do their own business they should remain as they arc.

Mr Monkman wished to explain his position. Three weeks ago he voted in favor of affiliation, not because lie thought they would gain anything, but because the qiositiou was forced upon them by the decisions of tho Canterbury and Southland Unions. They were then given to understand that the New Zealand Union would insist that no union under its flag should play any union not affiliated to it, hut since then it had become apparent that no objection would bo offered by the New Zealand Union to the annual matches between Otagoand Canterbury and Otago and Southland.—(“ Question.”) Such being the case, he thought the Otago Union should remain as they were, pending the adoption by the New Zealand Union of a more equitable system of representation, such a system as would enable the Otago Union to remain intact and to get such a share of representation as would he more in accord with its importance than the one at present offered. Ho would vote against the motion. Mr Shako read lengthy quotations from Mr Cresawcll’s report to the Canterbury Union of the proceedings at the meeting of the New Zealand Union.

Mr OBAN said the reason why he was against affiliation was because of the professionalism that would certainly follow. By standing out as they had done, Otago had gained something, as they could gather from the fact that Mr Campbell had come round somewhat to their way of thinking; and if they only stood out longer, although they might join in the end, it would only be when the New Zealand Union had come round to their way of thinking. Mr Montgomery said that professionalism was the main objection he had to the New Zealand Union. Mr Beadle said he would like to know sometliing about the Now Zealand Union’s balancesheet, and also why information concerning the Union was held back from them so much. From New South Wales they learned that the New Zealand matches realised £7OO, and if they had ‘gone through half of that, which they would

bo ontitled tttj they had' done very well—(Laughter.) j? . -• re-: t*t l - Mr, Wells said the same state of things rta*‘ to lie found here. At the lost meeting Mr Chajpmah was asked for some information in connection with their Union, and he did not give iti Mr Chapman contended that he did. A sharp discussion between Messrs Chapman and Wells followed regarding some unfortunate trouble that was caused on a tripiof Otago footballers to Canterbury a few years ago. The former said that the alfair was the fault of one man, and that the damage occasioned cost £7.

Mr.T. Hutchison (hon. secretary) said that Mr Cohen in the course of his speech had complained that he (Mr Hutchison) had not complied with the spirit and terms of tho by-law in calling tho meeting. In justice to himself lie thought lie was entitled to replv to that statement. By-law No 9, under wfiich he acted, read ns follows : “That a special general meeting may lie convened by the hon. secretary at any time, and shall ho convened by him within seven days after receiving a requisition, signed by not less than five delegates, sotting forth the object of such meeting.” The by-law, it would he observed, did not say that the meeting should he held within seven days —(vlr Cohen : “Excuse me. I would ask the chairman’s ruling on that point.”) Ho was aware that the chairman’s interpretation of tho clause coincided with Mr Cohen’s, but ho contended that the word “convened” did not mean “hold,” and could not mean “held.” Since the chairman had intimated to him that he would rule that the meeting, if hold that Saturday, would he informal unless ho received a further requisition, he had taken advice as to the intention of the by-law. It was a question of English, and it turned upon the meaning of the word “convened,” concerning which ho had asked the opinion of three authorities in town, whoso reading of the by -law must command the respect of the meeting—Dr Belcher, Professor Gilray, and Mr A. Wilson—and these opinions (which he read to the meeting), he argued, supported his contention as to tho interpretation which he placed upon the by-law. In fairness, the meeting could not have been held earlier than that evening. The Chairman said he had asked three legal men about the clause, and their opinions confirmed the position he had taken up. Mr Rkstieaux : Who postponed the meeting? Mr Hutchison : It never was postponed. On the Monday following the night of the adjourned annual meeting I received a requisition asking me to call a special meeting, and I accordingly convened a meeting. I sent out a notice within the seven days. Mr Crosby Smith did not blame the secretary for convening the mectin c for that night. What they wanted was the opinion of the whole of the footballers of Otago, and if the meeting had been called for tho previous Saturday the footballers of Otago would not have been represented at the meeting. As to the resolution before them, ho would vote for affiliation for the reason that he did not see any other way out of the difficulty. If they did not join this year they would next. (Mr Chapman : “Query.”) It was pretty certain to come round that way, and he had heard rumors that they would have trouble amongst their own footballers if they did not join. He did not say that as a threat, because he thought everybody knew it.— (Voices: “No.”) At any rate they had heard it.—(Cries of “No.”) Well, they were in happy ignorance.—(Laughter.) Ho would maintain the position he previously took up, and whether he won or lost he would fall in with the majority and do his best for the game; he would try to induce those clubs that had a desire to split to stick to the Union uutil they were all prepared to join the New Zealand Union —(Applause.) Mr Cohen, in his reply, said that there was no warrant for tiic statement that if they decided not to affiliate the match Otago v. Canterbury would take place as usual. Those who made use of that argument did not use it seriously. Tho published account of the proceedings of the New Zealand Union tended in another direction, and they might depend upon it the New Zealand Union would take the course of action that might he deemed right under the circumstances. There was no ground for the contention that the New Zealand Union had now for the first time disowned the intention of sending a team to England. As a matter of fact the Otago Executive were inclined to take the same steps regarding New South Wales, and had it in mind, if certain contingencies happened, to send a team to England,— (Mr Chapman: Most emphatically “No.”) That was merely Mr Chapman’s most emphatic “No” against his own most emphatic “Vos.” Tho action of those who managed the affairs of the union in, so to speak, sitting upon the strongest club in Dunedin for having tho temerity to advance this question Mr Chapman maintained that this was out of order.

Mr Cohen repeated his assertion that the club had been punished for taking up this question, hut said tlia* - , whatever the result might ho, he was satisfied that the players of Otago were fully in favor of the proposed affiliation. On the motion being put to the meeting it was lost by a majority of one, the voting being ; —Ayes, 23 : Messrs Chisholm (president.), Cohen, Kestieaux (Alhambra), M'Leod, E.’.quilant (Oamam Athletic), Sullivan (Dunedin), Miller, M’Lellan (Kaikorai), M‘Cleary, Harris (Oamam), Ur Ross (University), Messrs Sliand (Taieri), Smith (Zingari-Kichrnond), M‘Laron (Caversham), Brown (Green Island), Wells (Melrose), Pariane (Milton), Simmers (Owaka), Jack (Pacific), Muller (Ravenshourne), Torrance (Roxburgh), M‘Robie (Warehousemen', Snow (West Taieri). Noes, 24- : Professor Sale, Mess's Hutchison, Chalmer, Montgomery, Gran, Matheson, Monkmau (Executive), Turton (Dunedin), Herbert (University), Praia, Wales (Pirates), Hunter, Chapman (Union), Rev. J. W. A. Melville (Zingari-Richmond), Messrs Henderson (Bannockburn), Mills (Clutha), A. Stronach (Clyde), Don (Cromwell), Morris (Matakanui), Imler (High School), Stewart (Naseby Prospectors), Nicolson (Waikouaiti), H. Stronach (Kaitangata), Martin (St. Bathans). Mr Bcadffi did not vote. On the result being announced by the chairman, Mr Chatman said he was of opinion that the Committee should not have voted.—(Hear, hear.)

A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the meeting.