THE SANDERS CUP

Evening Star, Issue 17926, 23 March 1922, Page 9

THE SANDERS CUP

Hfi rcuuocrs REPLY.

The following reply to the official statement published in last night’s ‘Star’ lias been forwarded by Mr W. J. M'Culloch: First and foremost, I shonld like ,^ e public of Otago and others interested to Low how the “official statement of the Otngo Yacht and Motor Boat Association was flawed at on Tuesday night, iho meeting was attended by nine delegates— Wc from the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association, three from the Ravensbourne Boating Club, and three fiom the Port Chalmers Sailing Club. The ordinary business of the mooting had been tvaus-(U-ted, when the chairman (Mi . A. o. Hanlon) said he had further businesß to oliice before the meeting. He then threw his bombshell, and read out the foregoing typewritten “ official ” statement. I make the deliberate statement that no other members present (with the exception of Mr \eos| knew that this special business was to be considered. There can be no doubt Lf, this “official" statement was carefully drawn up by Messrs Hanlon and S i, and ns the other delegates present were previously quite unaware of its contents the promoters of the statement had all the advantage. But lot me enlightu ■.ho public on the manner m which the mooting come to adopt statement ns “official” by the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Club. I myself did not vote; a Ravensbourne delegates (Mr A Grant) did fot vote; Mr H. K Mollor had to leave to catch his train—he did' not vote; and Mr E. 0. Kellertt, quite rightly, Lid that, as be had no knowledge of what took place at Auckland, he a so would not vote. This weighty official statement was then adopted on the votes of Messrs Hanlon and Fees and the throe Port Chalmers delegates (Messrs Smith. Percy and Anderson) —five votes in all. These men, they would like us to believe, represent the judgment of yachtsmen and the general public of Dunedin. Do tho\ I I certainly do not think so. The " official ” statement omits to state that the Ravonsbourne people gave £25 towards the cost of sending the Heather to Auckland. As regards the statement that on tna day of J the first race the Heather had never been down the harbor as far as the turning mark,” I give it an absolute deAs regards the statement that I wanted to put an Auckland crew in my boat, I give that an absolute denial also. I admit, however, that I said to Mr reees that if they could not get the intricate course pro posed altered l X thought it would be only fair to put one Auckland man in my boat—-and one man only as a guide." The currents and eddies on this course were difficult for a visiting yachtsman to negotiate. I did not. however, put forward my proposal seriously, but only with the intention of getting Mr Nees to fight for a change of course—and the course was changed. As regards the petition, I did not know that there was such a thifc; in existence antil after the fifth race held in Dunedin ihis year. It would bo interesting to the Otago public if the names of the persons Vho signed this petition were mad'o known. It could them be judged how much some >f them know about yachting and the jailing of yachts. As regards the accusation that I desired to show the cup, along with the Heather, at the Dunedin Winter Show, this likewise is untrue. 1 was requested by the secretary of the Otago A. and P. Society to exhibit the Heather and the cup. I referred Mr Ftlton to Mr Hanlon, and stated that I personally would not ask him for permission to show the cup, and that T had never had possession of it. It was up in Mr Hanlon’s office. When the society asked me to display the Heather I said I would bo very pleased to do so, but would prefer if they showed it on a .special standi by,,itself, quite apart from ..my business display. The request for the Heather being made at a late hour, however. it was found: that suitable space could not be found fen - her, and at the request of the society I displayed it over nay own stand. Let raq further analyse the “ official ” statement. Messrs Hanlon and Nees resent my criticism on the occasion of the presentation of the Sanders Cup. Was it Warranted?- In the light of the foregoing bitter criticism, I say it certainly was. In making my statement that “ I had not had a fair go,” I made it quite plain that I was not referring to any conduct by (ho opposing crews, but that I was referring to certain officials in Dunedin. Will Messrs Hanlon and Nees deny that I did not have the support of many of the prominent officials in Dunedin? Will they deny that underhand methods were attempted to prevent me from sailing in the two Hast races of the Dunedin series? That

I did not have the support in the races

of cither Messrs Hanlon and Noes is fully demonstrated l by the diatribe they have launched against me, and they are hard put to it to try to condemn me when they go back twelve months to scrape up ail that took place at Auckland. It was at Auckland l that I earned the enmity of Mr Hanlon. In his moat dictatorial manner he told me that I would; have to get out of the Heather for the fourth race. Mr Hanlon may find it easy to browbeat nervous witnesses in the law courts, but he was certainly not going to browbeat me. I asked him to point out where I had failed in handling the Heather previously, and I also asked him what ho knew about sailing a boat, anyway. I ask him again now. I told him wc were not beaten yet, and could still win the next two races if we got a breeze. At Auckland, moreover, there were so many Otago experts who knew hotter than I did bow the Heather should bo sailed that I natur-

ally became upset, and made statement which I realise now were injudicious. I maintain that I. sailed the Heather at Auckland to her very test advantage, and I would like to ask Messrs Hanlon and Nees why, if they consider all their accusations are fair, and prompted only by the best interests of sportsmanship and yachting, they ever allowed me to sail for Otago again? As a matter of fact, Mr Hanlon

at Auckland told me that I would never again be allowed to sail a boat for Otago. Coming to the latest contest, the “official " <2la.temc.nt that tho selection of tho

Heather “ failed to satisfy a great majority of those interested” is absolutely nnl.r.'ic ; and my denial is wrath just ns much as the statement issued! by Messrs Hanlon and Nees. Moreover, I would just like to point out that Heather has met tho Otago fourteen-footers sinoo the decision of tho Sanders Cup races, and beaten them, and .1 sailed her.

As regards tho “half tide wall” protest, I was entitled to protest. In all locally*railed races, if a boat aaila over a submerged object—to wit, tho training wall—she is open to disqualification. What is more, special instructions were issued to each skipper, prior to starting each race, that-no boat was to cross the wall. What have Messrs Hanlon ®,ud Sees to say to this?

In regard to the alleged insult to Mr Kelly on the wharf, I simply approached him and Mr M'Donald (the Wellington judge), and asked them to reconsider their decision, on the ground that I had been given no opportunity to call any evidence, anti, strangely enough, my protest wag thrown out on the ground of “insufficient

evidence.” Mr Kelly, speaking in a sarcastic manner, said bo -would not reconsider it for ono moment, and also said that if I was not satisfied he would re-

sign, as ho had all the evidence he - required. I stated that I was talking to tho judges as a whole, that I had previously spoken to our own representative (Mr Ne-es), and that Mr Nees had told mo while proceeding to the wall to let tho judges see where the alleged breach had occurred, that he wouldl not rote on tho matter, but leave it to tho visiting judges. That was all the conversation I had with Mr Kelly. Willi Mr Hanlon or Mr Wees therefore please enlighten mo as to how I insulted Mr Kelly? Might I my that in the seventh and last race—won by Desert Cold —I did not “ scull ” Heather. I swung my rudder to get Heather round the buoy at .Anderson

Bay in tho flat calm, but I'certainly did not scull. This is proved! by tho fact that 1 was first round the buoy, but last to got away from it, being over a minute even behind tho' Murihiku. It is, however, when we come to the summing up of the ‘‘official” statement that Messrs Hanlon and Noes set-in their sneer. They eay that I sailed in seven races and won only two. There was only one of tbo five competitors that won more —tho Desert Gold, with three. I‘‘ lost tbo cup for Otago.” That is a nice, brotherly way of putting it. Certainly, tho Heather was beaten, but I got the very - best out of her in her races, and I leave it to tho thousands who watched tho races to say whether my assertion is correct or not. And might I add that in tho seventh race, in which I was beaten, I actually beat the Desert Gold’s time, if the time lost by Heather through a calm, which the most competent yachtsman could not have obviated, is deducted.

Messrs Hanlon and Nees said that they have ample evidence to prove every statement in their “ explanation ” —a pretty way of putting it. They invito mo or any of my associates to controvert it. In my turn. I Invito them to controvert my statement, which, I may add, as ae much really “ official ” ns theirs. In conclusion, let mo quote from a meeting of tho Otago Yacht and Motor Association, hold on April 8, 1921 (the first meeting after tho visiting yachtsmen returned from Auckland : “It was reported by the Committee of Management that tho Auckland contest was got off successfully, and the whole of tho arrangements in connection with tho contest wero satisfactory, and the conduct of tho crew was exemplary.” Those present were Messrs Hanlon (chairman), C. W. Sundstrura, A, Welch, B. 11. Nces, J. R. Cameron, W. J. P, M’Culloch, E. Percy, and C. Smith. No Ravensbonrno Club delegates wero present, they having received no notico of the meeting.