SANDERS CUP

Evening Star, Issue 18034, 31 July 1922, Page 10

SANDERS CUP

A DELEGATE’S VIEW OP THE POSITION. - Mr Thomas Anderson,: delegate of the Port Chalmers Yacht and' Motor Boat Club, writes:—

There lias been unnecessary controversy upon the challenge for the cup—wo are glad to say not generally, but from a certain section which has been very dictatory as to what respective clubs and delegates should) or should not do. Every club can conduct its own business, and if others would mind theirs probably smoother working conditions would exist. Surely these notable critics and Mr Knowall realise that every thinking delegate haa a mind oi his I own without seeking assistance -as to where ho should he or what he should say or 1 do Tho very distasteful criticism and unsportsmanlike feelings displayed have been the means -of Mrs -Stevenson intervening and requesting that the memorial challenge be withdrawn. When this was issued the Port Chalmers Club meant well and did not for one moment consider that , the certain section ' would act os it has done, but thought that all would have assisted to perpetuate the name of one I who was a real sport. Mrs Stevenson possessed every right to act as she has, and by so doing the Port Chalmers Club can now take up and reveal’to the public the whole business in a true light. I The withdrawing of the meinonai chat- ' lengo does not in any way alter the Port Chftlmera Club’s decision; to carry out its individual challenge,- which it will carry through. The Otago Association issued a •challenge to Auckland upon certain condiItions appertaining to a restricted claw, which Auckland straightway refused to consider, the result being a deadlock, creating a position that had to be carefully handled. The Port Chalmers Club went j deeply into this matter, and saw a way out of the difficulty in bringing the aasocaai tions together again on sportsmanlike lines, I and accordingly challenged as a club. Had tho Otago Association _ straightway grasped tho position nothing furthei would have happened; but.on the attitude shown no other course was open but to carry through the individual challenge. The Otago Association desired to encourage and swell tho builders’ business in lieu of encouraging seamanship, and this is one of the chief causes of so much paper controversy. Let it ho understood that Auckland was desirous of encouraging the sport by creating the one-design class, which would encourage seamanship and make all boats tho same, being built off the same moulds. Tho restricted design vanes, : as wo have in our local boats to-day the Heather and' Eunice alilre, Wmi red and Murihiku alike but of different styles, , whilst Squib, Agnes, and Tom Thumb again differ, and lona and Gleam (onedesign class) are another type, instead of being all one class, when we would have had closer contests and better seamanship, if the restricted class was allowed to go on indefinitely finality would never have been reached. So it was time to take the bull by the horns and lay down a definite course by straightway adopting the one design. Auckland, which possesses a larger field of the restricted class, has been harder hit than any other district, yet it let discretion be the better part of valor, and the sporting clement prevails, tho bitter i pant revealing to them such a necessity. _ J Nok, to got down to tin tacks, tho posi* tion is surely clear, and it has been 1 proved that the Otago Association has no status, having no control over any club, ■ but was simply inaugurated to deal with i regatta protests. Even viewed from such : a position, there is little cause _ for comment,, as the Otago Yacht Club proved over si certain-protest that tho association could not interfere with its decision, which was only too true. Accordingly, why should it interfere with the Port Chalmers i Club? Have tho chickens come homo to r °The Port Chalmers Club had arranged for its meeting to be held on the Thursday, notices having been issued from the committee meeting the week before, and we did not receive notice of an association meeting until the Tuesday preceding _ the Thursday oi our meeting. It was received too late to cancel bur meeting, as notices had been sent out to such a largo membership. On receipt) of the association’s notice of meeting the association secretary was straightway informed -that the delegates ' would be unable to attend the association meeting, and he was also notified by letter. The order paper for the association meeting made no provision for the rescinding of a previous resolution or the submitting of a new one, only tho consideration of Auckland’s reply- 'in the first place, the association meeting .was informal, as there can, he. no meeting unless, a representative from each club is present. Secondly, a motion already appeared on the minute book which had not been rescinded, and then another has been added without re-

grinding tho one appertaining to the restricted class. This pute the association an a funny position, which can be classed as -untenable.

Perhaps it may clear itself through our suggestion’of the business being done at last meeting being declared informal. That is a good way out of a difficulty. What is at the back of tho association, or I should say some of its members, is the formulation of resolutions from time to time to delay acceptance of the challenge and allow the'association to coirs in at the death-knock, and thereby save Ms skin,which saves it from climbing down at the present juncture to a right attitude. A certain predestiner of events says he knows what will happen. Too true he will, as there is only one happening—one challenge from the Port Chalmers Club and one acceptance, which will not permit of delay, and it would bo wise for intending builders tc build one-design boats, which will receive every consideration and ' justice at the hands of the Port Chalmers Club. It is trusted that the public will see for themselves tho real position, and pass judgment upon the Port Chalmers Chib’s action.