THE JOCKEYS’ DISPUTE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume X, Issue 139, 27 May 1920, Page 5

THE JOCKEYS’ DISPUTE.

LETTER T” lIUME MINISTER. IN RE.' i.’ T(‘ PRESIDENT. Die Jockeys’ Association have penned a reply, through their secre tarv. to the statement of the president, oi the Auckland Racing Club regarding the suspension of the thrw jockeys. Hewitt O’Shea, and Rae. and forwarded the same to the Prime Minister. Dealing first with the contention that the suspension had nothing to dr with their connection with rhe Jockevs Association, the letter inquires why'the president of the association. E. C. Rae. the founder, L. H. Hewitt, mid J O'Shea (who was warned that he would be punished at Palmerston North when he alone refused to resign from the association) have been singled out. A’ Avondale twenty-seven jockeys refused to ride, and the association contends that all were equally guilty for the responsibility of stopping the meeting. The association disclaim that they have only to do with owners and trainers, hut are interested in. all matters affecting the calling of jockeys, and nope that the Prime Minister will make the clubs amenable to the law. Regarding the rules it is contended that neither the Avondale Club nor the Auckland District Committee conducted the case according to the piles oi racing. Ths stewards ot the Avondale Club committed a breach under rule 1 part 4. in that they failed to adjudicate upon the breach <’»f their meeting, but merely forwarded the evidence, taken in the absence of the jockeys, to the Auckland committee. The letter adds; "Mill Mr. Mitchelson tell you why he sat on the committee, knowing lull well that the Avondale stewards had acted ’wrongly? The Auckland District Committee may try to hide behind rule 3 part 20. giving them power to cancel a license, but in my opinion they cannot in this case, as the previously mentioned rule prevents them.” The anomaly of the position ol jockeys Alanson. Recti and McCormack is also referred to. these men being guilty of the same offences as those who "was Suspended. O’Shea is charged with breaking an engagement for which the penalty is a fine of £2O oi suspension for the nieetinrg. Justification of his attitude in not- attending the meeting of stewards is measured by his solicitor’s advice that he was entitled to particulars of the charge. This and the fact that the jockeys were not allowed to be represented by counsel was the reason for non-atten-dance at the meeting. However, the first exception to the above objections was made at the meetimx ot the Auckland committee when the men were supplied with the reason of their attendance. O’Shea’s attitude in alleged inciting on the first day and refusing t< ride on the second day ot the Avondale meeting are also justified by the secretary's letter.

Special reference is made to the part of the president’s letter which stated that the suspensions had nothing v do with their actions on the first day This is criticised as misleading, as t-lic charge made against Hewitt in writing by the Auckland committee was thut on the 7th and 10th. he incited. Die association contends that the whole trouble emanated from the first day 'Die fact that Mr. F. Earl, K.C., represented the Auckland committee while the jockeys had no counsel is also stressed. , • . The letter, in conclusion, denies that the trades union were misled, and th* aid of the labour organisations was only invoked after all conciliatory measures had tailed, and _ points out that the secretary of the New Zealand Racing Conference mingled with the lockeys. seeking their resignation from the association, nt the (. hrtstchurch Koval meeting in the jockeys’ room, from which the representative association was debarred.