ATHLETICS v. ST. PATRICK’S COLLEGE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 753, 6 August 1886, Page 20

ATHLETICS v. ST. PATRICK’S COLLEGE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND MAIL Sir, —Allow me to make a few remarks on the subject of the postponed match Athletics v. St Patrick’s College. I do not intend to go into the question as to whether or not the College team can by strict rule claim the match. I leave that to the Rugby Union to decide. I merely wish to state my opinion that the conduct of the College team in claiming the match without a struggle for it is to my mind a most painful evidence of the lack in them of what in England is generally known as “ public school spirit.” I venture to assert, moreover, that in no other college in New Zealand has such a claim, which savours much of “ professionalism,” ever been preferred. I am lost in wonder that the masters, who probably have been educated in refined, academies, and whose desire I am sure is to foster in their pupils a spirit of manliness, gentlemanly courtesy, and fair play, should allow the claim to be put forward, and L hope that for the credit of the grand institution which they direct, they will use their influence to have a claim so unsavory to British minds withdrawn. I do not wish to indulge in anything in the shape of recrimination, but I would point out in conclusion that this very match has been postponed for many weeks to suit the convenience of the College team, owing to their holidays, which I am told began the day before that fixed for the match. I would also like to draw attention to the ease with which a school team can be assembled in any weather, and to the great difficulty which must always be found in outrageously bad weather, such as that of last Saturday, in collecting a team of young men whose residences and offices are scattered all over the city. —I am, &c., Amateur.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sik ; —A severe and solemn lecture on

our many frailities has been read us in your columns this morning by an enterprising scribe, dubbing himself “Amateur.” Must we in consequence hide our diminished heads because a correspondent from the safe cover of a newspaper anonymity shakes hi 3 sapient head and bewails with pious horror, our lack of “ public school spirit,” &c. Of what concern to us is his opinion ? If he has a case to make, why not address himself to the point at issue, without importing matter quite foreign to the discussion ? It seems to me that, without indulging in recrimination or raising byissues, the case can be argued on its merits. If our position is not a safe one, let “Amateur” in his benevolence enlighten us. —I am, &c., S. Mahoney, Hon. Sec. St. Patrick’s College F.C.