WANT OF CONFIDENCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 11046, 1 November 1921, Page 3

WANT OF CONFIDENCE

BREEZE AT A MEETING. LAWN TENNIS MATTERS. There was a slight clash between certain members of the council of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis.. Association and th.© delegate to the Auckland .Association. (Mr Barry Keesing) when, the annual meeting of the association was -being held, last "evening in the Accountants’ Chambers. 0> For his association Mr Keesing moved: ' “That a conference of representatives of affiliated associations he hold in. Christchurch during the New Zealand championship meeting to discuss general matters of importance concerning the game in the Dominion.'’ . Mr J. G. Peacock (Wellington) wished to strongly oppose the motion. As the motion stood it practically amounted to a motion of no-oonfidence in the management committee. If the word - “delegates” was substituted for the word “representatives” the position might be more tolerable, but in its present form he felt he could not support it. Ths chairman said that oertainlv there was nothing to prevent them calling a meeting of representatives, but it would not 'be worth the paper if was written on. The question wag really out of order. He moved that the ' matter he dropped without further ddsoussion. In response to a voice he said that if there was any . question he could resign from the chair. It was for those present to decide. A voice: “No! No!” Mr Keesing rose to speak when, the chairman beckoned’ him to remain seated, and remarked, “that should be sufficient I think.” Mr Keesing said that if the conference were held there could be no harm come of it, even, if there was no good derived therefrom. He was speaking in the interests of the game itself. ’ Mr J. S. Lord, in seconding the motion pro forma, said, that the motion east a reflection, not only on the Auckland association, but also on its senior delegate (Mr Keesing). He would advise Mr Keesing to resign from his position on the Auckland association. ' Mt Goldie asked if Mr Keeeing’s views werg personal views or those of the Auckland association, but he was ruled out of order. Mr Peacock held that those who were eloper in touch were those appointed. “1 am astonished that ‘the ; Auckland association should be dissatisfied, and -if they are that they haven’t seen fit to give us a chance to deal with them.” In reply Mr Keesing said that personally he did not feel that any harm could come of the motion- Certainly he wished to give 7iis reassurance that there was no feeling of a want of confidence. The motion, was lost.