THE ATHLETIC DISPUTE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14441, 6 February 1909, Page 3

THE ATHLETIC DISPUTE

Tlio following correspondence (which is self-explanatory) lias been handed lo its for publication:— I'hrislcliurcii, January 15, I{JC9.1 { JC9. J. 13. Callan, Jisij., Dunedin. Dear ."Sir,—'tlio lion, secretary, of the council having reported at the last niuetin;;, 111-11 l 011 'iucMhiy, mat ; l,c lion. .-j.vrelaiy of tlio Ola go Centre had informed liini liisit no communication would be received from the council hy the wiit-rc, nor any communication sent hy the centre 10 the council, 1 undertook lo write you with reference to tlio present dilferoneo between the two hoilies, in I,ho hope than hy on exchange of views sonic finality might be readied, tt was decided, however, 111 the matter ot this season's New Zealand championships, that tiie secretary should ask for a reply, sent previous to the split, as to whether the Otago Centre would carry out the championship.-,. At t-ho conference held in Christcliurch it, was announced that 110 ■personal feeling against the council had produced the complication. Taking this as a dcliuile expression ot opinion, ilicn there must, have been some utlinr reason tor nominating a council consi.siit.-i; entirely of Wellington residents. M\ action in regard to those iiotniluilions doiy not como into the que.stion, ;is it was .sut«iM|uein to the nominations being foi-wai-dvnl. Tlio vnie-stiun iliejt arises as 10 v hy it was llioiurln to nominal i\elliiigion residents for (lie council. As it uils not on g'-ounds, and as my action ea-nie afti-.r recei\il of the nominations, then the only conclusion that can be accepted a, holding god is that the nominations weare made owing to a feeling that, through some actions of theirs, the members of the ainncil had lost the confidence of some sections of the association, Tlus view is borne out by the expressions of Mr Sanderson, one o£ your vice-presidents, m a conversation I had with him last night, an eudaisenient. of which is conkum-d in a •leport of an interview with Mr Pandorson published m the New Zealand I was able to show Mr Saiutei-eon that the held in Dunedin on the matters lie ventilated were entirely orroneous; that all utterly wrong conclusion had been ennie 10. That mistaliiß lta<l lieen iikkl" I was fully prepared 10 admit, but that the council w*a<s at fault Mi the specific oases brought fonvawl ] would not. agree, ami I w.ts able to convince Mr Sanderson that a wrong idea altogether prevailed in Dunedin. Wore 1 a member of the Otago Centre, ami holding the views that Mr Sanderson said were generally accepted in Dunedin, I 1 have 11c iissitotion in saying that I should I- hmp, strenuously- {ougliV fc; thc-jTaiajval of

the heaibput rters, .is tho proper means of rihoiviiij.; my di-inb.i of 1 '.!<■ council. There eonhl Iv no oiln-r com*" for any man posa panicle or" a> regard? the

■ I[-.ir.■ of tlii.- ainai.ui' ,-i.lc of the spoil. I'.ui 1 i:o vt'.-rt-i are <[niiwrong. The fietion-i <;i the- council have been di.-lorlod out of till rerognilion, o", a--. I told .Mr

Sanderson. row 1 .-ay to yo:.: l.ho council is willing. -either >rr.-<;«.ify or liy cornspoihlcn.'e. lo Bii»wr ally charge of maladministration thai <»ui be brought agsinsi ii by tin l Oiipvo ('. -niro. Th" council agreed ai tin' annua! nrv;ing that repre -f-ni:itives would l:. 1 son ;o l)i;ned:n if liii-ir presence was reipiir.-d. | mew ioned this to -Mr Sandor.-00, and ai ti-.o -,-aiue lime poviiod out thai the council rotihl not invito iu-'lf. and had no infution of heir.-; accused of In big do-iron- of forcing i'seH" upon tin; centre. Mr Kmier-on cxpiwed i I inwlf as being convinced that the council's aclioiis had boon ini?und-_.rslood, and agreed to place lite i.o-iiion before Ihn o ntre on !ii> return lo Dnnodiu. t am sum yon will agree with inn that the present position is most doplorablo, and oaleuWl j Hi to injure ihe side of tin* spot: in which we are both interested, as \v."! 1 as weakening the. preside of Iho a.-sorintiun. .My lirm conviction is that a solllr-nipul is capable of ac-c:un;)!i^hiuo:if if those interoslod would only consent io an honest admission of fad, and aol accordingly. II is noi necessary lo say anything; further at prosenl. Wlial I bine written may be sufficient lo induce you lei lend your valuable as-isl.nice in healing Ihn breach; at anyrate, you may feel disposed to recognise thai. Ihough ilnlinilo charges havn been made against Ihn council Ihe council has been condemned without being beard. That, surely will appeal lo you as lining very unfair mul containing a strong element of Vimrs oic., (Signed) W. (I. A TACK, President N.Z.A.A.A.

nttnciliti, Jitnuary 21, ISO 9. \V. f!. Alack, Ksip, Canlerbury Times Odieo. Chfislphttrcli. Dear Sir.—l havn until now delayed replying- lo your letter of ihe lSili lust., in order thai I iniglil have an opportunity of laying- both your lei tor and my intended reply Iwl'ore a special meeting of Ihe Olago t'euire. 'J'lial. meeting' having; been hold this evening, 1 am now in a position to forward my reply. In Iho lirsl ]ilacn. let mo assure you Hint: T ipiile appreciate from ;i perusal of yout' leiter thai il was wrillen in a spirit, of conciliation, and with an earnest desire to arrive at a .settlement of the. difficulties that havn arisen. Bui your lelicr also convinces inn thai you and [ view those difficulties from utterly dillerent poinls of view, and lltitl you very seriously misapprehend the position taken up by Ihe Ota#o Centre. The Olago (.'oul.ro claims that on the occasion of Dm last iitnniiialion.s for membership of tho council certain nomiuaiions wore improperly rejected, and that an election that should liavti taken place Ims mil taken place. Vor these reasons Ihe Otago Centre declines lo aeknowlejge Ihe body on whose behalf your leiter is written as Ihe Comioii of liie X.Z.A.A. Association. This is Ihe sum totid of the dispute boiween my centre and the body you represenl. You cannol, I here[ore. o-vpecl -me to agree, with the statement, ill your Idler lhal your own aclion in regard 111 Iho nominations does not come into the ipteshon. On the contrary, [ desire lo make it, clear once for all. and as emphatically as possible, lhal. Ihe rejection of tli" nominations is not merelv the ,-rux of Ihn ijuesiion, but the whole tpiestion. For the ipiosrion belween us is: Uo we owe you If Iho noininai lons worn wron^fuily rojofloil, flit l act ion of iho rplitrninij oftlcnr in rl«.rla rini; you Iho council couli.l Hot IlKiki? yotl lilt* coiOici!, and il you are uol ilio council wo i/wo yuu no allegiance, this, then, in our slaleio'ent of the points of the divpuio.

[''mill your [ understand I hat. Hie view ol ilk; mar.,or lalieu l t y yon, ami those l ' v iill you. is Ibat no explanation lias yd been oll'eiv.d of t!ic nomination of WelliMeton residents for ino:n 1 ifr.-hi]) on ;|ip council, and, furliier, I hat charts arc liMim me-dc airuinsi: I he Kentleuieu who have iiiitif rt'c-;"itt 1 v composed (hat bociv; bill that Ihe-e cfarijes liavfi not Incn matin (iflic-iaUv l>y my conire, or in such a liiniiii.-v as (o facilitate any pxpbeir reply or explanation by toe genfl, >nioil concrrned. Van therefore claim rhar y.,u ami those associati'd with voil should he I old definitely and officially v.'liy your re-election was nol desired by certain of your constiluenls, and bi> irivoii an <>ppor!uniiv of viM'M'.'iil yourselves) am! nxnhsiiiinir your p;...;| nc-ii If tliTMo itiv your !'ri /, vu.!ic'.s niy my unwor i.; : — J::is;.-My cviifre oowiikr? i« quiti' uniio«rv. unusual. and imidvi.-alilp to explii'U io roj:r.rOMUiiiv: i.n'hi of i* to an*.! cm!, why i!w»iv re eled ion for ;in onyning l;>nn i« not desired. fcivonrt.—My ccntro lia--. ciM'ofuliy a!i-.-laitwd from malting any charges whatever A ilhor ji|raiii<l tho council or council riiav has until ivcomly hoen in ofiieo, or against iho holy tlml at present claims to bo in oli'icc, ami has dotiM-mincd that 1 5kto<w<K'raK5«;t:tv. , m»w;/f. , ,t | i ; urrrtf7M\vw3XT;' , r*wv:. , sr

i! was undesirable llial any swell finsrjfos i-lioukl lie nuiilo. 'I'lii? oohm' levvin-j; Iwn «nl'jptc<l liy iho mm-- 1 , ii no iY"-'pori-siiii'iiy u']iar"ViM' fcr any ntin<.iur< s'uu may lie ; ii ciicula'ion or any clnn/cs lhiti may 1 iwi" Iwcii made. 'Ti >" principle thai has guidod my centre in ciiuiin;; Ki llw i.'uiu'bisiou lo act as it is now doin;.; i- so dear thai I alnioM he-i----laf" to point il out lo you. That the members of a representative hotly slnuild lontiiiuc to be re-eleeio<l miles- anil tth.'il lvasniK hail been publicly given tor r<*> fusing tlii-iii re-v-lection. anil unless ami lllilil i 1 n'V ln.d fii:ll-1 I" reply salMui'lorily. is surely a principle as novel as it would 111} inconvenient; in (act. novel jusl because il would ho so o.\i reinely iticottvcuieut. lis application would tend to <liscnilit ilie whole liody in tho eves of tiie public liy oxiiibilitiL' it in a perpcntal slate of inttsiine dispute, anil would seriously diminish ilie periodical iiifiisitjn of fresh liiouil that is so nmssarv lo progress. 1 venture to suggest to you that against ilie majority of cleciivo ollieers who nnsnecessfnllv seek re-election no voter could make any charge, nor attempts to make any chartro, other than that they have been in oifice lon- enough. ami that it is time that fresh men should have a turn. bolli tor tiieir own Mikes and for I.lm sake of the body to he governed, and that this applies equally to all orgimisivlions governed by an elective hotly, whether their object he business or sport. Surely if the seven candidates whose nominations wero rejected had been residents of Chrisit hurcli il would never .have occurred to yon and your associates that V<m were entitled to have your admimstration of ali'airs publicly considered and tiefended before you were displaced by successors in ollice. If you are pot prepared to admit this, I am afraid no amount .of discussion would ever lead io an amicable soil lenient; and if yon are prepared to admit it. what difference can it be suggesk'd is made liy the fact thai the new candidates were not residents of Christchiirch, hut of Wellington 1 Your answer is, I presume, that residents of Wcllintrrou arc ineligible for scats on the council. Wo reply that in our opipion they are eligible; aitd so at uiiee wo aw kid; tu ite real | print. of difference between us. that .is, whether the nominal ions wero wrongfully rejected. I would like to take this opporfttniry of removing- a misconception that appears io obtain in certain quarters, ami may possibly be> shared by you and your associates. It is rUgßOstod that the nomination of seven Weliinglop residents was an attempt to procure in an uiicomslitutionul manner tho removal of the lieailnua iters lo Wellington. The idett is certainly erroneous. Tlw seven gentlemen nominated had pledged themselves lo go lo Uhristclinrch so far as lite rules illicit require tiieiii lo go there, and we contend that tho rules require only general mooting* to be bold there, Fiii'tlrer, if is obvious Hiat lite NOMINATION of seven Wellington residents fo." seats on the council is an entirely different matter from the KLVa'TIOX of a council consisting entirely of Wellington lvsidt nis. Whether the. latter result would have followed a. contested election depends entirely on the proportionate strength

anions ib athletes of Xotr /wiland of tliose who lliiiil; you should coiilinue in oflice iuh! tlio>e wiio think you slionlil 1101. This lirilijjs ino to Ilie end of a lol.tor which, in rjip endeavour f< :u I havo mat!o uihliil.v long. You ask U) ro-oijoviito will) you for the Wmimiiion of t-ho rroiiiik 1 . 1 tfhull be li.'sppy to {\l\ >o. 1)111 the only l«.ii.s on wliicli I can pii-fiihly work for n •.■vlljcniciir is the iT-i<;i',;ii<oii of yr,nr.-c'f ami !;.-' ; o'jial:'S of Hid petition you claim io liohl. end a frcsli e'.eclitn t«ii(ki:kxl on ilie tar-.i* of our views as lo idiijil'.iliily. You rr-fr-r to tlio fnc-i ll'iit you avo Niippoitc..! Uv two and can surely lia\<> no olijrciion to the clcctiou of a truly i'o!ii , cs r uUliv<' raimcil. (Signwl) J. 1!. C'.m.i.aw .lmi„ I'ic,.idcnt Con'm X.Z.A.A.A.