THE SANDERS CUP

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18515, 28 March 1922, Page 6

THE SANDERS CUP

BEPLT BY THE COMMODORE. Mr A. 01 Hanlon, commodore of the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association, haj submitted a reply to Mr W. J. r. M’Cullooh on the Sandem Cup controversy, the following being a summary:— As the official head of the association 1 think it my duty to make some comment on t.h« screed which has been put forward as Mr M'Cullooh’a reply. It has been thought proper to refer to what took place at the meeting, so I shall give the public a few more of the incidents which will help to show how cunningly Mr M’Culloch. narrates a few of the facts to support his case. What took place waa this: I said that as the meeting was the first the association had held since the presentation of the cup, I wished to refer to the remarks made at the Town Hall by Mr M’Oullooh. I said, further, that I had prepared a full statement of the facts in rotation to tho contests tit Auckland ojid Dnnedin, and that I would rend it. and it would be for the delegates to say whether or not they would authorise it to be published in order to vindicate the officers of the association who had been maligned by Mr M’Culloch. Now, Mr M’Oulloch says that the statement was carefully drawn up. That -a true. It was drawn up with a careful regard for the truth. In describing how the meeting adopted the statement, Mr M’Culloch says that Mr Moller left to catch a train, and did not vote; but he omitted to say that before he left Mr Moller said he had no very great objection to the statement, but he thought it advisable to omit reference to the Auckland petition, which, he understood when he signed it, was not to bo presented if he could get Mr M’Culloch to hand over the boat. He said he saw Mr M’Oullooh on the Sunday morning, and that he hiad agreed to do so. I pointed out that by Monday morning Mr M’Culloch had changed his mind. Mr Moller went on to say that he did not think it was in tho best interests of the sport to bring these matters up now; but he was not special.y concerned over it, and he considered the contests had been carried out on absolutely fair and proper lines. Mr Haziest did not say be would not vote: but be did in the course of bis speech say that he certainly blamed Mr M’Culloch' for the attitude he had taken up in Dunedin, and that whilst Mr M’Oulloch had exonerated him in the matter he held and hacj told Mr M’Culloch that his attitude towards Mr Nees was quite unjustified. . . - He said, too. that Mr M’CullocVs action was deplorable, and he %vould be well advised to offer a public apdldgy Further discussion ensued, in which 'Mr M’Oullooh said the reports in ♦he paper of his remarks were not correct. (Even the reporters cannot do him justice.) Mr Hazlett again said that Mr M’Culloch was undoubtedly in the wrong, and should apologise. ... . Further, in regard to the meeting, Mr M’Culloch says that the statement was adopted on tne votes of Messrs Hanlon and Nees and three Port Chalmers delegates. This assertion is false. I was in the chair,, and Mr M’Oulloch knows perfectly well that I did not vote; but he is prepared to say anything to make a point. At the conclusion of the discussion I put the question. There were several ayea; but no one voted against the motion, not even Mr M’Culloch. Now, leaving the meeting, let me say something with regard to his other points. He says that he gives an absolute denial to the statement that on the day of the first race he had not been down the harbour as far as the turning mark. Unfortunately, however, for Mr M’Oulloch the two members of his crew—Messrs Paterson and Kellett—certify that the association’s statement is perfectlv true. Ho says he gives an absolute denial to the statement that he wished to put an Auckland crew in his boat. Unfortunately again for Mr M’Oulloch, his denial is valueless. The proposal was first made to Mr Stevenson, Mayor of Port Chalmers, who took the earliest opportunity of arranging a conference with Messrs Nees, Wall, M’Culloch, and himself, when the proposal was discussed, and Mr M’Oullooh informed that an Auckland crew in the Heather would not be tolerated. He then said he would'like one Aucklander in the boat; but this was disallowed. This was the first thing reported to me by Mr-Stevenson when I arrived in Auckland. Mr M’Oulloch wants the Otago public to know who signed the petition, so that H may be judged how much some of them know about sailing yachts. I will gratify his desire. The petition was signed by W. Begg (Mayor of Dunedin), E. Kellett, M.P. (father of one of the Heather crew), H. E. Moller (Mayor of West Harbour and commodore of the Ravensbourno Boating Club), H. F. Nees (ex-commodore of tho Otago Yacht dub), A. E Jenkins, W. R. Waters (vice-commodore of the Otago Yacht dub), and 0. \V. Sundstrum (rear-commo-dore of the Otago Taoht dub). With reference to exhibiting the cup in the show, I say that Mr M’Culloch told me personally that he thought ho ought to nave the oup to show it with (he Heather. My reply has already been published. Mr M’Culloch denies this. Your readers can please themselves as to whom they will believe. It is significant, however, that if Mr MCuHoch referred Mr Fulton (the Agricultural Society’s secretary) to me for the cup, as he says he did, Mr Fulton did not approach me upon the subject, I have Mr Fulton’s assurance that he did not. How, then, jjid I know about the proposed exhibition of the cup unless Mr M’Culloch discussed it with me ? Mr M’Oulloch goes on to ask if Messrs Hanlon and Nees will deny that he did not have the support of many of the prominent officials in Dunedin. I say emphati-cally,.-and Mr Nees authorises me to say the same for him, that once the Heather was chosen as defender every official was keenly desirous of retaining the cup, and gave Mr M’Culloch in his efforts all the assistance and support in their power. As to underhand methods being attempted to prevent him from sailing in the last two races, I say that I never heard even a whisper of such a thing. If the insinuation is aimed at Mr Nees, then it misses its mark, because when Mr Hazlett left for the north before the sixth race, the selection of the skipper and crew was entirely in the hands of Mr Nees, who could, if he so desired, have deposed Mr M'Culloch from his command, and thus gratify his alleged animosity. It was at Auckland, says Mr M’Culloch, that I earned the enmity of Mr Hanlon. That is the second fragment of truth I have discovered in his statement. Whether he got my enmity or not he certainly "earned” it, because his conduct towards me was most reprehensible. Even now he asks me by way of being offensive, what 1 know about sailing a boat. Well, to gratify him, I will say I do not know very much, but I will add that in Port Chalmers mers, where I was urought up, I was sailing boats at a time when Mr M’Culloch was not yet out of his swaddling clouts. The reply goes on: ‘‘As a matter r f fact, Mr Hanlon told me in Auckland that I would never again be allowed to sail a boat for Otago.” How disingenuous Mr M’Culloch is! What I really said was that if we had to scratch the Heather and go back to Dunedin, and publish the fact that he went back on his undertaking to let vs have the boat, he would never get another chance to slip us up. Mr Stevenson and Mr Robert Constable were present at the time. Referring to the seventh race, Mr M’Culloch says he did not soull the Heather. The association has not asserted that he did. What the association r*u say was that when he wanted to score a win by a second protest ho wanted Mr Hansen to support him in his allegation that the Desert Gold sculled; but Mr Hansen promptly said that Mr M’Culloch started the sculling, and then no more was heard of the protest. Then he says he actually beat the Desert Gold’s time, if the time that he lost : s taken off. What 1 suppose he is referring to is that when he got out of the calm he reduced the Auckland boat’s lead. Of course he did. The Desert Gold had gained such an advantage that, bar accidents she must have won. Her skipper would therefore take no risks of accident by pressing her, but would sail leisurely borne. Mr Wiseman did the same thing with the Heather in Auckland when he had a big lead on the Iron Duke. Mr M’Culloch refers to the report made to the association on the committee’s return from Auckland, in which it was said that the conduct of the crew was exemplary. He knows that report was made in his interest to remove the effect of rumours that were current. He should have added, but 1 presume he forgot, that he asked me to add to that report a statement that he requested Mr Wiseman to sail the Heather in the last two races in Auckland, and tli&t I, informed him that T would not allow a false statement to be placed upon the minutes. This can be vouched for by those gentlemen whose names Mr M’CulJoch has been careful to mention ns being present at the meeting, even including himself. if he cares to tel] the truth. One thing more. Mr M’Culloch has alwavs given one of bis ‘‘absolute denials” to the contention of tho association that he agreed’ that it should have control of the Heather and crew in Auckland. This was wain cause of the trouble la Auckland.

In his comprehensive reply it will bo noticed an absolute denial —or, indeed, any denial — has been omitted. Perhaps he forgot, or perhaps he realised that he would be contradicted by some eight or ten persons who were present at the meeting when the arrangement was made. The association invited Mr M’Culloch to controvert its assertions, and he has given them an absolute denial, but he has not named one person who will support him. On the other other, I repeat what the association said: that its assertions can be substantiated, and I have named the witnesses. I have written thus much to vindicate the reputation of the officials of my association Knowing what I did, 1 was in duty bound to defend them against an unjustifiable attack, and having done that I am finished. MR MT-ULLOCH’S REPLY “I have written this much (nearly two columns) to vindicate the reputation of the officials of my association. Knowing what I did, I was in duty bound to defend them against an unjustifiable attack, and, having done that, I am finished.” Thus Mr Hanlon, commodore of the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association, concludes his long series of allegations against me. Is anything more needed than the attack Mr Hanlon makes on me to prove what I said at the Town Hall was correct —"That I did not receive a fair go.” My “screed ” (which causes Mr Hanlon to occupy nearly two columns of space to contradict) evidently hurts, but I make bold to assert that the general public is firmily convinced that an unwarranted attack waa made on me. First and foremost, then, will Mr Hanlon swear that the statement adopted by the meeting of the association last Tuesdaynight waa the statement forwarded to the press for publication? Will he deny that he made a veiled threat to the meeting last Tuesday, and told them that if they did not adopt the statement he intended to publish it over his own name? I again give an absolute denial to the assertion that on tho day of the first race I had not been down the harbour, eto. I was sailing in the harbour practically every suitable day. The fact remains that I won the first race. Need anything more be said on this point? The statement that I desired to put an Auckland crew in my boat is false. Mr George Kellett, one of my orew, informs me that be for one never heard of such a suggestion. .Will Mr Hanjlon deny that Mr Moller agreed to sign the petition in Auckland, asking that I should be taken out of Heather, on one condition only—that it should not be presented until he had interviewed me? Mr Moller saw me on the Sunday morning, and the trouble was fixed up. The petition, however, was presented on the previous Saturday evening—a distinct breach of faith in the desperate attempt to get me out of Heather. Mr Hanlon says that he did not vote on the question whether the statement ehonJd be adopted or not. Mr Hanlon should be ashamed to say so, as the statement was, therefore, adopted on the votes- of four delegates out of an actual meeting of nine delegates—a minority vote. Mr Hanlon publishes the names of the persons who signed the petition in Auckland last year, but f he carefully omits to mention how it came to be presented. I have given the facts above. I again absolutely deny that I desired to show the Sanders Cup in my business exhibit at last yearts Winter Show. I waa requested to show it by the Otago A- and P. Society. Mr Fulton states that he remembers me telling him that the cup -was at Mr Hanlon’s, and that I would not ask for it, but that he (Mr Fulton) could himself do so. The selection of the skipper and the orew was not left entirely in the hands of Mr Nees when Mr Hazlett left for the north, and Mr Nees will not say it was, simply because he cannot. Mr Nees could not have deposed me from my command. Here, again, we have Mr Hanlon’s meticulous regard for the truth. “Whether he (myself) got my enmity or not, he (myself) certainly earned it, because his conduct to me (Mr Hanlon) was most reprehensible.” I “earned” it all right, as Mr Hanlon’s effusions fully demonstrate but as I have the public with me —and Mr Hanlon has not—l am quite competent to stand up against his enmity Of course I was entitled to protest, as Mr Hanlon now admits, in reference to the half-tide wall incident. And as the judges were going to dismiss the protest for want of evidence, was not I justified in asking permission to bring further evidence? Mr Hanlon, as an advocate, knows that permission can be asked in the courts to bring further evidence, end I was entitled to the same privilege. As regards the alleged insult to Mr Kelly, I can obtain the evidence of a bvs tender —and a wdlHknown yachtsman at that—to say that ho heard no inault pass mv lips. Mr Hanlon says that he learned to sail a boat when I w£s in my swaddling clouts. Might I ask him if he has ever once sailed in his own 14-footer—the Eunice? Mr Hanlon also refers at wearisome length to my statement about being supported by the general public in my sailing of the races; ho pooh-poohs my statement that my time in the fast race (deducting tho time lost in the cal ml was better than that of the Desert Gold; he tells a story of what he alleges took place at the meeting after the Auckland Sanders Cup races—l2 months ago—and finally says that I have not “named one person who will support me.” When all is said, however, I stand secure. T know, in tho support of the general public, many of whom have assured me that tliev have been astonished that a man who makes such pretensions to good sportsmanship as Mr Hanlon should have attacked me as he has.