The Wanganui Tournament.

Otago Witness, Issue 2203, 21 May 1896, Page 40

The Wanganui Tournament.

TO THE DRAUGHTS EDITOR. Sir,— l think it rrgiettablsthat co much bitterness should be inipo-ted into the controyersy over the action of the first New Zealand Draughts Association. Granted that the association was hurriedly formed and tbat, therefore, the whole of the players were not afforded an opportunity of taking part in its formation or in the first tournament held under ,its auspices, who that has a true interest in the game would not be generpusly__ disposed to overlook any faults (almost unavoidable in initiating anything) and give the energetic band ere Hfc for doing what others have hitherto failed in accomplishing? Besides, all p'.ayeta may have a voice in the association withiu a year if they choose, and help to rectify all mistakes. All the .correspondents, including Mr Brociie, seem to agree that an association will be a good thing: That beiDg so, the whole question narrows itselfdown to a grievance between Mr Urodie and the association What does Mr Bio-lie contend the associat on f-bould have done, so far as he is concerned, that they left undone ? If draughts payers know that they will be able to judge of the merits of Mr Brodie's case. I, for one, would be sorry if Mr Brodie wa3 treated with harshness or discourtesy by such a bi>dy, but the association do~s not appear to have altogether ignoted Mr Brodie. I should not have written on the subject at all but for an evident reference to mysblf made by Mr Borvhitu; when he sp ke of a letter written by hiimelf before the Boreham- Brodie match. I have that letter still, and in jus we to Mr Boreham ask you to republish the following extracts. Mr Boreham, writing under date of May 12, 1894, said :— " I was spurred on by the continual harping of the Noith Otago Times in re Mi' Brodie as champion of New Zealand, which title you must know (and the Nonh Otago Times also knows) is, as I have said, going abegging. Although 1 have more chance in a match of this kind, I would have preferred an op*>n tourney to sett'e the matter. If I defe»t Mr Br die I will look upon Messrs Hood (Mount Somer*) and Gunthorpe (Auckland) and some others as players at least equal to myself. If Mr Brodie defeats me, I will still think Hood and Gucthorpj »s good as him. Therefore, I prefer open tournament to settle such a questionSo, even if I am successful with Mr Brodie, I will always be pleased to present the title to any committee who may wish to arrange a championship tourney— in fact, I would very much like to see a draughts assocWtion formed throughout New Zealand for the- purpose of holding annual championship tournaments, to be worked something similar to the cb^ess championship congresses. . . I don't like the style of restriction submitted to me, which is 24 openings to be named six weeks before beginning play. Any schoolboy could prepare for a match of this sort." Notwithstanding the extracts taken from Mr Boreham's letter in Oamaru Mail of March 3 >ast 1 can discern the same tenor throughout it. Ha,v- , ing a full acquaintance with the whole newspaper 1 correspondence, as well as having read the published correspondence which led up to the Bore-bam-Brodie match, I must nay that, to far at I am a judge, there is not a. single incident that 4* disci editable to Mr Boreham. Quite the con* trary— it is evidence of a manly, straight-forward character. — I am, Ac., W. J. Marsh. Wyndham, May 1L TO THE DRAUGHTS EDITOR. ' gnu,— WiU_«an.iajdiul Mumeh to allow me a

little space to reply to Mr Williamson's letter fa ■Witness of April 30. 1. Mr William ion state* that Mr J. Little, of Chrfsrcbuich, was said by the Witness fo be the rightful holder of the title under dispute. Mr Little informs me that he never claimed the title, and I have searched tie Witness and can find no Buch statement. Perhaps, Sir, you can inform me if it ever appeared in the Witness ? 2. If the Wanganui committee thought I had no claim to the title, why did they guarantee that; I should lose nothing if I went to Wanganui 1 3. With reference to Mr Williamson « sneer at ._ my request for travelling expenses, I beg to inform him I only a'ked what w*a customary. I had to pay Mr J. A. Boreham's expenses when he played me for the chamiio ship, independent of stake. The receipt from Mr Boreham ,in my possession can prove this statement. With ycur p rmiasion I will nsk Mr Williamson, through your column, the following question? •— (1) Why did the Wanganui committee st»te thiough the Pi ess .Agency that trophies were to ba given as prizes? (2) It is stated in Wafiganui Chronicle that ft-st prize was £20, »nd in Oam aru Mail it is stated that Mr Boreham rereived £10 and trophies. Which is correct, Hr Williiunaon ? (3) Why did not the Wanga..ui runiiaUte* ask me to remn? (4) Will Mr Williamson iifonn me why did he leave out of my letter of March 12, 189(3, flic following words— "l have not even been asked to resign to your committee "1 — I am, &0., David Alexander Brodie, New Zealand Champion Draughts Playofc ■ Dunedin, May 16. TO THB DRAUGHTS EDITOR. Sib,— ln repljj to Mr D. A Brodie, ex-yhampion draughts player of New Zealand, JUuntdm was not represented at our late tourney, but Otago sent two very worthy representatives— -Mr Bore* ham and Mr Montgomery. I am, .frc , „ * H. B. WnxuMSOS. Waoganui, May 6, 1896.