A VISIT FROM AN ENGLISH TEAM.

Otago Witness, Issue 2275, 7 October 1897, Page 35

A VISIT FROM AN ENGLISH TEAM.

Sydney, October \. The Rugby Union have invited Mullineaux's team on the following conditions: — The team to pay their "own passages to and from Sydney,' the local nnion paying all internal expenses and allowing 50 per cent. * "of the net profits up to the amount paid for over-sea passages ; the team to consist of 21 members, and to play -two matches per \ week ; the team to arrive in June, the local union undertaking to make the most advantageous arrangements possible with Naw Zsaland and Queensland. - ' '>>, • OTAGO- EUGBY FOOTJULL UNION. -A special,meeting- of the Otago;Uugby- Foot-' bill Union was -held, in the .City Hotel on Saturday night. Mr J. M'Rae Gallaw&y (president) occupied the cb^ir, and b;tw'een-2&and 30 persons were present. ' /;• / ' '-' The Chairman explained that thetfirst buair ness was to consider ths question of. the right of the New Zealand Union to inquire into and adjudicate upon charges against'W. Harris (of, Obago) while' the latter was a member of the New Zealand team, that tight being claimed by the Otago committee. He read the by-laws of' the New Zealand Union bearing on the subject, and said the Obago committee bad thought, under the circumstances of the case, that; it would not be right of them to endorse the disqualification of Harris without consulting the dtrlf-gatei. *It appeared to the committee that, under the by-laws of the New Zealand Union, the proper tribunal to try Harris was the Otago Union, and if they had endorsed the suspension inflicted by the New Zealand Union without consulting the delegates it might bs said they bad waived a right that belonged to the Obago. Union without consulting those who had put them in office.

Mr J. H. Chapman contended that neither the Ottgo Union nor the New Zealand Union had any right to disqualify a player from playing for to act of misconduct that was not committed on the field. The, New Zealand" Union would be .within its rights in saying that such a player should not be allowed to represent New Zealand ia intercolonial .matches provided that th« misconduct had been proved. Speaking for his own club, however,^ he might say that if Harris had been in Dunedin and club games had been going on the olub would have played hirft as. a protest -agaiosb. the action of the New Zealand Union. He did not know what the offence alleged against Harris was, or whether Harris had had an opportunity of meeting his accusers face to face, but if hd had not, all that the speaker could say was that it wa« a very unfair way of proceeding.

Mr F. W. Plltts argued that, as the New Zealand Union's by-laws provided that an inquiry in such »' case should- be held by- the union " directly interested," and as the player : was directly under, the .control of the New Zaa- , i*ad Union irtaa -the ftlfeie.3 offeaw wm cqdvT

mitted, the- New Zealand Union was the- union ' J (> djrectJy interested." Misbehaviour by players ' 'ought to be stopped, and a union that com-, plained of misbehaviour on the field should bs the last to^prevent the punishment of a player for misbehaviour off the field. He moved—- " Th*t this meeting endones the action of th« New Zealand Union."

Mr A. Wilson, who seconded the* motion § expressed the opinion that a case of the kind now before them had not been foreseen in the drafting of the by-laws of thd New Zealand ' Union. It seemed to him to be an extremely right course that the'- New Zealand Union, which had the sole responsibility -for the team ' that it sent to play in the sister colonies, should have the entire responsibility for the team ' during the time the tour lasted, and part of that responsibility was the punishing of any members of the team for misdemeanours on tha tour, and it occurred' to him also that in the case of players on an intercolonial tour the central union was the only union that was in a ' proper position to get the whole of ' the evidence before it; and -consequently, although he ' was quite of opinion that as the by-laws remained* the New ' Zealand Union had not technically, the right to- do', tb.it, he believed that was due only to a sheer accident and that in equity the New Zealand Union ought to have ' the righfc. It .would, he thought, be a step > : calculated to injure, football if the Otago Union ' interrupted the course! of justice in this case. < He did not" agree that the N«w Zealand Union h*d not any jurisdiction except orithe fleldV ~ It-'^ seemed to" hi th that' in' this case the field was from th© time the beam left Wellington,, antil'ib ' csme back, arid th,%t if 1 any member did any ' act, on pr off the "field that brought discredit on ' football' t&e New Zealand Union' would have ' bean grossly" negligent in passing- 'the/offence over-unnoticed. . The only discomfort he had in - •econdihg %he motion was that he had some doubt in bid ' mind as to whether [Harris had received a perfectly' 'fair trial,' for he could not quite understand. how that player could possibly have a fair trial unless he was brought face to face with his accuters. ■ That was the only, reason why he .had any hesitation in endorsing the action of the New Zealand Union. - '

Mr M. Coiten aaid his voice would always be ' raised" in support of the properly constituted body! whioh atbempte'd .to put down misba-^ haviour wherever it occurred.'bub there was- in - the present cue no evidence' before the delegates to enable them to;comre to a ja»t conclusion as to how far the puniihmentwVs merited. Ha ""moved as an That thii nnion declines to take any action in the matter ' of Harris's'disqualffipVtloiirintil it is -placed in possession of the on- which' the New ZaalKhd Union' bided it*, judgment." He.be-" lie'ved that the New^Zealabd :Union's by-ltfw'jon the 'subject "co'ntontp^ted that the' evidence . sHould be sent down to the tocal union for it to ' take action, and iv seemed "to him that that .was tbe^propftr course' to "adopt. . Mr Q.. STEPHBNSON-seobctded the amendment, s -Mr Chapman ' repudiated x dny 'idea > that a player should not'bs punished for misconduct. ' off the, field, .bub he held that the New Zealand • Uuion hadiio rightto interfere with" the powers of 'clubs' or .local unions. "- Of; course, a 'club 5 would not pjck a*man who had". been 'proved ' guilty of miseqD^ o ' o^' f° r ib'riyottld bring th« club itself inW .disgrace *nd bad odoue to' do so. . ' Me J. Dunca^t, speaking as amemberbf the' New Zealand team, said that.-aj'-tb-tne Friday' night's occurrence iri'^ .Auckland, Armij; and himself were the only players 's'bajing in- the « hotel with the three players who had beeh"dfsqualiSed,'and \tbe New Zealand, Union ?,could ■ have' had' no evidence except from them. The ocenrrenca that night w»b 'nothing- to speak about, and' he believed that the' evidence .respecting the Sunday night oharge did v nob warrant the punishment. Il',I I ', ' '"• ' ',' ,y Mr"W. H. Yo.rhjro fßquired if Mr Dilnean had ' been oalled-_to give evidence. — (Mr ' DjtrNCAN'^" ••No,'-')' He thought -. that was all .the; more reason why the New Zealand Union should be asked to forward the evidence.

Mr F. H. Campbell thought the New Zealand Union should be asked to forward the evidence on which Harris had- been suspended, and if the evidence justified it he felt sure the ' local commit'ee would endorse the dinqualifica- . fio'il. It had been- said that the evidence wa* confidential, but he' pointed out that it would be confidential also as between one union and • another. The amendment was carried by a large majority. _ . """ Mr Chapman moved—" That in the interests of Rugby football in Otago it is desirable to sever thfe connection of the O.R.F.U. with the New Zealand Rugby Union, and that the committee take the *teps nrcassn-y to do so." He bad, he said, come -to the conclusion that the relations between the Otsgo l Union and the New Zealand Union were even more unsatisfactory now than they had been wbebthe Otago i Union * was not -afjiliated, because ab'thalrtime* they got on fairly well. ' He had, -not seen* any .reason to alter the opinion expressed by.himself and .those associated with htm in- 1893, that the' existence of, the .New< Zealand^ Union' was »- - serious' menace to amateur football' in New* ,He . denied '^hat'thft- New Zdalati*: .Union' had 'dori«i,«ny;thiap'to betfefit football in' •Otago, and" h,e*;cpndemh^d ; 'the"New 'Zealand* Union's management of intercolonial" football. ' The New Zealand Union had from the beginning set itself to encourage travelling, »nd this continual, travelling' of 'teams was th© v thing thatVas threatening to kill amateur Rugby football. Even looking at Obago football from the low point of view of gate money, he said that that gate, receipts had lately -fallen joff, showing that public interest in football had decreased/ He believed that there was no doubt his motion would be carried if they .could only rely on the assistance of Canterhury, and that a South Island Union would be formed^ Personally he did not care whether Canterbury came out or not, considering tha way in which Canterbury serveS Otago in 1894. He believed that Otago and Southland were strong enough 'to stand by themTelves, and he had information to the effect that Southland would do- what Ofc»go did in the matter. If his motion was carried, his, idea was that they should endeavour to get a combination of, Sonthland, Canterbury, and Otago to control and arrange intarprovincial matches and settle . qucstioDS of law "if theyliked— he would hob have it interfere with local footbsll at all— the headquarters beiDg in Christchurcb, Dunedin, and Southland in -successive years." - ■ : Mr J. B. Waters, in seconding the motion,* said ib was quite evident to almost anyone who took any interest in fdotbull.that the rela- ,- tions between the New Zealand Union "stad thq' Obago Union were unduly strained. . ; Mr Campbell had three years ago expressed^ the. opinion tint so long a« the Canterbury Union was in the New Zealand Union tha ' Ofcago Union could nob st'ky oub^ and he was' still of that opinion. H« did nob know, whether, the Canterbury Union would come from the! New Zealand Union, bub he advocated'that tha fint thing to do should be to ask the Canterbury Union if it -would uome*oub. Reply*;--ing. to .Me . Chapman's .. remarks, he said" (he ? had not , heard. oF.jinyToasea ftit Jprofes-- , Biqnaligni tinder ,the New Zealand UnionyaTid* M to the dUßattsfactioa with th*t body,

thought it ' had commenced since Mr Hoben's departure, and they bad not to look very Fair for the caure. Respecting & statement in a local paper to the effect thab tlie severance movement originated with the Ot/go , committee, he declared that it had never becu sag; gested in the committee that Otago should leave the New Zealand Union. He was sorry 'he could -not support the motion, and he intended to 'propose the following amendment; :— " That although this union is not entirely satisfied with the management of the New Zealand /Union, it deems it undesirable to proceed in 'the direction of separation without information •8 to the feeling of other South Island unions." Mr G. _O. Mat'hbsok, .who seconded " the amendment-, said the feeling amongst the jplayers and the public of 01 ago seemed to be that the New Zealand Union had been 'mismanaged from its inception, and he thought the Otago Union should co-operate with the Canterbury and Southland Unions to get the headquarters transferred. .Mr Cohen maintained that the position had not altered since the Otago Union joined the New Zealand Union, and Me Chapman had not adduced a tingle argument why the Otago Union should recede from the action it then took. He contended that it was of no good talking about Southland and.Ofcago constituting ajinion in themselves, for the public would not support a uuion of that sort. '- Until they could get^Soutbland, Otago, and Canterbury to unite it was useless) to talk about leaving "the New Zealand Union. So long as - Canterbury adhered to the, central- union, .the Otago Union must, in the interest of the players and public, not only. keep up its affiliation but must bring all the pressure it could oh the central union to make it mend ilsjways; for he 'admitted .that its management during the past' two years had been highly unsatisfactory. '. ,;' > c

' Mr D. Torrance did not like the amendment, and'would like to see** direct-vote taken on the motion. He did not think the time was ripe for the CX ago Union to sever Us connection with the New Zealand Union. He thought they; were -all pretty well satisfied that there liad been mi&m&nagement, and while they were connected with the New Zealand Union they should endeavour to get the men lemored who were responsible for the mismanagement. -^ He did not thick there was fehe slightest hope' of Canterbury comiog out from the New Zealand Union, and Southland was not very strong on the point, and. if it was in the power of Ofcago to drag, Southland oufc-ffc would not be just on its part to do so unless itcould take Canterbury out also. - Mr I"£ATT3 h,eld that nothing had happened since the Otago Union joined, the New Zealand Union to cause it to reconsider its decision, and he asserted that while it was true that the gate. money at matches in Dunedin was less than it formerly was.'what bad killed football and led to the disgust of the public was the action of Mr Chapman and his friends which had led to the isolation of Gtago. MrfW. J. CRAN.said his club, the Upper jClutha; had instructed' him to support the motion. v * . _ • iMe W. ; Beadle said it appeared* to, bs the feeling, of the meeting that /(^tago* depended on' the Canterbury UnioD^butj, seeiug'thati Canterbury had .thro,wn;CKago\oveir i> once, he thought Oiago. should be independent of that uuion. , • After Mr Chapman had replied, the anaendmeuiiVwas ,put.an.d carried JbyJ-5 to 12, thus becoming- the.su^stantive motion*. Mr Cohen moved to amend the motion to read — " That; although this union is not eutirely. , satisfied with the management of the New Zealand Union,: this meeting is of opinion that the present time is inopportune for considering the questyon of disamliatioa." * - ' -This. amendment, was carried by 14-' votes to 13, but on being put as the substantive * motion was lost by 13 votes to 11. , '. , — jMr Chapman then moved* and ,Mr Mathsson - Bf conded— " That although Jt.his uuion is not ■atifitied^with the management of'jthe New, Zealand - Union, it deems it undesirable to proceed further at present in the proposal for dis•ffitjation from •the New Zealand Uoion beyond ascertaining the views bf the other South Island, unions. on the, matter of the formation of a South Island alliance."

.This motion -was carried with' only four ttistentients, and- the meeting then terminated with the usual compliment to. the chair.