THE D.J.C. COMMITTEE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2396, 1 February 1900, Page 40

THE D.J.C. COMMITTEE.

Last week's meeting was of more than uvjal interest to owners and jockeys, several questions of importance being dealt with. Most of those were of a simple character, calling for no great puzzling of the brains. The Orepiiki dispute v»as rather more difficult. s,'he rider of ono of ihe winners at that meeting did not hold a license, and this was the subject of a protect which the club asked the metropolitan to decide, since it brought up tha question of the right of an owner to ride his own horio. Il is just as well, perhaps, that the point should have been so referred, because in this wa;/ the greatest amount of publicity is given to the true meaning of a rule which seems to be often misunderstood. The position is that nobody can ride a hoi'be without a liccu&s unless he be a gentleman rider, and duly elected as such, and provided vrith a certifieats which has one year's currency,, and can be revoked for misconduct. In the Orepuki case the person objected to was entitled to such a certificate, but had not taken it out, and the D.J.C. decided — leniently, but wisely. I think — that a substantial fine for the irregularity would meet the case. The most important of the committee's resolutions at the meeting under notice was that which calls the attention of country clubs to the obligation laid upon them by the rules to advise the metropolitan club of all fines imposed on jockeys, and to remit the same in order that the money may be paid into the' jockeys' provident fund. The rule states that all such fines and penalties shall be '"forthwith" remitted to the treasurer of the metropolitan. No definition of "forthwith" is given, but surely it is not necessary. The spirit and the letter of the law too arc violated when, as is too often the case, official notice is Jot pent until long after tho newspapers ha-se published the facts. I don't suppose the negligence is to be attributed to studied uisccmrtciy, nor to a contempt for the rule 1 . The explanation, no doubt, is that most of the secretaries nre busy men, and perhaps they overlook the wording of the rule. Yel it is as well that they should be reminded of their duty. The secretary of the metropolitan i,s a, busy man too. having all his work cut out, to keep straight the multifarious points of procedure concerning ■which some people have to be kept up to Lhe scratch, and it is unfair to put him to a lot of extra work in writing to find out matters concerning which ho ought to be advised. I am sure that the reminder by the committee •will be accepted in the best spirit, and I hope that henceforward the plain requirements of the rules in this respect will be more .generally observed.