AUSTRALASIAN CHAMPIONSHIPS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2978, 12 April 1911, Page 62

AUSTRALASIAN CHAMPIONSHIPS.

WELLINGTON, April 4. A meeting of the council of the New Zealand Amateur Athletic Association was held to-night, Mr A. Marryatt presiding. Applications were received from Wellington and Otago to conduct the Australasian championships. Mr Oram {Canterbury) moved that the championships be held in Wellington. Ho pointed out the advantages which Wellington held through its central position, and said it would be much more convenient for the Dominion and the Australian representatives if the meeting were conducted in Wellington. The New Zealand championsMps would probably be held in Wellington—it was Wellington's tur,n to hold the championships,—and the two championships could be held over a weekSaturday, Wednesday,' and Saturday. He gave an outline of the expenses of th© Australian competitors to Wellington an Dunedin, the comparison showing very much in. favour of Wellington. By holding the championships in Wellington' they would get the minimum of cost with a maximum of effect. The headquarters of the New Zealand Association were in Wellington, and it was at headquarters that the championships should be held. Mr Larkin (Wellington) seconded the motion. Mr Bridge (Auckland) said this Hvas not a question that was to be judged on its merits. The Auckland delegates had definite instructions to vote in favour of Otago. Ho moved: —"In the opinion of this council, the venue of the championships should be Wellington." If the motion was put he would have to vote against it, though it was very much against his inclination to do so. He moved his amendment for the purpose of giving an opportunity for the matter to be referred back to the centres, together with the opinion of the New Zealand council. Mr Thompson (Auckland) seconded the amendment, explaining that he did so for the reasons outlined by Mr Bridge. The Chairman (who represents Otago) said he was going to act in this matter in his own way, evern. though it cost him his position on the council. He thought the matter bad been held up long enough, and it should be decided now. He would be willing to carry out the instructions of his centre to this extent. He would move that the championships be held in Dunedin, though intending at the same time not to support it. Mr Pollock (Dunedin) said that, like the chairman, ho was going to disregard tho instructions he had received from Dunedin. He was in a position to know that the decision arrived, at by the Otago centre was anything but unanimous in regard to the championships. All tho members of that centre were not desirous of seeing the championships held in other than the place where they would be most successful. He was not taking up the position of Wellington' against Otago, but so long as he was on, the council he was going to act according to what, in his opinion, was best for the sport. If that did not please his centre, then they must get another man who would be at their beck and call, and willing to act strictly according to instructions. Mr Larkin said Mr Rose- (who was absent) had requested him to vote merely on what was brought before the council. He held a perfectly open mind in the matter, and was quite prepared to vote for Dunedin if it was thought best. Mr Bridge said that in regard to the attitude taken up by Mr Thompson a,nd himself, he had written to Auckland setting out his views as already expressed to the meeting. He had received a reply that Auckland was in honour bound to support Otago, and they were thus uiven no option but to support the application of Otago. On the amendment being put, it was lost, Messrs Bridge, Thompson, and Davies being the only ones to vote for it. M.r Thompson then moved that the matter be deferred for a month. •this was seconded by Mr Davies, who said ho thought they could very well wait for a month. He was anxious to vote for Wellington, but at present he was compelled to vote for Dunedin. Mr Thompson said it was a matter for the council, and mot for the centres. Mr Larkin intimated that he intended to oppose th« motion. The amendment was lost, only Messrs Bridge, Thompson, and Davies voting for it.

The Chairman said thai he ( wished to express his view on the matter clearly. Ho was not going- to vote for Otago. In a short discussion that followed Mr Thompson asked if the chairman would accept an amendment that the championships be held at Auckland. The Chairman said he would take any amendment. The motion was carried, the voting being: For the motion—Messrs Chaffey, Pollock, Oram, Larkin, emd the chairman; against— Mossrs Bridge, Thompson, and Davies. Mr Bridge asked that in votes being recorded it be stated that he and'Mr Thompson had voted as they did only in accordance- with instructions. After some discussion, it was decided, on the motion of Mr Pollock, that the championships be held on January 1 and 2, unless these dates clash with the Davis Cup tennis competition. An application for a record for R. Opie, for 120 Yards, made at Wan.ga,mii, was ruled, out of order, it not having been forwarded to the council within the stipulated period (30 days). The time was stated: to be llmin 3-sscc. Tho following reinstatements were dealt with :—E. F. Edwairds (Waverley), reinstated on the recommendation of the Manawatu Club; William W. Hogarth (Tapanui), reinstated on the recommendation of the Otago Centre; Herbert Mexted, reinstated on the application of the Wellington Centre as within the 20 mile limit; Alfred E. Barley (Gore), to apply again in three years (application of Southland Centre); H. Fletcher (East Taranaki), to apply again in three years; Michael Mickelson (Purakamui), to be referred to the Cycle Union (application of Otago Centre); John W. M'Gechie (Kohukohu, Hokianga), reinstated on the recommendation of the Auckland Ge.ntre; Charles Edward' Stone (Auckland), reinstated on the application, of the Auckland Centre; G. R. Hall, reinstated, on tho application of the Wellington Centre. AUSTRALASIAN CHAMPIONSHIPS. At last week's meeting of the Otago Centre the decision of the council of the association to hold the Australasian championship meeting of 1912 in Wellington was discussed. The Secretary of the Auckland Centre wrote stating that its had been instructed to support the claims of Dunedin for the Australasian championships. The delegate to the conference of centres held in Auckland in February, 1910, supported the claims of Dunedin for these championships, and up to the date of writing at any rate they had rio reason to change their views. Should anything eventuate to cause a different view to be taken they would at once communicate with the centre. The President said members had no doubt seen by the press the action the council had taken with regard to tho Australasian championship meeting. Members would have noticed at the same time the action of the Dunedin delegates in going against the instructions of the centre —conduct which was very reprehensible.—(Applause.) The centre, he thought, should express its appreciation ot the action of the press in supporting it. The press had adopted a mild tone, and it was apparent that the action of the centre had the support of outside people. It was really due to the public that the centre should take note of the matter. —(Applause.) Mr Callan moved—" That in view of the action of Messrs Pollock and Marryatt in voting contrary to the instructions received from this centre, particularly without having given any intimation of any divergence betvyeen those instructions and their convictions, their appointment as delegates of this centre is hereby revoked."—(Applause*.) If the minute book o'f the centre were turned up it would be seen that Messrs Marryatt and Pollock had definite instructions from the centre. They had ample time to let the centre know that those instructions were not palatable to them. Tho question of whether it was right or wrong did not enter into the matter at all. It was certainly not expected that the delegates would act at the meeting as they did. He had been in doubt, on a reading of the rule. Whether they had power, in colloquial language, to kick their men out. — (Applause.) It was really a debatable question whether the centre could elect delegates at any other time than at the annual meeting, but even if this quibble occurred to Messrs Marryatt and Pollock he did not think they would retain their seats when they knew their action had entirely forfeited the confidence of the Otago Centre. —(Applause.) Mr Murray seconded the motion. Mr Divers supported the motion, which, ho considered, was not strong enough.— ("Hear, hear.") Mr Barclay aaid the motion dealt in the lightest and easiest manner with conduct such as that of Messrs Marryatt and Pollock. The attitude of the Otago delegates had been a shock and a surprise to all who took an interest in athletic matters. —(Applause.) The honourable course for the delegates to have taken was to intimate that they did not agree with the desires of the centre, yet not a single word of warning came from them either one way or the other. With Messrs Sanderson and Divers, he met Mr Marryatt in Christchurch reoently, and there discussed with him the question of the Australasian championships. As usual, Mr Marryatt was smiling and complacent, and he promised that Otago would have justice done to it, and that he would see that Otago had justice done to. it. They all knew how he had kept his word. Without a word of warning he took back his words and adopted the base attitude of opposition to their wishes. —(Applause.) The motion indeed, was mild. For himself, he would have liked to see stronger and plainer language.—("Hear, hear.") The conduct of the delegates waa absolutely inexcusable. It was not the conduct of men of honour.—(Applause.) Tho fact would and ought to be recognised by men connected with athletics and by the general public in New Zealand, and with that brand upon them, and this resolution against them, if the delegates continued to hold their seats on the council their natures must be many grades below that which one expected in a gentleman.—(Applause.) Mr Sanderson referred to the scurvy way the delegates had treated the centre. To •his mind, they showed a great lack of appreciation of what was due to Dunedin. He thought, at the same time, the motion was somewhat drastic. The position would be met if the centre passed a vote of censure on the delegates for their action. It was a lapse, certainly, but he could not get away from the idea that the motion went too far. He moved as an amendment — " That a vote of censure be passed on our delegates, Messrs Marryatt and Pollock, for failing to give effect to our wishes in con*

section with the allocation of the Australasian championship meeting." Mr Ferens seconded the amendment. Mr Smith said the delegates were notified in ample time to enable them to in-/ form the centre that the instructions were contrary to their convictions. It was surely their plain duty to have done so. Under the circumstances he would support the motion. Mr Breen remarked that the action of the delegates had been described as a lapse, but it was more than that. Mr Barclay: It was deliberate treachery. Mr Mitchell said Mr Pollock was in Dunedin for several days about a fortnight ago,- but he gave no one the slightest intimation that he oould not support the wishes . of the centre I The amendment was lost, being supported only by its mover and seconder, and the j motion was then put and carried unani- ; mously. It was resolved—" That a copy of the resolution be sent to Messrs Marryatt and Pollock, to the other centres, and to the secretary of the N.Z.A.A.A. Council, and that the best thanks be given to the Auckland and Southland delegates for their honourable adherence to.their centres and their Di&u£Pdfl> The Auckland Centre was thanked for its communication, and a similar compliment was accorded the Southland Centre for instructing its delegate to support Dunedin's claims for the championship meeting. THE OTAGO DELEGATES REFUSE TO RETIRE. WELLINGTON, April 10. In reference to the hostile criticism of the action of Messrs Marryatt and Pollock in supporting Wellington as the place for holding the Australasian athletic ohampionehips, they state that, in spite, of the resolution revoking their appointment to the council, they remain as Otago's delegates until such time as their successors are appointed. The rules provide that members elected to the council shall be elected at the annual meetings of the centres, and therefore they claim that they must remain members of the council till the Otago Centre at its annual meeting shall appoint other delegates. The New Zealand Association's rules do not permit centres to revoke the appointment of delegates. They hold that" in the matter of selecting the place for the championship meeting the members of the council are entitled to exercise a freedom of choice.It is not a matter to be decided by a vote of the centres, .and is expressly set down as one for decision by the council. They were in possession of evidence which showed that Wellington was. undoubtedly ~the most desirable place to hold this gathering, and tifrey claim that they could not have disregarded this evidence without doing grave injury to the genei-al management of amateur athletics in the Dominion. Even the members who voted in favour of Dunedin at the council meeting said that on their merits the argu-' mente in favour of Wellington were unanswerable. Messrs Marryatt and Pollock hold that the council is not a sub-com-mittee of the centres, but a body vested with discretionary powers which it would be disastrous to take away from it.