AQUATICS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3912, 5 March 1929, Page 31

AQUATICS.

CORNWELL CUP CONTROVERSY. MACANDREW BAY CLUB’S EXPULSION. COMMITTEE’S ACTION APPROVED. A special meeting of the North-East Harbour Boating Club was held on Wednesday at Alacandrew 13ay to consider the attitude of the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association in expelling the club from the association and also the issuing of, a full report of the present committee s actions in challenging for the last Cornwell Cup contest, and to decide what action, if any, should be taken by ■ club. The commodore r k- A. Gibson) presided, and about 90 were present, consisting’ of fully 60 financial members and about 30 sup- . porters. Mr J. M'Pherson, as a member of the committee, explained why he had changed his opinion after the challenge had berth issued. He wished to say that he was Quite satisfied that- the committee did the right thing in issuing the challenge, the committee had done a fine thing, -which, he felt sure, was in the. interest of yachting. Several questions were asked in regard to the action taken by the committee in writing to the association and other clubs jn the harbour.

_ Mr J. Cormack said he wished to know whether the club was going to accept the decision of about half a dozen members of the association, -and not secure the opinion of the other clubs. Mr M'Hutchon asked that the correspondence from the committee to the association be read, and also all other correspondence.

The chairman agreed to this request, secretary read a legal opinion obtained on the association’s action. The opinion was.as follows:—

“I have looked into the question submitted by you and Mr Bewley as tc the validity of the action of the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association in expelling your club from membership. On a perusal of the rules of the association I can find no power given to the association to expel, and unless the power is given in so many words the association cannot lawfully expel one of its members. I quote several cases heard in England, and these show that the power to expel cannot be implied—it must be found in the rules and in plain and unambiguous language. It would appear that if the association had no property whatever the majority, after giving your club notice of the charge made against it, and an opportunity of making its defence, might by resolution expel your club. I think, however, that the association has some property in which your club has a joint interest with the other clubs in the association. All clubs belonging to the association pay an annual subscription to the funds of the association, and that gives your club a joint interest with the others, which would entitle it to invoke the aid of the court if it wished to retain its membership in the association. To sum up th. matter, it is clear that the association has no rule for the expulsion of members, and that it has some property in which your club has an interest, and it could not, therefore, expel the club in the absence of a rule authorising it to do so. “In any event, it could not proceed to expel the club without giving notice to all the members that a meeting would be held for the purpose of considering the question of the club’s expulsion, and it should have given the club definite notice of the charge made against it, and also given it an opportunity of attending the meeting and defending itself. From the facts as they have been submitted it seems that the association has exceeded its powers, and that it is possible for the club to obtain redress through the medium of the court. That, however, would not be of much service, because it would be a simple matter for the associa -ion to disband, and for a new association to be formed . ithout giving your club an opportunity to enter.” Mr A. Lindsay said that the club was still affiliated to the association, in spite of the f act that an expulsion rule had been put forward. The club was not in existence to fight the association’s battties, and he thought the club should carry on in the same way as it did before the trouble arose.

Mr W. Sell said that at the last meeting of the association Mr Bewley had been blamed for the whole trouble. The members of the club and committee knew that Mr Bewley was not responsible for the squabble. He (Mr Sell) had spoken quite plainly when a statement was made. Mr Paul, president of the association, had shown some sympathy with the club when he voted for suspension during the pleasure of the association and not for expulsion. A member said that some very insulting remarks had been made to one of the club’s delegates at the last meeting of’ the association. The club had every confidence in its delegates, and the delegate concerned had done far more than most boating men for the sport in Otago Harbour. The delegate he referred to was Mr E. T. Moller. «

Mr Bewley moved the following resolution: —

“ That this meeting of members of the North-East Harbour Boating Club heartily endorses the action of the club’s committee in its decision to send a crew to compete in the contest for the Cornwell Cup, held at Lyttelton last month; and that the club greatly deplores the attitude of the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association in its deliberate attempt to prevent the yachting boys of Otago from taking part and thus gaining valuable experience in this most important event, and, further, that as the association has no constitutional power, -or rule, bearing on the question of the expulsion of any club, from membership to the association, and as a high legal opinion has been obtained by the committee which entirely supports the above contention, the committee holds that the resolution of the association expelling the club from membership must be accepted as null and void; arid that the secretary be instructed to write the association claiming on behalf of the club all the

rights and. privileges of a club which stands financial on the books of the association.”

Mr Bewley said the resolution covered the whole of the ground. So far as the first part of the resolution was concerned, he still held, notwithstanding the resolution moved by Mr M'Hutchon before the committee decided to issue a challenge, that the committee had not exceeded its powers. The trouble had not been brought about through the action of the club, but through the action of the association. Last year one or two individuals had made up their minds that there would be no Cornwell Cap contest this year so far as Otago was concerned. Knowing that it was a personal matter with the association, the committee decided, particularly as the North-East Harbour Club was the only club in Otago which had the Cornwell class boat, that it would not be doing its duty to the boys of Otago if a crew were not sent to Lyttelton. The committee had done everything possible in its efforts to induce the association to agree to the club sending a crew. When the association made up its mind to give no consideration to the appeal, the committee decided, after practically pleading with that body, to send away a crew representing Macandrew Bay. It had been stated that the crew -.'which sailed at Lyttelton last month represented Otago. That was not true. The committee had never stated that the crew represented Otago. Had the committee not taken a firm stand on behalf of the boys of Otago, members of the club would have had a just complaint against the committee. With few . exceptions, every sportsman would tell them that the committee had done the right thing in the interest of. the boys and the sport. Instead of being criticised, the committee should receive every support in its action. The association had not done justice to the boys of Otago in its decision and su . sequent drastic action. At one meeting of the association, Mr J. T. Paul had suggested that the Cornwell Cup contest be dropped for this year, principally on account of expense, and then he had stated that the Sanders Cup contest came first. The association had not played the game, and everywhere in New Zealand the opinion had been expressed that the asosciation had not played the game with the club. Certain power had been brought to bear which made it very difficult for the committee, which had done the right and proper thing. The Macandrew Bay boys had not been sent to Lyttelton with any hope of bringing back the cup. They had been sent for experience, and the experience gained was worth more than the money it cost to send them away. . Every member of the club should recognise the action taken by the committee and support it in that action. That the club would not be boycotted was shown by the fact that at least two sister clubs in the harbour had sent invitations to the commodore and members of the committee to be present at races and regattas. The majority of the members of other clubs supported the action of the North-East Harbour Club. The committee hart given the association every opportunity to climb down before it made its final plunge. Mr M'Hutchon said he differed from the opinion of Mr Bewley. He stressed the fact that loyalty to the association was essential. After the committee had gone so far with its resolution, and after a breach had occurred with the association, then the correct attitude for the committee to adopt was to withdraw the challenge. He was not opposed to the Cornwell Cup contest. He wished to stress that point. They must have proper discipline in connection with the sport. He did not think Mr Bewley’s motion was in the interest of the sport or of the ciub. Mr Bewley said the association had not shown any loyalty to the club or to the sport in its action. ■ « I 4?\ tchon m 9ved as an amendme?t . That no action be taken until s , u . time as the association withdraws its decision to expel the club.” The amendment was seconded by Mr H. Macandrew. On being put to the me . e . tln K l<; was loflt by 37 v °tes to 18. ~ Mr Bewley’s motion was then put to the meeting and carried by 34 votes to 20. un the motion of Mr S. Brown, a vote ot confidence in the club’s two delegates— Messrs E. T. Moller and W. Sell—was passed.