UNION AND LEAGUE.

Observer, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1, 14 September 1912, Page 3

UNION AND LEAGUE.

Is the Council Biassed ? ON August 14th, Auckland Rugby Union wrote to the City Council asking for permission to use the Domain Cricket Ground for a sports meeting,, to be held on September 14 for a charity, and for the right to make a charge for admission to the ground. On August 16, the Auckland City Council, under the. hand of the Town Clerk, replied that as the ground was under preparation for the summer, it would not be available. Naturally, the Auckland Rugby Union accepting this as an indication that nobody would be allowed to use the ground, made the necessary arrangements to hold their meeting at Alexandra Park, the distance of which means that those who attend the meeting will have to pay a shilling extra to get there and back. * * * The curious inconsistency of the Council was shown at last Thursday's meeting, when the application of the Auckland Rugby League for the use of the Domain Cricket Ground tor a meeting on the 21st was received. It is elicited, that some councillors personally felt that to allow the League to use the ground after the Council's refusal to accommodate the Union, would be unfair, but although these gentlemen knew it to be unfair, they did not protest and the application of the League was granted. So that preparation or no preparation, top dressing or no top dressing, the claim of the Auckland League is presumed by the City Council to be more worthy than the claim of the Auckland Rugby Union. There are various presumptions. For instance, the Council may have forgotten that the Union had made an application. They may have forgotten that the ground was being top-dressed, and keen Leaguers may have induced City Councillors to push their claim. The League, of course, was justified in obtaining the ground if they could get it, but there was no justification for the City Council s action in refusing one body and in assisting another.

The probability is that the City Council had allowed the amplication of the Union to fade out of Their minds and that when they agreed to the • application of the League, that they did so without knowledge of the previous application and may be absolved from any intention to be unfair. But this small matter may be an indication of unbusinesslike habits in the City Fathers—it is certainly curious that

those councillors who knew the facts should not have entered a protest. It unfortunately happens in an apparently trifling matter of this kind that the average citizen accuses the Council of bias, when in fact it may only be lacking in knowledge, or may be careless or forgetful. The point is that if the Union was prohibited from using the ground, on the score of its unfitness, it was no more fit for the League and should not in common fairness have been handed over to them for their fixture.

If the City Council is forgetful and unfair about apparent trifles, it may be unfair through forgetfulness about larger ones, and the unthinking "Aye" of a majority may allocate sums of money to be spent where they are least needed. That portion of the public which intends to patronise the Union meeting is just as much entitled to the consideration of the Council as that portion which will attend. the League fixture, and the request of the

Union, being a prior request, is the one that should, under the circumstances, have been granted.

The City Council virtually says, "The ground must not be damaged by the Union, but there is not the slightest objection to the League damaging it," and to the great public who own the city reserves this type of favouritism (or forgetfulness ?) is a little irritating.* No possible objection could be taken if the applications of both bodies had been refused, but the concession to the League will simply be regarded (in the absence of explanation) as an act of bias on the part of the City Council. It would be unkind to suggest that even if the whole of the City Council were ardent supporters of the League game, that this would influence their action, and so the kindest thing to do will be to accuse the Council of a lapse of memory, which upset the arrangements of a body that caters excellently for the public.