The Star. THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1891. The Recent Trotting Meeting.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7163, 14 May 1891, Page 2

The Star. THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1891. The Recent Trotting Meeting.

Theee were two or three very unpleasant occurrences at the meeting of the Canterbury Trotting Club on Friday. Trouble commenced with the initial event, the Maiden Handicap, in which several of the performers displayed a Btrong disinclination to lose their qualification for similar events in the future, but the Stewards were unable to lay their hands on evidence sufficiently strong to implicate any of the parties concerned, and the result of the j race was left undisturbed. In the very next event at least half a dozen of the competitors ran much below their public form, and by the time the Association Grounds Cup came up for decision, the Stewards were fairly aroused to the determination to do something. Joe was selected as the victim of the official wrath, and after winning the four-mile event by fifty yards, was promptly disqualified in favour of Berlin Boy, on the ground that he had not tried to win the Lincoln Plate As Berlin Boy was second favourite and Joe a complete outsider, it goes without saying that the action of the Stewards met with warm approval from a section of the spectators. Later in the day Bedale woe the Addington Plate, but was at once made the subject of enquiry, and his friends being unable to explain his failure in the Maiden Handicap, he suffered the same fate as Joe. This, added to another protest which was not sustained, is a pretty good record for one afternoon, but we should be sorry to say a single word that would lessen the zeal of the Stewards. There is, however, a very widespread impression that the owner of Joe was hardly dealt with. It seems that the horse is possessed of more stamina than pace, and from this it is argued that his failure in the Bhort race is not inconsistent with his success in the longer one. There may be something in this, as every one is prepared to find a horse better at one distance than another, but a second suggestion made by the owner implies that some of the officials who pronounced judgmentupon the case were not entirely unprejudiced. It is stated very publicly— and we have not heard the statement contradicted — that Berlin Boy belongs to an active steward of the Club, while he is nominated, trained, and driven by one of the handicappers. We are prepared to believe that these gentlemen would not allow any personal interest to affeot the discharge of their official duties, but we are quite sure no owner or handicapper can be entirely unbiassed when his own pocket or reputation is intimately concerned. Speaking generally of Friday's proceedings our sympathy is with the Stewards. It iB all very well to say the charges were not proved right up to the hilt, and that the accused parties should have had the benefit of any doubt that remained ; but we all know that it is often difficult even in the most flagrant casea to obtain evidence which a Court of law would accept as positive proof, and if the accused parties were always given the benefit of doubts a conviction would be out of the question. We admit, of course, that Joe did not pull himself, and if the horse waa really stopped in the first race his jockey and owner might have been included in the disqualification ; but this is where the accused parties are always treated with especial consideration. Convicted by their own performances, their judges take a merciful view of the case, and uee only so much of the evidence as may seem necessary in the immediate interests of honest sport. At present we can have nothing but autocratic government on the turf ; the stewards cannot be hampered by legal quibbles and general concessions; but this very fact makes it all the more important that the officials entrusted with the administration of the racing law should be far above the suspicions which have been levelled against some of the stewards of the Canterbury Trotting Club. There is one little matter conneoted with these disqualifications which seems to require attention. A gentleman, whose word we have no reason to doubt, and who was certainly not mixed up in any improper proceedings on Friday, assures us that he backed both Joe and Bedale in the events they won, and was, of course, an innocent sufferer when the horses were disqualified. It would be ridiculous for Stewards in this country to say that they have nothing to do with betting ; the very existence of the Clubs they represent is dependent upon the legalised form of gambling, and investors in the totalisator have a right to expect the fullest protection from the officials. It appears to us that the right course to follow in these oases would be to return the money in the totalisator on the disqualified horses to the investors. It is a very proper proceeding to forfeit the investments of people connected with a fraud, but it is extremely unfair, we think, to accept the money of bond, fi&o backers and then confiscate it on account of the misdoings of other people. It is impossible to distinguish between the justandtheunjust.but if we accept an ancient and high authority, that " justice consists in doing no. injury," we must spare '.the wrongdoers for the sake of the innocent investors.