WHAT WAS AT ROOT OF MONICA PARK TROUBLE?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17832, 28 April 1926, Page 5

WHAT WAS AT ROOT OF MONICA PARK TROUBLE?

MR MOYLE SAID TO HAVE RAISED THE SECTARIAN ISSUE. “It was not my. intention to make any statement in regard to the action of the New Zealand. League Council in reference to the suspension of Mr \V. S. E. Moyle until after the meeting of the local" centre to-night,” said Mr K. L. M’Keon, when interviewed this morning. ‘‘As the meeting of the council was held in committee, I had intended to observe the unwritten rule and not to enter into any public discussion on the matter. However, as Mr Moyle has brought the matter before the public, 1 feel it my duty to act in a like manner. “Probably the greatest cause that brought about the suspension of Mr Moyle was that he stated to a meeting of the council that the reason that he and three other members of the local centre were so bitterly opposed to the constitution of the Monica Park Board l of Control was because of the fact that, with the exception of Dr Thacker and Mr A. E. Hooper, all the members of the board were Roman Catholics. This had the effect of seriously antagonising members of the council against Mr Moyle, and those whose views coincided .with his. The motion . that I proposed was to the effect that, whilst recognising Mr Moyle’s services in the past, the council felt that the time had arrived when he should sever his connection with League football in New Zealand, and that he be asked to forthwith hand in his resignation to the New Zealand Council. After a lengthy discussion by every member on the council, the motion was carried by ten votes to two.

“I wish to give an emphatic denial to the statements made by Mr Moyle in reference to the action of the president of the council, Mr J. Carlaw, who, he claims, opposed the motion. The president made absolutely no comment on the motion, and, furthermore, Mr W. O. Carlaw, the secretary, who Mr Moyle states also opposed the motion, neither spoke nor voted on the question, at the express wish of the president. Again, Mr I. Culpan, another gentleman stated by Mr Moyle to have been at the meeting and to have fought against the motion, is not a member of the/New Zealand Rugby League Council, and was therefore not present at the meeting. In reference to Mr Moyle’s claim that ‘other delegates’ also opposed the motion, I should like to point out that there were twelve delegates present, comprising the full number of two from each of the six centres. The voting, ten to two, makes the ‘other delegate’ theory absurd. “Regarding my attempted disqualification by the Canterbury Centre, I have received the following letter from the secretary of the New Zealand Council, and it throws some new light on the affair altogether. The letter runs:— Dear Sir,

In accordance with the request of the council of management of the New Zealand Rugby League, I enclose herewith copy of letter sent to the Canterbury under date March 8. as per your request of the 23rd inst. Yours, etc., W.. O. CARLAW, Secretary.

The copy runs:— The FTon. Secretary, Canterbury Rugby League, Christchurch. Dear Sir. I am in receipt of various communications from you which have been dealt with by the Council of Management. I beg to advise as follows: Communication February 1, advising that at a meeting of the dele- ' gates of the Canterbury Rugby League on the 30th January, the following was carried with one dissentient:— (1) “That .this meeting of the delegates of the Canterbury Rugby Football League endorse the action of the. executive in support of the letter from the Sydenham Club on October 1 30, 1925, re Messrs E. ,L. M’Keon and E. A. Hooper, and that they be disqualified for ever and that their names be removed from all records of the local centre.” A further communication of the same date you advise that the same delegates at the same meeting passed the following resolution without dissentients : (2) “That the executive demand the resignation of Mr E. L. M’Keon, treasurer.” The executive request that you endorse this action. When these resolutions first came before the council I was instructed to write to your League asking for details of hoppenings which led up to the passing of such resolutions. No answer has been received from your League so this Council was left to confirm the resolution disqualifying officials without any reason being given for such action being taken by the Canterbury League. The position of course is absolutely impossible, and mv Council, at their meeting last Thursday night (March 5) decided that failing the receipt of the information asked for your League be advised as follows: “ That the disqualification of Messrs M’Keon and Hooper be not confirmed, and that the Canterbury League be asked to erase from their books the minute or minutes dealing with such resolutions.” We would ask you to be good enough to advise Messrs M’Keon and Hooper to this effect, as they have both appealed against their disqualification through your League. Yours, etc., For the New Zealand Rugby League, W. O. CARLAW. “ The local centre,” said Mr M’Keon, “ had received the demand for evidence nearly two. weeks prior to the council’s meeting. The evidence was not forthcoming, and the council, on March 5, passed the above resolution. I might state that up to the present time the Canterbury Centre has not seen fit to notify either Mr Hooper or myself of the decision of the governing body as was requested by them.”