Untitled

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IV, Issue 204, 21 June 1894, Page 4

Last year the Dunedin delegates were firm in their opposition and their decision to oppose it appears to have been arrived at for the following reasons. They held that power was asked to create an expensive organisation to maintain, which would be a serious task on clubs, and from which commensurate results could not be expected. Further, that the N.Z.J.C. could do very little more than what the Metropolitan Clubs are at present doing, and that the Jockey Clubs’ Court of Appeal would be mischievous in taking away authority from local tribunals who have the best means of knowing the ins and outs of a local dispute. The Southern members argue that Auckland understands Auckland matters, and that the same holds good as regards the otner provinces. These are the arguments against the proposition, and we leave the delegates to weigh their value. There is one suggestion we might make which would in a measure take the place of a N.Z.J.C., and that is, a court of appeal might be formed consisting of one member from every Metropolitan Club, three to form a quorum. An Auckland owner who considered a decision of the A.R.C. to be unjust could then appeal to say a representative from the A.R.C., H.8.J.C., and W.R.C., and they could settle the point in appeal.