LAWN TENNIS

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 819, 17 May 1910, Page 7

LAWN TENNIS

r THE DAVIS CUP DISPUTE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) Christchurch, May 16, The Canterbury Lawn Tennis Association, after ■ consideration of tho rssolution of the Management Committee ex- : plaining its action in regard- to Davis - Cup matters, has replied that it thoroughly approves the committee's action in forwarding its resolution to all tho associations, and , only regrets ■ (1) that tho same publicity was not • given with equal promptness to the contents of the Canterbury Association's letter of February 1; (2) the fact that the committee disagreed with the point as to the committee's jurisdiction raised' therein, and intended to act, and subsequently had acted in flut defiance of the views of the provincial association; (3) that tho Canterbury Association, having raised the question as to the committee's powers, the. committee was not the tribunal for deciding the correct- . ness of.its contention, as. that would be making one party to the dispute also a judge of tho case. The New Zealand Association ■ should have decided the point before executive action was taken. It further maintains that the committee's powers are those granted by "Rule 20, which merely gives it power to deal with "administrative details." Its executive powers, therefore, cannot extend to anything outside suoh details; that the Davis Cup matter, is certainly no "administrative" detail, and therefore only the association could deal with it. though the Australasian Association has the final decision as to where the Davis Cup is played. It was.all along recognised that the determining factor this year would be the recommendation from New Zealand, and the provincial associations should have been . afforded an opportunity of considering the matter, and the recommendation should have come through the council, not merely from the Management Committee fall Wellinston men), and, therefore, more likely to deal with the matter from a local standpoint; that the Management Committee talks now about Mr. A. .P. Wilding's valuable services, but it is very noticeable that, when volunteering its unasked-for recommendation to the Davis Cup Committee, it entirely omitted to mention his wishes, which were well known to several members .-of the committee, to that body. It would, have been a more practical recognition of Mr. Wilding's scrviccsif the committee, as it was making the recommendation, had mentioned his wishes to the Davis Cup Committee, and.left it-to weigh those wishes against business and other! reasons sot out in favour of .Wellington.