LAWN TENNIS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1124, 11 May 1911, Page 7

LAWN TENNIS.

ITS CONTROL IN NEW ZEALAND,

QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION.

A special meeting of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association was held I^ t evening, Sir. H. M. Gore presiding. «■ C. T. Aschman, of Christchurch, specially represented the Canterbury Lawn lcnnis Association. The meeting was held to consider certain amendments to the constitution and rules of the Now Zealand Association, proposed by Canterbury, tho. matter was adjourned from the last meeting of the association. Mr. \schman assured the delegates of tho honesty of purpose actuating the Canterbury Association, notwithstanding that thev were considered the ' bad boy of the family." He moved the principal resolution standing in the name ol Lanterbury as follows:-"The uluiirs ot the association shall be managed by a council, which shall consist of delegates appointed by the affiliated associations, Together with the officers of the association, and each affiliated association shall . be entitled to one delegate only." nc pointed out that this would entail the abolition of the Management Committee; anrt the delegates representing the affiliated bodies would have direct control. Most of the local work would be left to tho local body, and the governing association would be purely administrative, ana would also act as an appeal board, tie cited the control of the Bugby Lmon ami' Hockey Associations and others. Mr. B. Keesing (acting as delegate for tho Auckland Association) seconded the motion. He did so at the desire of us body, who had come to the same conclusion as Canterbury. ~ Professor llunter strongly opposed tnn motion. He argued that the proposed representation would not prove ot benciit to the sport, nor would the improvement that Canterbury hoped for result from the change. ,„ , ... Mr G L. Peacock said he felt heartily sick of the attempts* that were constantly being made to alter the constitutional' rules of the association. It was not advancing the game with the public nor with nlayers. He hoped this would be ths: fimil 'attempt. In regard to the proposal, he did not aeree that Hie present control was unwieldy. .He also could not agree that the delegates at the annual meeting had given all their attention to tho game at the expense of administrative matters. Mr. Aschman had argued that by having a management committal certain clubs not represented on that committee were d'siranthised, but this would also result if a sub-committee were set up out of the directly representative delegates, as suggested by the pronoser. Mr. T. A. "Hurley also opnosed tho motion. He pointed out, in the course of somo remarks, that want o£ faith in (lie representatives of the governing body was at the root of tho matter.

Mr. Didsbury wi'.s another in opposition to" U\c 'proposal. Ho could not see that the suggested alteration would improve matte Vs. If, under tho present system, representatives did not please tho associations, the latter could immediately effect a change. Mr. Gray (representing Otago) said he had been instructed to support Canterbury. As a member of the management committee, he believed it possible, under the present system, for tho committee to be drawn from one or two clubs, which was bad.

Mr. Aschman, replying, said that the argument that sub-committees would be virtually management committees in miniature, was scarcely k valid statement, because the sub-committees would have no initiative, as the management committee had, and would, merely inquire, report, or act, as directed. Ho also contended that the constant rearrangement of rules was a sign of healthy interest.' His main contention was that under the management committee system universal representation was not obtaiued.'-whereas, if each of the eleven associations had a delegate acting directly on its behalf, each would have a voice in affairs.

The motion was lost, the voting being as follows:—For—Auckland, Canterbury, and Otago: Against—lTawko's Bay, Marlboroiigh. Nelson, Taranaki, Wanganui, Wellington. Jlr. ''Aschman, in accordance with notice of motion, then moved: "That each affiliated association shall be entitled to one vote up to the first 300 members and an additional vote for every additional 300 members after the first 300 belonging to clubs affiliated to such association; provided always that no delegate shall represent more than one association except when holding a proxy for an absent delegate as provided in Rule 12 hereof." This was seconded by'Otago. Professor Hunter said tin's proposal would disfranchise Nelson and the West Coast Associations, since their membership was below 300. At the samo time he would welcome a worknble scheme.

The proposal was lost. It was then proposed by Canterbury that the present system of subscription to tho association—a sum not exceadin<j 3d. per member, with a minimum of .£}— be substituted by a fee of £1 ss. for each vote to which such affiliated association is entitled. The motion was lost. Mr. P. H. Putnam was appointed a member of the Management Committee, vice Mr. J. AY. Dart, who has removed to New Plymouth.