NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1345, 24 January 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

_ The trouble between the Australian Cricket Board of Control and leading players as to the appointment of a manager for the team to tour England seems, to be developing into a serious matter. In the

past the team has selected its own manager, and the arrangement worked very • satisfactorily until the last occasion. Layer, who was then manager, appears to have adopted a somewhat unreasonable attitude towards the Board, he refusing to supply it with a detailed statement of accounts, and some unpleasantness in consequence arose. The Board, it was contended, could have obtained all the information it required in .this respect from the treasurer it had appointed lo accompany the team, and it was seemingly superfluous to ask Layer to supply what the treasurer had been appointed to attend to. However, be that as it may, the unpleasantness which arose has evidently been taken to heart by the Board of Control, and it has now decided to selcct the manager of the next team itself. The majority of-the players who are regarded as "certainties" in the next team appear equally determined that the old practice shall not be departed from, and no doubt they have in mind the reappointment of Laver. The matter is one of some consequence, as on a tour of this kind a great deal depends on the relations which exist between the manager and the team, quite apart from the question of the financial success of the venture. Should the protesting players hold out, the team which will be sent—if a team is sent at all—cannot be anything like representative of the full strength of Australian cricket. It has to be borne in mind, moreover, that it is not merely a few of the leading players who are objecting to the attitude of the Board of Control, but there appears to be a very widespread feeling amongst cricketers generally. The South Australian Cricket Association, for instance, has passed the following resolution: "That this association enters its emphatic protest against the Hoard's intended action lo appoint a renror.entativc to accompany the next Australian Eleven to Lnglaml, instead of a manager -clected by the team, as provided hv Knle !) of the constitution. _It is considered that the resolution is illegal, and also amounts to a gross breach of faith." Those who defend the action of the Board deny that there is anything unconstitutional about the Board's proposal, - although it is admitted that the players have a right to appoint a manager in addition to the manager appointed by the Board. The players, however, would in that case have to bear the cost. It is to be hoped the dispute will be amicably settled, although on present appearances this seems doubtful.

London papers to hand contain the news cabled to the Mother Country respecting the results of the general elections here. Apparently the people of Great Britain had been led to believe—where they were sufficiently interested to trouble about the niatter—that there was no real possibility of the Government heina defeated. Thr Timvs, for instance, whicli has recently changed its New Zealand correspondent, in its notes from this country published on tinday of the election, stated that there were, many circumstances working against the Government, but added: With such a eombiiialion of oircuic stances the prospects of the Opposition might .-L-L-iii lo be bright indeed. And m> they would l>o if the party onlv had a. leader capable of appealing (o t'he popular imaijination. ami rallying the scattered forces of discontent against the Government. The same correspondent added: Tlit! country would ninth like a ehaiijxe, but balks as soon as it contemplate* the only pe.-silile alternative. The result is thai despite I ho striking decline in Uie popularity of the (ii)ve.rnim>ut, mine but the wildest of Opinion prophet,. ~x . [K'tts to do anything more than reduce iU majority. Naturally utter this sort of mutter when Ike results vaiiie tu haml tktv

j occasioned very Rival: .surprise. But tin , most amusing prophecy published in Limcloii whs tht; "official report." k> (he High Commissioner forwarded after the first ballots, presumably with (he idea of bolstering up tho rapidly waning credit of the Ward Administration. This "official report," which presumably was sent by thi! Pi!i jib Minister himself, stated that of tin; second ballots it. was anticipated the Government would gain 22 seats and the Opposition 8, thus leaving the Government in a majority. As our readers are aware, (hese very sanguine, anticipations on tile part of the Government were not realised, instead of gaining 22 scats at thi) .second ballots, the Government merely gained half that number, while, twelve went to the .Reform parly, four to Labour, and three to Independents.

Those who venture- to break a lance with London Truth seldom escape unscathed from the encounter, as Sin Joseph Wahd and Sir John Findlay can no doubt bear testimony respecting the Mokau case. Lady Stoct also perhaps now regrets that she rushed in so impetuously to contradict Truth regarding its version of the action of the Mayor of _ Wellington, Mr. T. M. Wii.fohd, in refusing to preside at the banquet to Sir Joseph Ward on account of the presence of .Sir John Findlay. In its issue of December 0 Truth returns to the subject ot Lady Stout's letter of contradiction, and aftar recounting the circumstances leading up to the publication of the letter, it proceeds as follows :— li.V a roundabout process I have now •earned that this assumption of inino nliat Lady Stout's information was correct] was untoumled. The contradiction was in its turn contradicted bv Tin; Ijomixio.w and Lady Stout, who'resides in London, has recently sent a letter of. (•.\plnim-.on to Hint Now Zealand journal. J he hitter sh:r,vs thai she took upon hersall to cornet "Truth" without any sort ot authority or any actual knowli-i'lire of tho fads. It seems that she "thought" oiis filing, "iifver dmiml" anotlipr, ami r honestly believed" that the article in Irulh- "had bren copicil from thp Sydney •lnilli,- and'that it was one of tho imilicnus and untruthful attacks on tliUonuiiion," etc. AVhy Lady Stout should have honestly bdieywl this i( is impossible to conceive, far there wav nut a Yiwtise of fuun.hition lor such a lialitf. iind the idra that my article was copied mini the Sydney journal wn.-i palpably preposterous. From her letter it npppnr's that Lady Stout finds it difficult to xeeiire tii? publication in London napn'« of her replies to "mi«ratemenls" nbmil Now Zealand. In view of this incident, I urn not surprised <it her difficulty. Lady Stout's letter., it will be remembered, was published in The Dominion some months ago, and wo commented on it at the time.