DISQUALIFICATION OF PEERESS.

Evening Star, Issue 3069, 19 December 1872, Page 2

DISQUALIFICATION OF PEERESS.

To the Editor. Sir, —“Fair Play,” the correspondent of your contemporary, states in his to-day’s Jotter to that journal, “ it is the opinion of many that the Canterbury Jockey Chib arrived at their decision in a hasty, indigo nant manner, without giving Mr Walters time to clear the matter up*,” What time was wanted by Mr Walters? The facts were patent to the members of the C. J.C. Mr Walters bought and scratched the mare for the Cup after after she had been very heavily backed by the public (and was not amiss) forty-eight hours before the time of starting. As to the position of the C.J.C, being strengthened by having their opinions so soon endorsed by other Clubs, I take his statement for what it is worth, as I am informed that the letter of the Hon. Secretary of the Christchurch Club, giving information of the disqualification, was received by the Secretary of the Dunedin Club twenty-one days after the meeting at which the mare was disqualified. The true facts of this case were doubtless well known to the Stewards and members of the Canterbury Club, and although there may be no rule in racing laws under which they could disqualify the mare, I think, Mr Editor, that we at this distance ought to take for granted that a number ol gentlemen of undoubted standing would not put their names to a resolution such as passed without they were fully convinced that such facts justified them in so doing. As your correspondent is inclined to favor certain suppositions of jealousy on the part of o where of horse?, 1 thick I toay be allowed

to put a suppositious case. A horse fit to run for a man’s life, which (for the sake of argument) is called A., is very heavily backed by the public for a certain race to come off in forty-eight hours. Mr B. goes to the owner of the horse called A., and after agreeing as to the price of the horse, states “I will buy it if you will leave the offer open for so many hours,” hut the offer is not to be mentioned. The owner agrees to this. Very shortly afterwards, certain bookmakers begin to pepper, or in other words bet against the horse to the extent of about LBOO, and when the time agreed upon had expired, Mr B. completed the purchase of the horse A. This is entirely a supposititious case, and must bo taken for v/hnt it is worth ; but in such a case the Stewards and members of a club, if such transactions became known to them, would not be very far wrong in disqualifying the horse called A even without any racing law to back them. As the opinion of the AndralaAo.n has been remarked on with regard to Peeress, will you allow me to call the attention of your readers to the leading article in that paper of the 7th December. At Bendigo, a mare, named H'mily, was entered for the District Plate. She was far superior to anything in the race, and in case of her winning, the ring would be heavy losers of double events. The article states that it was patent that the race was squared by a wellknown Melbourne bookmaker. Emily lost, and the public were sold, and of course the editor is very indignant. Don you think the Stewards, had this transaction before ■ the race been known to them, been far wrong in disqualifying Hmily? I trow not, and I fancy, if I read the article rightly, even the Anufralasian would have been of the same opinion. The only difference I can see, Mr Editor, between the cases of Emily and Peeress is, that one comes within the pale of racing law and the other does not, but the result to the general public is the same that they are sold in each ease.

P.S.—The arguments used by “ Fair Play” are so completely identical with those frequently expressed by a gentleman well known at the Empire Hotel, that the impartiality which he claims for himself will hardly be accorded to him by the public.—l am, &c., A Lover of Turf Morality,