THE OVAL.

Evening Star, Issue 4138, 1 June 1876, Page 4

THE OVAL.

To the Editor. Sir,—The letters of “Lindum” and ‘'Coyer Point ” in your issue .of to-night, lead me to seek a corner for reply.: I most, in the first place, positively deny ' that I- or any other footballer forced open the cricket pavilion after the committee had refused,it. ; The facts are as follows.; -Oh Wednesday, 12th April, the secretary of the Football Club wrote requesting the use of the pavilion. This letter was acknowledged, with a promise to send an answer the following week). On Saturday, 15t.h April, the pavilion padlock- - was unlocked with a key belonging to a member of the D.C.0., which happened to fit. On Saturday, 22nd April, the pavilion was opened in the same way. On Saturday, 29th April, -having received no communication from the D.C.C., we expeettdto make use of the pavilion as on the two previous Saturdays, but found a strong, new padlock on the dour. .vi yself and other mem-bers-of the Cricket 01 ub removbd this obstacle by means of a screwdriver,- made use of the pavilion, and re-fastened- it after the game. Not till the 6th May did the reply from the committee of the Ihmedin Cricket Club arrive, refusing us. the use of the pavilion, after which date, the pavilion was not forced open by ns. A large section of the D.G;C, tnought that the action of the committee would not bo sustained by the club, and accordingly-called a general meeting. The result was a trifling majority against us, and as such must stand; blit I do not hesitate to assert that had this meeting been held as summoned at first the result would have been very different. The conclusions of “Lindum” and others are evidently based on a partial hearing of the case, and “ Lindum” has not even.a-knowledge of ;the most well-known facts, or he would not write that’ 1 launched forth anathemas and declared my intention of seeking the aid of the law. On the contraiy, I was not only threatened with but promised law, to which my reply- was and still is, “ tiy.it on,” , This pavilion matter is, however, beside tbe real question, and is only dragged in by some of the footballers' opponents to give a pretext to their selfish desire to monopolise the Southern Recreation Ground. N otwith- | standing:that ;.Mr Fish has proclaimed t hat ( no gentleman would say it, I have no hesitation in declaring that in our present position the Football. Club should claim their legal right to use the ground, and that I will assert that right so long as the Dunedin Football' Club exists; unless; of course, a good football ground is found not too far from the centre of town. But 1 would not claim this legal right if it were true that we ruin the ground for cricket. And herein I maintain that the anti-foot Isaßist cricketers should prove this serious damage; for last year, after a football season protracted ' much longer than we desire for this year, the cricketers had as good a pitch as in any previous year,, if not better, after the sum of L 7 12s 8d had been paid to a , man for repairing the ground in the spring, to which must be added the expense of obtaining and using the Corporation roller once or twice. Had “Cover Point” played .football on the Town Belt at Montecillo, as I have, he would not write as he does. After the experience of the end of last season,, not many footballers would be found willing to play on that dangerous ground, over which puddles more than ankle deep are scattered through the greater part of. winter. Bumming np the whole question—la the proof that the footballers ruin the ground for cricket strong enough to justify the Dunedin Cricket Club in proclaiming itself the owner of the centre of .the Southern Recreation Ground, and forbidding the footballers to use the ground? My answer to this is, No. Is’a majority of one at a general meeting of 1 the Ihmedin .Cricket Club, composed as it was, sufficient to induce the Dunedin Football Club to give up their winter game, so long as cricket can b& played as it -was last year ? Again, No. “Cover joint’s” statements' as to the numerical, strength of the two clubs are not only but also incorrect. The Football Club numbered last year about sixty members,- of whom forty were playing members. Of tbe eighty-four members of tjie Cricket Club, he does, not say how many are life members and how many do not play cricket. I believe, indeed, that were the practical cricketers allowed to decide 'the question (say all those who played .in a j cricket match last season), the footballers J ’would not be treated as they have been,— t I &o., / - v Henry Rosy, ; Deputy Captain Dunedin Football Club. Dunedin, May 30. • - P.'S. 1 have passed over the impertinence on “Lindum!#’’ part my name before ybnr readers in a manner anything; but :edjnplimcntaryj. himself writing under an afckumcll nttpi.e,. •