The Globe FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1875.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 407, 1 October 1875, Page 2

The Globe FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1875.

An attempt has been made in the columns of our evening contemporary, to show that the C.C.C. are justified in refusing to pay the sum which was demanded by the U.C.C.C. as their share of the amount necessary for the maintenance of the Hagley Park ground. We altogether demur to the arguments used. Two wrongs nerer

yet made right, and if the demand made by the U, C.C.C. was unjust, which we do not believe, it does not alter the fact that the refusal of the C.C.C. to submit to the decision of the properly constituted authorities nn the matter is totally unjustifiable. It is evident that the C.C.C. should have objected at the moment that they knew it was proposed to charge the increased rent. But it does not appear that they did anything of the kind, but on the contrary that they continued to use the Hagley Park ground until the end ol the season without giving any intimation to the U.C.C.C. that they intended to resist the increased rental. This is, as far as we can learn, the state of the case, and we are justified in saying that the C.C.C. wanted to be their own arbiters in the matter of the rent to be paid, as they carried their case to the court of appeal, and, being beaten there, absolutely refuse to obey the decision, considering that they have the right to pay what they like. As to the question of the C.C.C. being unjustly treated in the matter, we cannot see the grounds for such a statement. The member of the Domain Board to whom the question was referred, is one of the last men to be influenced by personal feelings in the matter. The bringing in of Mr Harman’s name is unfortunate, as that gentleman had nothing whatever to do with the decision, he in common with the other members of the Board having determined to leave the settlement of the question to Mr MurrayAynsley. It is just as absurd to suppose that a gentleman in Mr Harman’s position would suffer himself to give a partial decicion, because he belongs to one of the two clubs at present quarrelling, as it would be to suppose that he would be influenced by private friendship while sitting as a magistrate or assessor. Such charges as these are neither just or generous, nor would they be believed of any member of the Domain Board. If the members of the C.C.C, “feel rather sore at their “ adversaries having, as they think “ such an advantage” as a partial Judge on the Bench before which they appear, we can only pity their ignorance of the motives which influence the decision of a gentleman. But we do not for a moment believe they do “ feel sore” as regards the Judge, though they may do so with regard to the decision they still decline to obey. With regard to the last paragraph in the article we have referred to, we can only say that it is unintelligible to us. We should be glad to be informed who are the “ one or two men placed “ in a position of some power,” who by their unscrupulous conduct have caused harm and heartburnings amongst the cricketers of Canterbury. If there is any specific charge of this sort, let it be made openly, and we shall be disappointed indeed if a completely satisfactory answer is not returned by the gentlemen hinted at.