THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1882. THE HANDICAPPING OWNERS.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2500, 12 April 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1882. THE HANDICAPPING OWNERS.

It is quite refreshing, after the manner in which the majority of the members of the C.J.C. have deliberately passed a measure which in effect will ruin sport here, to find one independent and public spirited enough to speak his mind. Mr. G. P. ‘Williams, whose pithy bat true summing up of the case we quoted in a recent article, has written a letter to the “ Lyttelton Times” which is worthy of more than passing notice. Mr. Williams first refers to an article on the subject appearing in the ‘‘ Canterbury Times.” It was scarcely to be expected that under the circumstances the journal in question could speak out, and the result is, as Mr. Williams no doubt has discovered, that it is neither one thing or another. It is another instance of lotting “ I dare not” wait upon “ I would,” which of course simply results in a chaos. At the same time it does seem peculiar that a paper professing to have the interests of sport at heart should not have the pluck to speak our boldly, knowing, as any one who has given the subject a moment’s thought must know, that carrying into effect the placing the handicaping in the hands of Messrs. Lance and Stead, means that not a single outside owner will put his horse in our races. This may be all very well for some people, and if the C J.C. is simply intended as an institution to enable a select few to breed and run horses, no better arrangement could be made. But we are laboring under the impression —a mistaken one it may be—that the Jockey Club is simply in the position of trustee for the public, and that, therefore, the best possible sport that can bo obtained should be afforded to them. Mr. Williams puts very forcibly and clearly the posi ion we took up in a recent article, viz., that the position of an owner on the handicapping committee is a false one. It would bo so even if the owner had bat a small string, and was unconnected with any other. But one of the two gentlemen referred to, at all events, is connected with other owners, so that it makes not only a committee of the own ors handicapping against all others but six or seven. We cannot for one moment understand how it is that two gentlemen ‘like Messrs. Stead and Lance with, we trust, some feelings of self, respect, can consent to allow themselves to be placed in a position where, though acting with the purest and best motives they know they must be open not only t> imputations of unfairness but diahouoraba

•conduct. There are men who not for all the states in New Zealand would consent to do so; and we have hopes now that the subject has been thoroughly ventilated, and public opinion expressed that the two gentlemen mentioned will sea their way clear to retire from the committee. The letter upon which we have been remarking closes by commenting upon the proposal made in the “ Canterbury Times”; that the handicapping committee as at present constituted should Lave a trial. Of course one can see with half an eye what this means, and Mr. Williams hits the blot at once. Given time to those gentlemen, and it brings ua just over the making of the O.J.C. Handicap, the event of the next Spring Meeting. Imagine the result of this. It simply means that in all probability those left in the handicap would be the framers of it and their friends, and we should see the great race of the year competed for by stables having more or lees intimate relations one with another. This is apart altogether from who is let -in light, but simply the result of the - presence on the handicap committee of owners. We say most emphatically that in the interest of sport no owner of horses running at the meeting or one connected in any way with stables competing should be allowed to handicap. This is the principle which 'has been violated deliberately, and after 1 full discussion by a majority of the members of the C. J.C, hut, we do not hesitate to say that, with the single exception of the “ Canterbury Times,” which may be regarded as riding to orders, every paper in New Zealand which refers to the subject will condemn the course they have taken. Mr. Williams concludes his able letter by expressing his fear that should one of the handicapping owners win the C.J.O. on the “ experimental ” handicap, public dissatisfaction will be so great that the C.J.C. will receive a blow from which it will taka it years to recover. Were it only that the C.J.O. would suffer or that | such a state of things would result in its , utter extinction, we should—and also a 1 majority of the public—hail with joy the victory either of Messrs. Stead, Lance, or Robinson. But what we fear, , and there is a great deal more in this , than the mere dissolution of the C.J.0., is that racing in Canterbury, which of ; late years has not had a particularly . sweet savour in the nostrils of outsiders, will be almost irreparably injured. This j is why wo have deemed it our duty as representing the public fearlessly and | independently to comment upon what has ( taken place. What is thought of it elsewhere will be seen ere long. LOCAL OPTION.

To-day the first of the series of appeals to the ratepayers under the local option clauses of the Licensing Act will be made. It remains to bo seen, after having clamoured for this so-called privilege, what the advocates of temperance will do with it. We are inclined to think that, unless they are careful, the very clauses, the passing of which was hailed with so much joy, will hoist them with their own petard. That the temperance advocates are in the minority is, •we think, undoubted. This was moat distinctly proved by the result of the Sydenham licensing election, where the temperance candidates, men also of standing and influence in tho borough, were hopelessly 'defeated, and others not professing these extreme sentiments returned, though personally strangers to a large majority of the electors. Now, did the non-temperance portion of the community desire, they could, by a large majority, defeat the temperance organisation, and thus allow of a large increase of houses. Of course, if the temperance people were in the majority we should not wonder at their jubilation over the local option privileges. But it is not so, and we would therefore advise our teetotal friends to repress somewhat their bigotry and excess of zeal in the cause. They may rest assured that the general public will not be led into voting for anything which will act detrimentally to the community as a whole, and that equally with the -total abstainers, those who do not profess those principles will be found aiding to keep down the undue preponderance of public houses in our midst. We of course can form no idea as to how the polling to-day will go, but hazarding a guess we should make all but sure that the public will vote against the increase of bouses in tho district of Christchurch North. This too will result without any demonstration on the part of the public.