THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, MAY 10,1882. THE HANDICAPPING QUESTION.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2523, 10 May 1882, Page 3

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, MAY 10,1882. THE HANDICAPPING QUESTION.

We should not have doomed it necessary to refer again to this subject had it not been for some remarks made at the annual meeting of the C.J.O. on Monday last. First let ns deal with tho remarks made by Mr. R. D. Thomas. 'That gentleman stated—“ That tho re•ports as to tho action of the committee were false, and the attacks of the papers and others wore false, and without foundation.” At this statement, we are told by the reports, the meeting were pleased to cry, “ Hear, hear.” It is very easy for Mr Thomas to get up and make a sort of general statement such as this without giving any facts, bat we challenge him, or any of the members of the club, as wo have done before, to disprove one word we have said on the subject. Let us recapitulate. Wesaidthatit was contrary to the interests of racing that owners like Messrs Lance and Stead should handicap their own and opponents horses. Is there anything false or without foundation in this ? On the contrary, what wo have advanced has received the strongest possible confirmation, from the fact that both tho gentlemen alluded to have thought it necessary to resign from the committee. With the alleged reason of their resignation we have nothing to do at present. We also stated that it was probable owners elsewhere would object to have their horses handicapped by owners against whom they had to run, who also would apportion the weight their own horses should carry. Does Mr. Thomas stigmatise this as false ? If so, we are prepared to show him that, had the arrangement continued the owners, both North and South, would have declined to come here. Mr. Thomas, like a good many more, professes to have a great deal of well-bred contempt for what “ those ah newspaper fellahs ” may say, hut we take credit to ourselves for having fearlessly, honestly and truthfully spoken in this matter, and in the truest interests of sport. If Mr. Thomas means what he says, let him state wherein the falsehood appears that seems to have grieved his noble sonl so deeply. So far from onr arguments being without foundation, we actually find Mr. Thomas himself, that chivalrous champion of oppressed innocence, as represented by Messrs Lance and Stead, agreeing with ns as to the advisableness of a single handicapper as opposed to a committee. Bnt, equally with onr friend, we recognise the difficulty of finding the man who would fill the office for the colony successfully. Onr only objection to committee handicapping was, that owners were placed thereon, and owners, too, who by reason of their connection with others represented a far larger string of horses than wonld appear at first sight. "We feel deeply indebted to Mr. Thomas for his lucid exposure of the false and unfounded attacks; but unfortunately they only exist in his own imagination. Probably with that reverence for precedents which we know is tho leading article of faith in the legal mind, he has acted •upon the well-known and almost historical remark of a learned gentleman, “No case; abuse the other side.” Having dealt with our friend, we now turn to a most peculiar phrase which cropped up at the meeting. Mr. G. P. Williams, the mover of the resolution on which all the discussion took place, mentioned —and it does not appear to have been contradicted—that it was said Messrs Lance and Stead had resigned, not on account of the principle involved, bnt because, having been put on the committee for an emergency, and that emergency having passed, they resigned. Now, we should like to know what this “emergency” was. In our innocence wo had given Messrs Lance and Stead credit for resigning on the question of principle. Bat it appears that we were wrong, and that it is only on account of the emer- . geucy being past for which they were pat on the committee that they retired. This seems to ns exceedingly vague, and likely to give rise to what onr friend Mr. Thomas would call false statements and reports. We asked a question the other day which has not yet been answered as we think it should have been. That was whether the handicap for tho C.J.O. was made by the committee, as at first constituted, or by the new one. This was a perfectly plain, straightforward question, and one which should, in the interests of sport, have been answered in an equally straight- ■ forward manner. We are tcld that the best maxim to work by in the world is to tell the truth, and shame anybody. There • conld have been no harm in answering this question. If the new committee made the handicap they were prepared to stand by it; equally eo tho old ono. However, it has not been done. As we said at the commencement, we should not have referred to this subject again had it not been for the charmingly airy manner in which Mr. Thomas accused all and sundry of stating what was false and without foundation. That was a little bit too much; and we feel sure of this, that the general public—whom, by tho way, Mr. Thomas and his friends are apt a good deal to overlook—will give ns credit for Laving honestly, fairly, and successfully fought out a battle, the result of which has been to savo sport in Canterbury from a blow which it would have taken years to recover from, and despite Mr. Thomas’ fulmination, we shall be ready, should the occasion arise, to do the same again.