THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1882 THE "NATATOR" CASE.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2684, 14 November 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1882 THE "NATATOR" CASE.

We should not have thought it necessary ,to call attention to the complaint laid by one of the owners of horses running at the late C. J.C. Meeting as to the running o£ Natator, beyond wondering at bis childlike simplicity, were it not for the circumstances which have since taken place. Indeed, the vory fact of the matter having been investigated by tho Stewards, a body of gentlemen who may be most implicitly relied upon aa, considering the case strictly on its merits, svnd without fear, favour, or affection, and dismissed by them, would at once haro put an end to any comment. It is true that the whole proceedings from first to last wcro enveloped in that cloud of secrecy which of late has characterieed the doings of tho C J.C, and probably this caused more rumo s to get abroad than were quite consistent with fact. But since the matter has been investigated by the Stewards, who, it may be remarked, are the only body competent to deal with it, what we cannot but regard as quite an unnecessary fuss has been made about the matter, which is likely to revise tho unfavorable remarks current at one time. Mr. Wm. Reeves, one of the Stewards, has thought it his duty to rush into the breach to proclaim to all and sundry the innocence of the owners of Natator. At the same time Mr. Reeves took exception to the remarks made by the sporting writer of the journal, in which he is largely interested. Now these remarks, as might be expected from the parties concerned, were of the mildest possible description; in fact the reference to the matter was simply a statement of two actual facts which neither the C..T.C. stewards nor Mr. Reeves can deny. These are—(l) That Mr. Bates had lodged a complaint as to the running of Natator during tho meeting; and (2) that unfavorable remarks were made concerning the same. There was absolutely no expression of opinion one way or the other, which , certainly will surprise no one who knows anything at all. This being so, and the unanimous verdict of a body of Stewards of so important a meeting as the Metropolitan, held under the distinguished auspices of a club possessing so deservedly a high character for insisting that all races shall be run on their merits, having triumphantly acquitted the owners of Natator, what need for more. But ' now comes the peculiar part of the i whole affair, which certainly cannot but ■ cause considerable comment. Mr. Reaves - having rushed into print, to regret that ' there should have been the slightest suspicion cast on the owners of the horse, though they have been nnani- ! mously acquitted by the Stewards, another phase of the extreme anxiety to put things straight with the public is manifested. The leading columns of the " Lyttelfcon Times " are utilised to do a 1 little more whitewashing of persons do- _ clared innocent. This is certainly a • fearful and wonderful production, and there are one or two extracts to which we desire to draw the attention | of the public. After eating a , considerable amount of hnmble pie , for an alleged offence never coms mitted—unless it be an offence to record facts known to two or three hundred ! people—the article contains the following very peculiar sentences. "In this ex- ! pression of regret we join very fully, . because we have always held that there ■ is not the slightest foundation for any i imputation of any kind against those concerned in the running of Natator. The horse, we felt sure from the first., was run fairly on his merits." One could hardly speak stronger were it the owners themselves penning these lines, and it speaks very highly indeed for the clearsightedness of the " Times," particularly when no one made a direct assertion to the contrary. The Stewards' verdict, as we have before shown, quite exonerated the owners of the horse. What, need then for repeated observations—take them at whatever they may be worth—of the leader writer in the " Times' 1 that Natator was not run, to use a sporting phrase, as " stiff as a rail." It looks very much like self accusation to say the least- of it. Then, after a lame apology about shows and political meetings, which have as much to do with the real matter at issue as with the succession to the throne of Titnbuctoo, the obedient scribe feels called upon once more to hold up the gentlemen so wrongfully accused to the admiring gaze of the world. Ha therefore proceeds to lay on the whitewash with an exceedingly large brush and a liberal hand thusly :—" We have therefore felt it a duty to set the matter right in the completes!; manner by stating our conviction from the first that the horse was run throughout on his merits." Now we have only just one question to ask in connection with this matter, and here it is. Supposing the case had been reversed, and Messrs. Lance and Robinson, instead of Mr. Bate, had complained of the running of say The Poet, would the same amount of magnanimity and zeal in defence of oppressed innocence have been manifested by our contemporary; or would the leading columns hare been devoted to an elaborate defence of something which does not exist ? We trow not. That would, indeed, have been a very different state of things. We do not for one instant impugn the justice of the decision arrived at by tho Stewards for a very good and sufficient reason, that the public have never been permitted either to know in what form the case was submitted to them, what charges were made, or what evidence was brought to support Mr.- Bates' grievance. What wo say is this, that the very peculiarly strenuous efforts inado to disprove something, which by a competent tribunal has been declared to bo groundless, augurs ' that there i 3 more in the matter than meets ■ the eye. This is just one of those things , which tend to mako tho public always ] suspicious—very uncharitable and unjust ; in their remarks as to tho bona Jides of ' racing. Wo regret that mistaken zeal on the part of Mr. Reeves, followed by ] the vory injudicious article of this morn- ( ing, should, as we feel sure it will, revivo i comments which, after the verdict of tho , Stewards, were hushed in silence. \

SUBURBAN FIRES.

The question of the attendance or otherwise of the Fire Brigade at fires outside the city boundaries was again revived in the City Council last night. The diecasion on the question arose out of a clause in the Fire Brigade Committee's report, recommending that £2l be asked for from Mr. Rhodes on account of the services of the Brigade at ihe recent fire on his premises. Now, to I egin with, we think that the committee

were wrong in recommending application for an amount like this to a private individual. The proper thing to do is to forward an account for the use of the plant, &c, to the B r.ngh of St. Albans. Mr. Rhodes is a ratepayer of that borough, and no doubt contributes a pretty largo sum to its revenue anmiidly. It is therefore only right that the local body, if unwilling or unable to provide for itself a fire extinction plant, should, when making use of the plant of the city, bought by and paid for out of the rates to which they have not coutribuiedos.o sixpence, bo prepared to pay a reasonable amount. So long as the city is willing to allow private individuals, where they are able, as in Mr. Rhodes' cave, to pay, and where they are not to leave ifc alene, so long will tho , suburbs delay to provide themselves oven with the most primitive apparatus for extinguishing or preventing fires. But let it be clearly understood, as it ought to bo we contend that the attendance of the City Brigade at any suburban fire,whether for a poor or a rich man, will have to be paid for by the local body, and then the matter is on a proper basis. Otherwise we should find that in caseswhere persons were unable to pay the cost the Brigade would not be available. This is not right. Fire prevention, equally with lighting and pivingthe streets, is a general charge, and should bo borne by all. We hope to see the demand on Mr. Rhodes withdrawn; altogether, and instead an intimationgiven to the St. Albans Council, and other suburban local bodies, that whenevor the services of the Brigade are brought into requisition within their boundaries, they will bo expected to pay the cost. Then* until the suburbs themselves g6t their own fire prevention plant, this will effectually dispose of the vexed question of attendance at suburban fires or not on the part of the Brigade, and will als» enable them, as they desarve to bs, recouped for extra exertion and probabTy loss of time.