CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 38, 20 March 1862, Page 5 (Supplement)

CORRESPONDENCE.

2b the Editor of the Hawke's Hay Times. . Sißj——Tlfe account of the Napier Races in your issue of last week having been written by one of the stewards, I was quite prepared to find that any errors committed ,by the stewards should be passed over in silence, or mentioned with approval. I scarcely expected, however, a statement of what was untrue. I refer to the denial of my having made a protest at the proper time in reference to the steward’s decision in Maiden Produce Stakes. The facts of the case you will find in my letter to the Herald of Saturday last. The promoters of the late meeting have a right to know on what grounds the stewards came to a decision at variance with the laws of racing. I would refer you to the 15th rule; which is absolute, and I challenge the stewards to produce one case in which the existence of this rule has been ignored. If the stewards were ignorant of it, they were unfit for their office ; if in defiance of it.they gave their decision, it can onty be attributed to personal motives, which should never be allowed to interfere with the performance of a public duty. The steward with whom the mistake in weighing originated was, apart from this, clearly unfit for his post. His severe and not altogether unmerited criticism of the Waipukurau stewards possibly led to the supposition that he was well up in racing matters. Your reporter, too, in virtue of a good deal of “ stable talk,” has got the credit of being a proficient, in fact a living epitome of BtlVs Life, from which source his small knowledge of racing matters is wholly derived. His qualifications were doubtless taken on trust, and influenced the other stewards against their better judgment. This matter, if properly ventilated, may lead to an improvement in our race meetings ; if let alone, will tend to their extinction. We can neither expect subscriptions nor entries, if decisions are made contrary to established rules, and iniluenced by fear, favor, or ignorance. I am, sir. Your obedient servant, Jacks’ Watt. [We have submitted Sir. Watt’s letter to the gentlennin who was kind enough to report for us on the occasion, and the following reply has been elicited.] To the Editor of the Hawke's Bay Times. StR, —I have perused Mr. James Watt’s diatribe about the mistake in the Produce race, the conduct of the stewards, and the knavish incompetency of me, your ’umble reporter, with feelings of regret and annoyance, mitigated, however, by the conviction that it is so silly and weak as to carry its own conviction on the face of it. Upon the first point “ queeque ipse misserrima ridi ,” I will say a word; upon the second “ quorum pars minor fai” I will do the ditto ; but upon the third I will say but this, that it is customary to allow people who are wrong, or who have been licked, to indulge in querulous comment or vindictive cavil; but as abuse is an unerring and invariable token of defeat, the public may take it for granted that a writer has not much real cause for complaint when he is compelled to vent his spleen on your poor harmless and insignificant reporter. * Appeal is made by him to rule. Where ? what ? which ? and if the rule was so obvious and clear, and was so well known, why was it not urged upon and pointed out to the stewards on the discussion of the question ? There is no rule that I ever heard of relative to an error in which a native was led by the mistake of a steward. The caterer of the horse Te Whatu, being Clerk of the Course, had other duties to attend to, and supposed that his jockey would be told what was, and be passed at, his right weight. I don’t attempt to palliate the mistake, but I do unhesitatingly assert that the decision was not unfair, and I verily believe that it was the only one which, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, could be arrived at. The stewards, with one exception, hesitated hut little as to their finding: Mr. If errors was the dissetient, and his strong love of fair play prompted him to abstain from taking any prominent part in the discussion ; but he certainly did not allude to the rule now relied on.

“Brag is a good dog, but Holdfast is a batter.” The decision given was altogether in favor of Telegram. Why, after making certain of the second place in the second heat, did not the owner prove the horse by winning the deciding one ? Bid any one on the course doubt the reason why ? He had no chance. Therefore no injustice was done him : but great injustice would have been done in disqualifying the horse which was incontestably the best, and which no lover of sport would willingly have scon thrown out of the race by such an accident as that which occurred. If the race had been run for the pastime’s sake, and not for the love of the stakes, the tim'd heat would have satisfactorily adjusted the relative merits of the two horses. I cannot find that any protest was entered by any one after the first heat, so that the unwarrantable statement of your reporter’s want of truth somewhat recoils on the head of the accuser. I adhere to my former statement, that it was wrong to run the horse for the second heat, and then protest. Qui tacct consenfire videiur. The protest, too, should have been in writing, and addressed to the stewards. The alternative that they acted from “ personal motives” is too contemptible to deserve comment; but it implies an unworthy littleness of spirit in the insinuator. A right-minded man gives his

neighbour, discharging a duty, credit for doing so faithfully and to the best of his ability.. It would of course be unbecoming 1 for a “stable talking reporter,” taking false credit for being a and hayipg a Bell’s Life acquaintanceship (ask Langley), to set up his opinion against that of a real live horse owner, and if the controversy were merely between the two of us, this child would at once relinquish the field ; but as the honesty and capacity of the stewards as a body are implicated, it is right to ask the public to give them credit for a willingness and an endeavour to secure fair play. It -nail be an easy matter to appoint other persons next year, but the nomination will rest with the public, and uot with the horse owners entirely, Kb man ever yet was satisfied with defeat: few fail to denounce their judges, and an accusation of incapacity of course is a ready, though edge-w'orn and not peculiarly novel, weapon ; the maligners forgetting that perhaps their own strong interest in the result may have debarred them from being the moat impartial or reliable critics. Silence is better than abuse; nor is it less honorable to bear defeat temperately than to achieve the success of victory. Nothing can be more indiscreet than to cry out, plunge about, and show everybody how much you are hurt. Your pain and rage only excite the mirth of the auditors. Still, some allowance should bo made for the disappointment of perhaps unanticipated loss, and the rancour displayed may be attributed to, aud overlooked on, that score. Aspersion is poor logic ; abuse of your judges small- revenge. If Telegram really won the Produce, and the stakes have been wrongfully withheld from him, his owner has his remedy ; let him vindicate his claim. In that way only can the dispute be authoritatively settled. The public will then have something better to guide them than any one man’s inconclusive ipse dixit. Your ows Reprobate Reporter.