JOCKEYS’ DISPUTE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10603, 31 May 1920, Page 6

JOCKEYS’ DISPUTE

THE CONTBOVERSY GOES ON FURTHER REPLY BY AUCKLAND DISTRICT CHAIRMAN. (By Telegraph—Special to “Times.’’) AUCKLAND, May 29. The following is a copy of a letter sent by tho Hon. E. Mitchels.on, chairman of tho Auckland District Committee, to the Prime Minister in reply to one forwarded by Mr C. C. Sheath, secretary of the Jockeys’ Association:

•‘Mr Sheath, secretary of the New Zealand Jockeys’ Association, has forwarded to mo a copy of his letter to you of the 22nd inst., written by him in reply to my letter to you of tho 17th mst. As Mr Sheath traverses tho points raised in my letter, and questions some of my statements therein, I think it right that I should give -some additional information or explanation in reply to his assertions. “In tho first place, he invites an explanation as to why only three jockeys have been dealt with. If Mr Sheath had carefully perused my letter he would have noticed that I explained that the Auckland District Committee would only deal with offending jockeys whose licenses had been granted by such committee, and that other offending Jockeys would bo dealt with by other district committees who had granted their respective licenses. One jockey, McCormack, has already been suspended for a period by the Taranaki District Committee, and others are being dealt with by the Wellington District Committee. _ As far as I can gather,- those other jock, eys to whom Mr Sheath refers did not commit any offenco under the rules of racing, as they obtained tho consent of their employers to their breach of their engagements, or, in other words, their employers released them from their obligations, and, under the circumstances, scratched their horses. “Secondly, I repeat my statement that the suspension had nothing whatever to do with the offending jockeys’ connection with the New Zealand Jockeys’ Association. I invito, any of the Labour leaders to inquire into the. position dispassionately, but so far, no person has thought it necessary to make such inquiries. . ’ , “Thirdly, Mr Sheath questions as to whether tho Rules of Racing havo been observed by the Avondale Jockey Club’s stewards and tho Auckland District Committee, mid quotes portions, of such rules which are quite beside the question in dispute. However, Mr Sheath, by his contentions, quite stultifies the action of his association in regard to the suspensions, as it must bo apparent to any impar tial person that if his contentions were sound the obvious course which a suspended jockey should have taken was to have appealed immediately to tho Racing Conference against the decision of the district committee as being contrary to tho Rules of Racing. Had this course been followed,' and his contention found to bo sound, tho Racing Conference must have revoked the suspensions and reinstated" the offending jockeys The obvious conclusion is that Mr Sheath knows that there is nothing in his contention, otherwise an appeal, such as X have indicated. would have been lodged and proceeded with. “J do not deem it necessary to go into Mr Sheath’s argument of tho oases of the offending jockeys, as these arguments were all adduced by the jockeys themselves before the district committee on the hearing of the charges against them, and thrown no new light on tho matter. Mr Sheath questions my statement that ‘the suspensions had nothing to do with the actions of the jockeys on the first day of the meeting (April 7th).’ It is quite true that the jockeys were charged by the Avondale Jockey Club with offences committed on April 7th, as well as on April 10th. bub the Auckland District Committee, on investigating the charges, disallowed tho charges of offences alleged to have been committed on April 7 th, and found against the jockeys only in respect of breaches and offences committed by' them subsequent to April 7th. “As regards Mr Sheath’s challenge to me to deny that it was an absolute ‘fact that if Mr Hewitt had not approached tho Avondale stewards on the first day, not one of the jockeys would have been suspended,’ I give Mr Sheath tho emphatic denial. Ho declares that the suspensions wore brought about solely on account of the action bv the jockeys on the second day (April 10th). As to what,actuated the jockeys in their ill-advised action on that day I cannot be expected to furnish an answer, as tips must bo best known to themselves. “Mr Shoalb also desires information as to why representatives of tho jockeys were not allowed to attend tho meeting of tho committee. In reply to hing- 1 may state that this is in accordance with custom, and the committee were not disposed to sot aside this custom to meet tho wishes of the offending jockeys. It may bo as well to point out that Mr F. Earl is an elected member of tho Auckland District ' Committee, and tho jockeys had tho advantages of his able services, in sifting the matter in dispute. He endeavoured to bring out in evidence all matters that were likely to ho in favour of tho jockeys and in mitigation of their offences. In fact, some of tho charges wore not sustained through the cross-examination by Mr Earl of witnesses brought forward in support of the same. At tho conclusion of the hearing of tho charges each offending Jockey, hoforo ho left tho committee-room, , admitted, frankly that he had received a fair and impartial hearing. “It is unnecessary for me to traverse Mr Sheath’s statements regarding the reasons why his association has been compelled to invoke tho assistance of the Labour organisations, except to state that his association have grossly misled and gulled these organisations as to the true position, and has been able to get them to accept his version as correct, without making any attempts, by inquiry or otherwise, to verify tho same.”