THE LABOUR VIEW

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

THE LABOUR VIEW

STATEMENT BY AN ADVOCATE,

To a “Times” reporter Mr Stevo Boreham, the well-known Labour advocate. said that in his opinion, the dispute is one that organised Labour throughout tho Dominion had already declared as of such vital importance tp the basic principles of unionism, that resolutions condemning tho attitude of horse-owners had been carried by practically every Labour organisation of any importance in New Zeah*nd. Mr Boreham declared the dispute should not be left to the Jockeys’ Association, Labour unions, and horseowners to settle; ho considered the question is one in which the general public should bo called upon to immediately take a hand. It appeared to him, by statements appearing in the public" Press, setting forth the racehorse-owners’ side of tho dispute, that it is presumption on tho part of Labour organisations in particular, and the public in general, to interfere in matters appertaining to tho sport of horse-racing or tho governing authorities of the sport, no matter how tho rules governing the sport aro maladministered. Continuing, Mr Boreham said it was obvious by the statement made by Mr J. B. Reid, also other racehorseownora, that the “big peas” in the racing, world have set themselves up as “bosses” of the public, as well as chastisers, and vietimisers of their jockeys, or at least a section pf them who dare to form an organisation for tho protection of their interests. As the public provide at least 90 per cent, of the money required to carry on racing in this country, the time had arrived when we should take a firm stand and forthwith demand representation on the New Zealand Racing Conference. Mr Boreham also said that at least every section of men employed in tho sport of racing should be represented on the governing bodies of the sport; had this franchise obtained, instead of the present autocratic system of governing and controlling the sport, the jockeys’ dispute, which originated at Avondalo, would have never occurred. He had noticed in the daily papers that the Prime Minister stated that ho knew the cause of the Avondale dispute. If that were so, the Minister knows, as well as the general public, that the jockeys were not consulted as to the conditions under which they were expected by the Avondalo Club to fulfil their engagements. Matters, it must ho admitted, aro of vital importance to the jockeys, notwithstanding that the public may be disappointed, or, as the Prime Minister states, “It is a very serious thing for an owner and for the public if he fails to keep that engagement.” It would be interesting to learn from the Prime Minister where tho jockeys come in. Would he say that Jockeys, or any other employee, must keep an engagement to satisfy horse-owners, and provide amusement for the public at the risk of life and limb? Surely it will be admitted that the “bottomdog” should be consulted in . grave matters like this. Why is this right denied them? , Mr Boreham also said that in his opinion the attitude taken up by racing conferences, horse-owners, and racing clubs had but one object, and, that is to murder the Jockeys’ Association in its infancy; at least this is the conclusion come to by all the largo Labour organisations in the Dominion, one of the largest organisations, tho N.Z.W.U.. going so far as to pledge its financial and, moral support to tho Jockeys’ Association, thus declaring that in its opinion tho three , jockeys disqualified have been victimised because of tho fact that tho jockeys in question are members of the Now Zealand Jockeys’ Association. Mr Massey states this is not so. Very well ! ■ Labour concludes otherwise, and is satisfied to 1 envo tho public to decide who is in the best position to judge—organisations that have had the same experience ns tho Jockeys’ Association, or tho Prime Minister who has had no such experience?