CRICK AND COLLARIT.

NZ Truth, Issue 122, 19 October 1907, Page 8

CRICK AND COLLARIT.

WAS THE COLT " IN THE BAG ?"

"Fair: play is bonnie play" m sport as well as m politics and m law. In the two latter spheres, "Truth"— perhaps the only paper m the Commonwealth to do so— gave Mr W. P. Crick fair play. It refused to join m the sectarian hue and cry against him and Willis m the land scandals, not because it believed that he (Crick) was any more innocent— or, for the matter of that, any more guilty— than a score of other politicians and prominent people who ought to have been prosecuted for participation m those scandals, if there had to be any prosecutions at all. From the outset "Truth" set its face firmly— in spite of the grossest misrepresentation and malignant accusations- of participation m the land scandals and the resultant spoils— against the Titus Gates process of prosecution screeched for by sectarian skunks m Parliament, and shamelessly supported by, the putrid daily Press of Sydney.;

'At a time when the Daily "Telegraph" and other papers were permitting their columns to be utilised for the purpose of advocating the subordination of citizens to perjury against Crick and Willis, by offering £500-bribes to persons 'Who would come forward with evidence calculated to convict them, "Truth" — absolutely alone, and against, and m the midst of the most sinister suspicions, and malignant misrepresentation of motive— denounced both the politicians and papers that sought to secure a sectarian advantage, or to slaughter a political foe, by such perfidious processes. "Truth" has published letters and articles over my sig nature, both written and signed by me, denouncing m the most deliberate and determined manner, the infamous, irregular, unconstitutional, and un-Australian processes of legal procedure adopted against Crick and Willis m order to bring about their conviction.

"Truth" never hesitated to expose and denounce the passing of special Acts of Parliament, which were nothing less than" the revival of Bills of Attainder of the Medieval Ages ; the panel-packing and jury-priming by the police, under the direction of the Crown Law Authorities ; the repeated prosecution of Crick and Willis and others alleged to be their alleged accomplices m so-called conspiracies ; and the ignoring of juries' verdicts and Judges' decisions. "Truth," I repeat, exposed and denounced the whole hypocrisy and humbug of the attempt to make a scapegoat of Crick at a -time when the giddy multitude, lashed into sectarian savagery, and blinded by partisan prejudice and political .bias, were rushing, like the swine m the Scripture, clown a steep place into a ' sea of brutal bigotry and infamous injustice.

"Truth" has never declared its belief m Mr Crick's guilt m connection with these land scandals, nor has it presumed to pronounce upon his innocence, bcause it is no place of the Press, though licensed by shameful special Acts of Parliament to pie-judge or prejudice a case that is sub-judice, as Mr Crick's has been all along, and still is. But I will say this—that, until I see more evidence to the contrary, I believe he is .no more a land-swindler, or land-jobber, than Mr Carruthers (the late Premier), or Mr Ashton (the late Minister for Lands), or Mr Senator Millen, or other members of Parliament, like Messrs R. D. Meagher, R. Scobie, and G-. A. Burgess, or ex-members P. Clara and the late Et. Macdonnell, all of whose names figure m Mr Justice Owen's report as having received various sums, smaller or larger, "for services rendered" as members of Parliament to their constituents and others m connection with State land matters.

It is quite . sufficient for me that I am myself a monument of the mercy of God and man, and that I owe my liberty to precisely the same cause as Crick and Willis — namely, the acquittal or disagreements of juries. Where juries acqjuit, or fail to agree, it is neither for me, nor for partisan politicians or putrid pressmen, to usurp their functions as arbiters of the guilt or innocence of accused persons! Consequently, my conscience is clear m regard to my conduct towards Mr Crick through all the trying ordeals to which the perfidy of his political opponents and corrupt competitors have subjected him during the past two years. This being "Truth's" attitude towards Mr Crick m what to him must have been, and still is, the culminating crisis of his political and professional career, I claim the right to express a very strong opinion of his conduct m the sphere of sport, more particularly with regard to his management, or mismanagement of his horse Collarit.

If all that is now charged against Mr Crick concerning Collarit be true (and can be proved to be true), then Mr Crick has brought upon himself a measure of public indignation and opprobrium beside which the sinister suspicions and cruel calumnies with which the lands scandals have covered him are a mantle of snow. For how stand Mr Crick and Collarit vis-a-vis the public ? For many months past Collarit has been publicly proclaimed and popularly regarded as one of the favorites, if not the first favorite, for the Epsom Handicap— an event which offers a big prize, big enough for any honest sportsman v to be anxious to win, and an event, moreover, the winning of which carried with it considerable prestige to the winning-owner.

Over and over again, Mr Crick had publicly declared his determination to run Collarit to win the Epsom. Not only did he tell his friends and sporting confreres that this was his intention, but during his recent Parliamentary candidature for Suny Hills be even went out of his way to lead people to back Collarit for that event. As proof of this, let the following oxirncts from a report of only ofie of his public- meeting speak : * An interjection here elicited from

Mr Crick the remark that "they all had their five bob or quid on Paddy Crick's horse. (Laughter.) THEY iADWAYS KNEW THAT IF THEY GOT ' NOTHING ELSE THEY WERE GOING TO GET A STRAIGHT GO," (Great laughter and cheering.") Continuing, he declared that the object of the Government m going to the Privy Council was to ruin him This was now an easy matter because IF COLLARIT DID NOT WIN THE EPSOM, he was a "goner." (Roars of laughter.)

A voice (at a later stage of the meeting), "What's the best thing for the Epsom, Paddy ?"■

Mr Crick : I have told you all I can, IF COLLARIT KEEPS STRAIGHT HE'LL WIN IT. (Laughter.) If he doesn't he won't. (More laughter.)

Now— either Mr Cric.k intended to run Collar it for the Epsom or he did not. I speak not as a sportsman, never having been on a racecourse but once or twice mmy life, and never having made a bet. The only sport I indulge m is pricking public abuses with my "" pen, and punching the enemies of the people under privilege of Parliament— a very proper and safe thing to do. Beyond this the only sport that appeals to me is that of watching pugilists punching one another m a 2'ift. ring. But it is impossible for me, or for anybody else, to affect to ignore the outbursts of public indignation which Collarit's withdrawal from the final acceptances for the Epsom has aroused. It is clamant and concentrated, and proclaims itself at every street corner, on all the pavements, m all the clubs, and m all places where "people most do congregate."

For months ..past, people have been encouraged to put their money on Collarit, and the bookmakers have been busy laying odds— in "the beginning, at very short prices — against the colt. But as time went on, suspicion began to be aroused by the fact that almost any odds, from 5 to 1 to 40 to I, could be obtained against Collarit, especially at the so-called # furniture auction-mart of Mr Humphrey Oxenham. Concerning this same gentleman, who has had a very remarkable, not to say sensational, career as a bookmaker, a member of Tattersall's, a"tote"-shqp runner, and an, owner of horses, it is said that he would allow no one to leave his place, once they entered without having a bet with him on Collarit— no matter what the odds were that he was compelled to lay against the colt. But something more than this is said, which we certainly hope, for the sake of Mr Crick's reputation as a straight sportsman, is not true.

The allegation is that Mr Crick had practically pawned Collarit to Mr Oxenbam for a sum running into four figures ; that m this way Mr Oxenliam had really come to have Collarit "m the bag" for the last three months ; and that for that period, more or less, Mr Oxenliam , together with Messrs Paddy Bourke, a well-known Sydney bookmaker, and Sol Green, the well-known bookmaker and horse-owner of Melbourne, and others have all been busily building up boodle by laying the odds against Collarit, straightout and m doubles. Such, then, is the allegation—that all the time these were wagering against the horse winning, it was known that it .was not going to even start, and that it was with Mr Crick's own knowledge and consent the horse was thus "m the bag." To say the least of it, it does seem peculiar that if everything was "fair, and square, and above board" such long odds as were available could be got m the end, seeing that the horse was at one time among the favorites m the betting market, and that nothing, so far as the public knew, had gone amiss with it m the sense of legitimately lowering the animal m public favor.

Stranger still does it seem that Mr Crick, after virtually advising those whose Parliamentary suffrages he was seeking to back Collarit, and emphatically declaring that if Collarit did not win the Epsom he was a "goner," should himself have refrained — according to his own published statement m one of the daily papers of the present week — from backing his horse for a single shilling, and then at the eleventh hour, without any other intimation or notice of his intentions, have withdrawn the horse which he had (m the way we have already seen) recommended the electors of Surry Hills and the public generally to put their money on. I, repeat that "fair play is bonnie play" m sport as well as m. law and politics. Whether all the sinister suspicions and allegations concerning Mr Crick's relations with Messrs Oxenham, Paddy Bourke, and Sol Green be true or false, the fact remains that Mr Crick, over Collarit, has treated the public m a scandalously scurvy manner.

Moreover, those who have probably most suffered belong to or are comprised within that section of the public which stood for political fair play, a fair trial, and impartial justice for Mr Crick and his alleged co-conspirators through all the recent political and sectarian persecution of which they were the victims. I hope— for the sake of his own reputation, and m order that he may be preserved that measure of public sympathy which his recent able and gallant fight against his enemies m the courts has won him —that some reasonable explanation of Collarit's withdrawal from the Epsom Handicap will be forthcoming before Mr Crick leaves for England to prosecute his appeal before the Privy Council. Such an explanation would be all the more satisfactory if if could be accompanied by an emphatic denial that the manipulation and control of Collarit had been given over to the trio of bookmakers already named. JOHN NORTON, 112 King-street, '' Friday, October 4, 1907,