Untitled

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 308, 19 April 1877, Page 2

The Waitangi Tribune has taken upon itself the position of dictator-general upon matters pertaining to the turf, and the championship of Mr. O'Beien and his jockey in particular. We have no wish to quarrel with our contemporary for answering to any "call" which it may imagine it has received, but we do most decidedly object to its misrepresenting facts. While our contemporary was satisfied with entering a protest against the hasty manner in which the stewards of the North Otago Turf Club arrived at their decision to disqualify the horse, we could perfectly agree with it in the matter ; indeed, we may claim the credit of being the first to raise a voice against the proceeding. It may be beyond the

comprehension of our contemporary "how the latest act of the Oamaru Committee can be considered a recompense for the injestice previously perpetrated by the stewards;" in fact, we have not the least doubfc that this is not the only matter beyond onr contemporary's comprehension. The decision of the Committee may appear to the Watmate "light" to be "quite as ridiculous and objectionable" as that of the stewards ; but we do not think the decision of the Committee will appear in the same light to the very gnat majority of those who know anything of matters pertaining to the turf. There cannot be a doubt that Fishhok was not run upon his merits, and were it necessary, a host of witnesses could be brought to prove that the horse was deliberately pulled. The only thing that could, therefore, be urged against the decision of the stewards was that they dealt somewhat too hastily in the matter, and that when they did act they failed to do so in a thorough manner. But our contemporary should bear in mind that since the decision of the stewards was|arrived at, Mr. O'Eriest has been afforded an opportunity of giving his statement of the affair. That statement, as we have previously pointed out, simply amounted to nothing. It is true that he offered to bring evidence ; but who did he name as almost the only person whom he could call in his favor? Why, a bookmaker. And is it upon the evidence of one of a class that systematically prey upon the public that the testimony of a number of gentlemen of known integrity is to be set aside ? The proposition is a monstrous one. Our contemporary seems to be of opinion that Derritt should have been placed upon his trial before being disqualified. We see no necessity for such a proceeding. The Committee, after hearing and considering the statement of Mr. O'Brien, arrived at the conclusion that the decision of the stewards was perfectly justified. They were convinced that t'ie horse had been pulled by the jockey, and such being the case, there was no other course to pursue than to disqualify both the horse and the rider. That a jockey who had wilfully pulled a horse in a race was to be allowed to get off without punishment in order that he might pursue his dshonest practices is as stup'.d a proposition as could well be propounded, even by the Wa'dangi Tribune. Our contemporary asks : —"But, how knew these worthy judges that a third party was not implicated in ' the swindle V " We may fairly be permitted to reply to this question after the fashion of the Emerald Islanders, and ask, How could the Committee ai'riveat a conclusion as to who that "third party" was] If our contemporary can give a satisfactory reply thereto, and produce the third party, it will be doing a great deal more good to the cause of the turf than by merely cavilling at the decision of a body of men whom it asserts are "not to the manner born."