THE AMALGAMATION AGAIN.

Shannon News, 26 May 1925, Page 3

THE AMALGAMATION AGAIN.

“LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP.” Messrs W. Moynihan. and Robot tshawe, members of the Horowhenua Rugby Union, who met the Manawatu representatives re the amalgamation of the twO', unions, considei that the recent notes in the Shannon News on this subject and referring to representation of each Union aie likely to be misleading to players. They state that each union will have five representatives (ten in all) from whom the president and two vicepresidents wifi be elected, also there will be the treasurer and the secretary, but only the former will vote. Therefore, they contend, that Manawatu would have only a majority of one on the board of control at any time and not as stated in the comments, one to three .'according t which Union field, for the, time being, the right to elect the president. 1 hey say there would be no casting vote as there would always he eleven to vote. . ... Our football contributor writes a=> follows in regard to the above comFuller details regarding amalgamation proposals as submitted by the Manawatu Union (would appear to modify the preponderance of representation which is indicated by literal reading 'Of the clause deaiui D with this point. As explained at Tuesday s meeting of tlie Horowhenua Rugby Union, the Manawatu Union now proposes to limit their majority to one, by electing the chairman, not from ah outside body as was at first proposed, but from the Management Committee itself (alternately from Manawatu and Horowhenua], and by giving file ; Treasurer only, a vote, and not the secretary and treasurer, as would appear from the text of their original proposal. Granted that this statement is correct—the fact still definitely remains that Manawatu will have on all occasions a majority, which will enable them to cany through any policy they may desire. The danger of this preponderance of voting power becomes at once apparent, when the clause relating to the appointment of selectors is conI sidered. This rule states, “One (selector) each to be appointed by Manawatu and Horowhenua, but the Un-

itm (die amalgamationj shall have power to add tQ the number.” The Union in this case means delinitely the. controlling body oi the amaigouiatioti, and uy agreeing to tiiis, Horowhenua at u.ue stroke cuts itself off from any security as "far as the inclusion of a lair proportion ol their players is concerned. To take an extreme case—and in a matter of this sort possibilities—and not probabilities—the very obviousness of which suggests safeguards equally ouviofuis —are what are to be oonsiuered —a position might arise where mere was an excellent rep. team in tn fc ; Manawatu, and also many equally i good or even better players in Horo- - whenua. The Manawatu men liad, : however, played together as a team 1 and the representatives of that Union, with their preponderance of vot-ing-power, would argue as follows: “Even if some of the Horowhenua men are individually /better than some of our men, still by including them, we lose combination.” But while the Horowhenua subUnion had one selector on the amalgamated body, they would insist (and rightly) on their men having a chance. Manawatu’s obvious move therefore would be to vote (through their representatives) that the number of selectors be increased, as provided for in the rules, and insure that the men added were favourable to their views. As has been admitted this is probably an extreme example of the danger of the suggested constitution of the governing body, but it illustrates the point. It may be argued as against this view, that as a result of the Ftediding sub-Union being included in the amalgamation, and being held to have interests identical tq those of Horowlienua, Manawatu will not be able to rely on an absolute majority, nor Horowhenua have anything to fear from being out-voted. It is very questionable, however, if these premises are tenable. No position is sound in support of which it is necessary to beg the question—as certainly must be done, in this instance. Manawatu may or may not be anxious to give Horowhenua full justice; Feilding and Manawatu may find themselves in opposition, or they may pull together in peiicct amity,* but, however it may be, the attitude for Horowhenua to adopt is the legal one that in making an agreement, the opposing party must be given neither credit for good faith, nor a loophole by which he may escape his obligations. The advantages of the amalgamation to HiQrowlienua are so obvious, that there is a risk of overlooking its dangers. The matter is one which should be approached with the utmost wariness; it would toe very easy to make now an agreement which might, in practice, be found untenable, and yet which “would be very difficult to break. So far as one can see, indeed, there is no provision made for any revision of the agreement once it is ratified by the Unions, and whilst it is perhaps desirable that the amalgamation, once agreed upon should be definite, the fact makes it only the more imperative that the agreement ibe such as will give rise to no cause for complaint in the future.