DISQUALIFICATION OF PEERESS.

Westport Times, Volume VII, Issue 1038, 17 January 1873, Page 2

DISQUALIFICATION OF PEERESS.

The conduct of the stewards of the Canterbury meeting in disqualifying Mr AValters' mare, is unanimously censured, as being opposed to all racing law, by the sporting authorities in Australia. Foremost among these is a writer in the • Australasian,' and in that paper of the 28th ultimo we find the following:—" The whole of the correspondence that has taken place in New Zealand in re the disqualification of Peeress, has been forwarded to the ' Australasian,' but it is altogether too voluminous for publication. Prom the first I have mair tained, that the stewards of the Canterbury Jockey Club had no right to disqualify Peeress, and from what I can glean there appears to have been some personal feeling in the matter. Mr Walters is a sportsman who has raced for years in New Zealand, and those who ought to know state that there is no more honorable man there. In disqualifying his mare, the stewards of the Canterbury Jockey Club acted contrary to all racing law. It may have been sharp work upon Mr Walter' part to scratch the mare, but the "V.B.C. might, with more show of reason, have disqualified the hurdleracer Darkie when he was purchased by certain parties who had filled their books to overflowing, and scratched him when no more milk was to be extracted. The disqualification of Peeress was not the only extraordinary decision of the Canterbury stewards, for it appears that in one race the first horse came in short of weight, but instead of awarding the stakes to the second horse, they declared the race void, and returned the money to the coffers of the club. Smart stewards those of the CanterburyJockey Club. The case is a very clear one. The business of the stewards is to see that races are run fairly, and that no improper practices are resorted to upon the course. They have no control or authority over horses until they come before them to run. A man who enters a horse for a race, is under jio obligation to

run him ; if he pays his entrance fees : and forfeits, he fulfils the only engagement he made. To compel a man to run his horse because certain individuals have gambled over the animal's chance of winning, is preposterous. Stewards of races have nothing to'do—or should have nothing to do—with bookmakers and betting; men who back horses must take their chances of getting a race for their money. For racing officials to becomo partizans of the betting fraternity instead *of encouraging racing for its own sake, is a great mistake, and a serious blow to genuine sport. Owners of horses •often enter several animals at a meeting, and start them for such races as they fancy they have the best chance of winning. Are these gentlemen to forego this privilege, and be compelled to run their horses according to the dictum of a body of men whose object is to make money at their expense? How the stewards at Canterbury couldcommit such an act of injustice -and stupidity is really marvellous. Now that they see they were in the wrong, we trust they will have the manliness to confess it by withdrawing the mare's disqualification.