" AUSTRALASIA."

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1320, 7 November 1883, Page 2

" AUSTRALASIA."

By favo of a communication from a ticket-Loklev, tlio Promoter of these Consultations was placed in possession of an extract, a portion of an arable, from the Melbourne " Herald." It came to hand on Tuesday, 18th September, some time after its publication and some days after a reference had been made to it in the Melbourne 11 Sportsman." This rendered it impossible to communicate with that journal in time for the issue of the, day following : a communication was therefore mailed to the editor for ;he issue

)f the 26th September, which, however, in a mercenary spirit, was refused insertion except as an advt. > 'And tf is only in this week's " Tribune "(September 22) that " Austialasia" has had Ah opportunity of reading the •• Herald ''article, that paper-Mug-uupurchasable here. The "Herald, when' written to for a parcel of two weeks pap r \ (as the dat was not known), would not— at least did not--send .them. This accounts for the article not being replied to before. It would have been answered on hearsay at once, hut that it was desirable to obtain a legal opinion* The effect of this will be seen shortly on the papers in question being simply called to the Supreme Courts. Of course it cannot be wondered at that the "Herald's" sensational attack was not heard of in Sydney hefore-, because the paper is unknown here. In the article itself nothing was put forward to justify the attack (which would be impossible), or even to justify a suspicion. What did the "Herald" know of " Australasia's." drawing for the Sydney Cup, which of course was drawn in "ydney? The most they knew about it was — that the advertisement they gave a quotation, for was not given them t Aud is it not a somewhat.singular thing that these attacks should emanate firm a paper which was never at any time by anyone considered worth paying for a sporting announcement? Abuse is not evidence, nor even criticism. What proof does the wnter advance at all ? Nope., 'He fi challenged to produce anything that is detrimental in the slightest degree—excepting in his personal bias. ' All men have their,enemies ; but some, for private or other reasons, have more bitter enemies than others* especially those whorit may ta, have driven j a satirical pen themselves. , . i Some rather interested people readily believers-pretend to believe — what they wish to be true; particularly when prompted (in a double' sense) y wealthy promoters of rival consultations, " Boz " et ah — who are jealons of prfserving a consultation monopoly, most of all against anyone of respectability. .A nd who has preserved greater secresy about all Consultations than " Boz " ? And has his consult*** ions een always without murmer or complaint? Has it not been his custom to buy up the favorites, and have not those who held them and who were loth to sell their tickets been told that if they did not the horses would be scratched? Besides, "Boz" has a method of drawing one sweep of a aeries on the same event in the presence of a reporter and the other half-dozen o; 1 so as he likes. So that for every pound made by other promoters justly suspected he " makes " ten. No wonder he i.s jealous of competition in a respectable quarter. Some portion of the pu lie is naturally prone, however, to believe vague and damaging statements of a certain kind. Those upon whom the a^use falls have little to gain, either, by writing to surih journals to protest, as it only gives them another opportunity. And it may be mentioned here, that if any ticket holder is not fully satisfied, the remittance sent in will be at once returned. His ill-natured (and transparent) reference to the elbourne address (simply for the convenience of Melbourne subscribers), in addition to the Sydney one is weak indeed, and on a par with his estimate of the number of letters, which he. calculated (however inaccurately) by those in Melbourne alonfe, whereas the great bulk came direct to Sydney, the others being sent in registered packets, a number together. Indeed, the confidence maintained by " Australasia" is too strong and too we,l founded to be much affected by the efforts qf the " Herald " and its backers, who are 1 so much " interested," though it is -not attempted to deny that something may result in point of legal interference with holding the Consultation openly and by prohibiting newspapers ..from, insertiug the announcements. Thus one or two journals will simply have killed the goose which lay the golden eggs. Of the fairness of the drawings he i has had no person's complaint, nor have the winners ever had to complain of not being paid. The abuse is obviously overdone, and entirely frustrates its own enda The attack may be summed up thus: Malice and envy : Jealousy and dread of opposition from a respectable quarter, on the part of rival promoters. " Australasia."