CHAPTERS FROM TURF HISTORY 



But, to the great credit of the sporting com- 

 munity as a whole, the decision was generally 

 accepted. It was known that the Stewards had 

 acted in good faith, and it was believed that they 

 had cogent reasons for the course they had taken. 

 If, it was said, they had considered their own 

 popularity and had consulted their own wishes 

 they would have acquiesced in the judge's verdict 

 on that memorable afternoon. The mere fact that 

 they had felt compelled to set it aside, and that 

 they had drawn no distinction between a classic 

 race and a selling plate scramble at Newmarket, 

 was proof, if proof were wanted, of the justice 

 and equity of their interposition. 



Out of this controversy, however, arises a question 

 of far greater importance than the merits of the 

 decision in this particular case. The welfare of 

 racing, the maintenance of the best traditions of 

 the Turf, and the security of the millions of capital 

 which have been expended on race-courses and 

 racing establishments depend, and depend entirely, 

 on maintaining the authority of the Jockey Club. 

 Owners of race-horses submit themselves to the 

 Rules of Racing. These rules are promulgated 

 by the Jockey Club, and either in the first instance 

 or as a Court of Appeal the Stewards examine into 

 the facts of each dispute or questionable result, 

 interpret the Rules, and in virtue of them enforce 

 their decision. 



The Jockey Club, like the Cabinet, sits in camera ; 

 but, unlike the Cabinet, there appears in their 

 official organ — the Racing Calendar — a well-edited 

 report of their debates and proceedings. Is it 

 permissible for a moment to look into that Council 



146 



