The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-15 00:00:00

THE SOILED DOVE CASE.

The Committee, who met at Tattersall's on Saturday,
have come to the following decision:—" Soiled Dove
3 years old, having been disqualified by Rule 17, all bets
which were won on the three sweepstakes and match must
be refunded ; but the backers of that mare in the above,
mentioned races are not liable for the amount for which
they respectively backed her. The money for which she
was backed in the races in which she was beaten is to be
refunded." (Signed)
" EXMOUTH. " 0. HIGGINS..
" VIVIAN. " Capt. BATCHELOR.
" W. G. CRAVEN. " G. PAYNE.
" April 13, 1867."

(From the Racing Times).

The decision given by the committee at Tattersall's on
Saturday, which will doubtless appear in your paper to-
day, will, I am sure, give the greatest satisfaction to the
community at large ; and as there is no racing during the
present week, I shall content myself with asking you to
reproduce the arguments which you have allowed me to
furnish from time to time relative to this subject. 1
can at least claim credit for having advocated these
opinions months before any one of your contemporaries
had a single word to say on the subject :
DEC. 3, 1866.—The Soiled Dove objection, it is gene-
rally thought, will be substantiated, and, if so, there is no
doubt all bets must go to the second horse, according to
the present rules, in all those races, of which the filly was
declared the winner; and I contend that this is a far
greater hardship on Mr. Chaplin and other owners, who
aro entirely innocent in the matter, than it would have
been to decide the bets against the owner and backers of
" Landlbrd." In fact, these rules ought to have no ex-
ception, and be like the laws of the Medes and Persians,
which do not alter. But one rule stultifies another, and
when an objection is lodged, it is a common topic of
conversation in the best informed racing circles that
it is quite a toss up which way the decision will be
given.

DEC. 31, 1866.—Admiral bus having been requested to
give his opinion respecting the effect upon Lets and other
contingencies, consequent upon " Soiled Dove's" disquali-
fication, has forwarded the following elaborate communi-
cation to your well-known contemporary Bell's Life:—

The Admiral's arguments are, as usual, lucid and clear,
but I think, under the circumstances, the innocent backers
of this filly have good grounds for objecting to one part of
this decision. Having had the evidence of two experienced
veterinary surgeons that the animal had been incorrectly
entered as regards age, the Jockey Club were justified, and
acted in a perfectly consistent manner, in disqualifying her
for all her engagements. The decision of bets, however,
comes before another tribunal, and I contend that Rule
17, or, at any rate, that portion of it which concerns the
bets, has no right to bo applied to this case without much
stronger evidence than has been adduced in the Ad-
miral's letter. In the first place, it quotes several rules,
amongst others Rule 15, quite applicable to the purpose,
and which cannot bo gaiusayed ; but on reading Rule 16,
which is not quoted, viz.—"lf any horse, dm, shall be
named or entered without being identified as before di-
rected, he shall not be allowed to start in the race, but his
owner shall be liable to pay the forfeit, or, if a play or pay
race, the whole stake." I think it cannot be denied that
sonic of the officials of the Jockey Club have been guilty
of negligence, especially where thousands, indeed tens of
thousands, of pounds aro at stake. The simple question,
therefore, is, as she ran second in the First Spring Meet-
ing at Newmarket, and was then claimed by Mr. Chaplin,
is it not monstrous to inflict such a serious loss upon him
and a host of others when it has been incurred entirely
through the gross negligence of some of the Newmarket
officials of the Jockey Club, who accepted the nomination
or entry in direct opposition to the above rule. The only
excuse to be made on behalf of the stewards is that it is
not part of their duty to enforce it, but in such case it cer-
tainly ought to be, and it is quite clear to my mind, in any
court of justice the Jockey Club and Mr. Chaplin would
join issue on very much pleasanter terms to the latter
gentleman.

JAN. 7, 1867.--" Savo me from my friends" is a very
trite axiom, and fully exemplified in the following com-
munication with which Admiral Roux has supplemented
his letter of last week concerning tho " Soiled Dove"
case :

Our celebrated Draw now modifies part of his previ-
ously expressed opinion by saying that as there is no
proof of this filly being foaled out of the United Kingdom,
his remark, that the 'lsth Rule demanded a certificate'may
be misplaced. In which case so also are the observations
made by me in your last week's publication concerning
the 16th rule, but surely Mr. Marson can throw some light
on the matter. 1 can only say, however, the more consi-
deration I give the matter the more satisfied I am of the
injustice the Admiral's decision concerning the bets will
do to Mr. Chaplin, Captain Machell, and the public
backers of the animal in question, provided she was foaled
abroad, as it is a libel on common sense to inflict a loss of
thousands of pounds on several of the parties concerned,
through what in that case is nothing but gross negligence
of the Jockey Club or their officials. My argument, of
course, entirely depends upouwhere the animal was foaled,
as if it was in this country, the 13th ruled was complied
with, and I think Mr. Weatherby in that case acted wisely
in refusing the nomination to the Maiden Two Year Old
Plate, "out of a mare, pedigree unknown," and was quite
justified in accepting ono for the Selling Stakes, with the
addition of "bought of Mr. R. Arnold, of Rugby." It ap-
pears; from the statement of a contemporary—" Admiral
Rous attended at Tattersall 's on Monday last, in the hope
of being able to make up a quorum to adjudicate upon the
bets in this case; but there was not a sufficient number
of the committee present. This is greatly to be regretted,
as it is important that the matter should be settled with-
out further delay." To my thinking it is equally important
to institute the fullest inquiry before any decision is arrived
at, and I hope on the next occasion the Admiral will not
only be assisted by the quorum in question, but a full
number of the committee, who will first take care to ascor
tarn in what country "Sailed Dm" was foaled, and be
guided in their decision by that fact. I have the highest
respect for Admiral Rous; but his judgment is not infal-
e and mine, certainly disinterested, is at wide variance
with
his (always in case the filly is a foreigner) on this
infal-
lible, l ,
subject. Thereupon Rule 16 is ignored by the Jockey
Club, through whose officials' lax method of taking the
entry in this instance, to which that rule applies, Mr.
Chaplin is a severe sufferer, and rule 17, made by the
same authorities, strictly enforced with all its pains and
penalties.

JAN. 28, 1867.—Another "Act" of justice in the "Soiled
Dove" case has been meted out to the principal performers
by the stewards of the Jockey Club, and it only remains
now for the committee at Tattersall's to decide respecting
the bets in this unfortunate affair. Admiral Rous, one of
the adjudicators in question, has already expressed a de-
cided opinion on the subject, which simply amounts to this,
that any one who has made any wagers about any race
this mare won last season will have to refund the amount
he received, and also the amount he risked provided she
had lost. One of your Saturday contemporaries says,
"she was foaled either at General Shirley's place, near
Rugby, or at his training establishment at Ilednesford,"
and adds, "One link in the chain of evidence is missing,
how and when Soiled Dove was conveyed to Belgium."
This is asserting facts, relative to which there is not the
slightest evidence, and I have as much right to believe,
on the contrary, that she was foaled abroad until proofs
are forthcoming. Furthermore, I contend no satisfactory
decision can be properly come to until her birthplace is
substantiated. Let any person of impartial mind study
the rules now in force, and whilst there is a doubt if the
filly was not foaled abroad, say the Jockey Club or their
officials have not neglected their duty by allowing the
mare to start at Newmarket—the first place whore she made
her appearance—and acted in direct contravention to Rules
15 and 16. They exercise the most arbitrary power ac-
cording to these rules ; but if it is proved the mare was
foaled out of England they are certainly responsible for
the loss inflicted upon the public for their lathes in this
instance. If all bets were declared off the innocent and
bona fide backers of this filly would not have much cause to
complain, but when the Admiral insists upon enforcing all
the penalties attaching to Rule 17, it is natural for those
parties interested to say, " Had ''your other rules been
enforced this could not possibly have occurred," and he
must see the invidious position in which the Jockey Club
are placed."
FEB. 25, 1867,—The following remarks respecting the
Soiled Dove case, from the pen of " Argus," appear in to-
day's Morning Post.

• • •
I have taken no little trouble in enunciating views dia-
metrically opposed to those published some short time
ago by Admiral Rous, and it affords me no little pleasure
to ascertain, front the above quotation, that other parties
dispute the Admiral's dictum on this question besides
myself.

MARCH 18, 1867.—The decision respecting the Soiled
Dove bets was promulgated at Tatteesall's last Monday
afternoon, as follows :

. . . .
Mr. Chaplin, however, has forwarded tho following. pro-
test, but I think it might have been made on much broader
principles :

And a more unsatisfacfory conclusion, in my estimation,
was never arrived at. Underneath is a list of the members
of the committee, and I may be permitted to express some
surprise at the majority of them being conspicuous by their
absence. When one notices the names of Beaufort, New-
castle, Coventry, and Westmorland on the committee, it is
natural to wonder at their not being present upon such
an occasion as this to lend their influence and posi-
tion to a satisfactory solution of this unfortunate affair,
which must, as a matter of course, be a great injustice to
some of the parties concerned. The first rule of betting
says that "in all bets there must bo a possibility to win
when the bet is made ; you cannot win when you cannot
lose ;" and why innocent parties should be made to suffer
for the offences of others is beyond my comprehension.
When the gallant Admiral nsils his colours to the mast he
has a right to adhere to them, but in this case he certainly
has been premature in doing so. Supposing himself the
innocent holder of a forged cheque or Bank of England
note, would it be just, or right, or proper that he should