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

suffer the penalties attaching to the guilty party by law ?
and unless an answer is given in the affirmative how can
he, in common honesty, inflict on Mr. Chaplin and others
the penalties which are put in force by Rule 17. Does
the Admiral doubt Mr. Chaplin's entire innocence, as most
assuredly on no other grounds can he justify the decision
given. If, as I believe, Soiled Dove was foaled abroad,
there can be no doubt that the officials of the Jockey Club

were guilty of negligence quite sufficient to make them
liable in a court of justice to him for whatever loss he mai
sustain should the above decision be enforced. Rule 15 has

been entirely ignored by them, and from that ladies arises
all the mischief, as in the other case Mr. Chaplin would not
have had the opportunity of claiming Soiled Dove, and
who did so under the responsibility of the Jockey Club
management. On looking over the list of names it is re-
markable that although the bookmakers as a class are more
enterprising and energetic than any other, they appear to
have been quite indifferent to have their interests properly
represented on the committee. Surely now, when their
transactions are daily of such magnitude, it would be worth
while for some of the leading bookmakers to take counsel

together, and draw up a code of better rules for themselves.
The only difficulty I can foresee is the rcq'iisite unanirnitY
amongst them. With it there is nothing to prevent them
not only framing the rules, but enforcing them. Their
power properly managed would be . fully equal to the
Jockey Club, and I hope the suggestions I have made will
attract their notice.

Melton 25, 1867.—The correspondence which has
taken place between Admiral Rous and Mr. Chaplin
clearly proves that the latter gentleman is by n°
means satisfied with the decision arrived at by three
members of the committee at Tattersall's, last Mon-
day, respecting the Soiled Dove bets; indeed, I hope
and fully expect, if the whole of the committee can
be induced to put in an appearance, this unjust
decision may yet be reversed. I have written over and
over again, usque ad nauseam, concerning this unfortunate
affair ; and, I suppo.,e, with some such feelings Admiral
Rous, in his answer to Mr. Chaplin's objectio,n, writes :
" With respect to the Soiled Dove case, which has been
postponed from the 22d November to the 11th March,
owing to the inability of collecting a quorum of three
members, the sooner the accounts are settled the better
it will be for all parties." A remark like this, especially
to a gentleman who will be mulcted out of six or
seven thousand pounds by the transaction, 'is quite un-
called for to my thinking. What on earth has Mr.
Chaplin to do with the committee's negligence, and why'
should it be better for him-to submit to the loss when be
believes, in common with myself and numerous others,
that the decision is in violation of Rule 8 ? At any rate, it
would be far more satisfactory to all parties concerned if
the Dukes of Beaufort and Newcastle, the Earls of Coven-
try and Westmorland, &c., &c., who are on the committee,
would take part in a settlement of the case. That any a
these noblemen would endorse such an outrageous decision
against Mr. Chaplin and the innocent backers of Soiled
Dove I cannot for ono moment believe ; and, so long se
they lend the influence of their names and position to the
committee, it is a manifest injustice to that gentleman for
them to stand aloof. Should the decision be again given
against him.by a proper quorum, my opinion is that what-
ever loss may be sustained by him can be recovered against
the officials of the Jockey Club in a court of law for gross
negligence in allowing the mare to run, unless some tech-
nical difficulties stand in the way respecting the illegality
of betting.
A nu.l, 1867.—T he confounded Soiled Dove case is again
on the carpet, as a meeting of the committee at Tatter-
sall's was held on Saturday, when, after a long discussion
amongst the members present—who were the Duke of
Newcastle, as chairman, Lord Frederick Fitzroy, Lord,
Exmouth, Hon. Admiral Rous, Colonel Ouseley Higgins:
Captain Batchelor, and Mr. George Payne—they decided
upon re-opening the case. In consequence of this deci-
sion Admiral Raus, with his usual impetuosity, removed
his name from the committee, and retired from the won'
whereupon, as several members declined, from tho fact
of having an interest in the matter, to give a final decision
about it, the settlement was still further adjourned till Sa-
turday, April 13. There can be but ono common-sense
view of the matter, and that is, as Mr. Chaplin was in-
duced to purchase Soiled Dove through the negligence of
the Jockey Club officials in allowing her to start in the
first instance at Newmarket, in contravention of Rule 151
to declare all bets on her null and void. Several parties
to whom I have read over the decision to which Ad:labia
Rous is a party, insist upon my being in error in supposing
he decides upon Mr. Chaplin having to return his Win-
nings, and also the amount which he backed the brute tot
on each occasion; and although they say it is too mon-
strous to be believed, 1 can put no other construction on
the wording of that decision. If the Admiral means to
sinuate any doubt of Mr. Chaplin's entireinnocence in this
fraud, why does he not say so ? on the other hand, why
should that gentleman be punished as a guilty party ?
can only ask again, would the gallant Admiral like to g°
through a period of penal servitude because he was tit°
innocent holder of a forged cheque or Bank of Englzoi".
note ? It is not possible to deny that the neglect of cel°
tain parties connected with the Jockey Club has been the
first cause of all the mischief which has arisen in conned;
tion with this miserable affair, and to turn round and
punish one of the most liberal patrons of the turf by en-
forcing a penal rule against him is what I will never be"
lieve any committee of noblemen and gentlemen can con-
scientiously do.