Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-11-19

unwarranted II would have been
easier to have said that Maynard sold
the game. and we know of no one that
would accuse Maynard CT this for there
isn't man On the team who works
harder for victory than DOES Maynard"
The contemporary" referred to is
doubtless The Star, as the statement
that Maynard deliberately fouled was
made in these columns. 1t was made
because it was believed and is now be-
lieved. We ought to bow the knee we
know TO tn. &C edict, but We can't.
The Star proposes to write the games
as it sees them and to give visiting
players as we'll as the home players
their, just due. We are earnest wishers
for the welfare and success of the
Rockland team. but do not feel that
this success can be so well achieved by
fulsome flattery of the home players
and ignoring foul playing as by fair
representation giving each player his
due praise. The writer of the account
of the game clearly saw the foul made
as did Referee May and many others.
It was unfortunate that the foul oc-
Cured as it resulted in the loss of the
game. ne oldI ,uSplOIGu uIe IOsS OI
the game, hut did not feel that the
blame therefor should be placed upon
the referee, who did his duty. but
rather upon the player who committed
it. Maynard is fine player and one OF
the most valuable men upon the team.
but if he plays dirty polo The Star will
not hesitate to say 50. This is our po-
sition in the matter. Now as to our
nsighbOr's spasm. In more than one
way it is rather ludicrous position.
The situation Of Mr.. May and the Star
is exactly the same. Mr.. May called
a foul on Maynard because the latter
held Turner'S stick under his arm. If
Maynard had not acted Intentionally
in this matter it could not have been
foul The Star did the same as Mr..
May, said that Maynard deliberately
committed a foul. The C.-G. says:
Referee May undoubtedly gave his de-
cisions just as he saw them" ." .
I'VE do not question Referee Mays
honesty of purpose and we commend
him for doing what he thinks right,
but we hardly think he was justified in
calling that last foul" The Star did
the same as Mr.. May, called foul,
but somehow our contemporary re-
CARDS the action as different with US.
Instead OF being honest, but mistaken,
as Mr.. May, according to our infallible
critic. we said something unjust and
unwarranted." Just why this distinc-
ton is made Is hard to say. Our logi-
cal contemporary goes on to say that
it would have been easier to say that
Maynard sold the game" and says
that he would not sell it. We agree
with this. We never had any idea that
he would nor can any such intimation
be found in The Stars account, no
matter how much it is distorted. Now
as to the C.-G.'s sincerity. The city
editor of that paper in his dispatch to
the Boston Globe concerning the game,
says: "Rockland obtained a lead of
one goal in the third period, but May
nard lost it by working his second foul
of the evening" This shows his v.sws.
Possibly the sporting editor wrote the
screed. We might question his sin
certify, but we prefer to question his
judgment. If he is so excellent an au-
thority on polo, why was he not reap
pointed official scorer? We have gone
into this matter rather fully, but we
wish clearly to show the character
and animus of the slur cast at lis by
our contemporary. In conclusion we
| wish to state that we would rather
give our views in our columns than tell
| one thing on the street and its direct
| opposite in print.