The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-08-14
PREMIER MAN
GIVES HIS SIDE
Tells Why Decision of Contest
Board in Glidden Tour Was
Rejected by Him.
DECLARES PLEDGE TAKEN
NOT BINDING ON HIM
Company Still Insists That the
Car Had Only Regular Stock
Equipment.
Special 70 The Tribune.


INDIANAPOLIS. Ind. Aug. 13.-For
over month the controversy in re-
gard TO the winning of the annual Gid
ien tour has been the most prominent
one in motordom. for the various stu
ations have been occurring thick and
fast, and some particularly interesting
points have developed in connection
with it, There is still a great deal TO
be brought out evidently. however, for
the case will be heard before the su
preme court of New York on August
Il. but in the interim the facts are be
ing set forth by the Interested parties:
II. 0. Smith of this city; entrant OF
Premier car number one, which was de-
clared winner by the referee, tonight
issued the following answer TO some of
the statements made IN this connection.
He SAYS:
s.The public is entitled TO be set
Alright OH a statement made by repre-
sentative Of the contest board of the
4. A. A. and also by Hugh Chalmers.
"In entering the Glidden tour an
entry blank was signed with the fol
lowing conditions: Il make this entry
subject to all the rules of the contest
board. the general rules and those COY.
erning the tour. and hereby accept all
stipulations ard conditions therein con
tanned.
Pledge Not Binding.
1T can be seen on the surface. how
ever, that this does not contemplate a
pledge 20 abide by any decision ire
spective of whether il was regular ac-
cording TO the facts and the actual
wording of the rules. Chairman But
ler, it seems, has issued statement that
the Premier company has refused to
give him information regarding these
cars, and this statement is a distinct
error. In the first place, 1T IS expected
that the technical committee. which ad-
vises the contest board in such cases,
would examine the factories and pro-
duct prior to the cars participating in
invariable practice with racing cars,
and | know with some of the cars en-
tered In the Glidden tour that the
product was inspected at the factories,
"That the Premier product was not
inspected at the factory before the
start of the tour cannot be chargeable
to the company, and there was no re
fusal on the part Of this concern or
disposition not to allow or encourage
such an inspection. In fact we an
ticipsted that they would exa anime the
Premier cars both at the plant and at
Cincinnati.
"Moreover every entrant is depend
ent upon the technical committee g
having the necessary information re-
gsrding the machines TO warrant them
IN officially passing upon and accept
ing the cars at the start. The entrants
of the Premier cars have no way of
knowing whether or moi the other
competing cars were regular, except by
taking the act Of the technical COM
mittee in passing upon these others, as
they did the Premier, as being suffi-
ciept proof that they all were regular.
Oil Pump Inspection.
1.-The hand oil pump, about which
there has been so much talk, was
described in the blank furnished the
a. A. A. in advance of the contest. II
IS located at prominent place on the
cars, and was officially passed upon
and accepted by the technical examin-
ers. After the protest had been made
and the dsy before the tour finished, a
member of the technical committee ap
pesred at the factor, inspected the
plant and was given data which, the
referee had in hand when he disallowed
the protest and pronounced the Premier
number one the winner.
Still further. second member Of
the same committee came TO this fac.
tory few days prior to the hearing Of
the appeal and inspected the records.
which showed conclusively that this
band oil pump was stock equipment.
For some reason. however. these two
technical committee members were not
included IN the notice of the meeting
and moreover were not at the hearing
of the ap',eal in New York. and the
board itself refused To give me COPY
Of, or allow me to see the report made
by these men in regard to my own
car. This in spite of the TACT that one
of the officials had given to our com
petitor, the protesting party. the first
report, and yet these reports when
furnished to the technical committee
for their information were supposed to
be safeguardcd. containing confidential
matter. and it is not supposed that de
tails of this kind would be turned over
TO a competitor, such for instance as
the numbers of cars and the names of
owners.
81 fail to understand the grounds on
which the technical committee can say
that the Premier company had refused
TO give them information. The Pre-
mier company did not refuse, in fact it |
not only gave access TO the records, but
also, in addition, furnished sworn af-
fidavits by three officials of the con
cern, supporting the reports, all of
which were presented to them for their
consideration and information when the
committee heard the appeal All that I |
have ever asked is for a decision ac-
cording to the rules, taking the actual
facts into consideration. -
Au%nu an Ear,uo