Maori hold South Africa to tight win

The Maoris give a haka for the Springboks before the start of play in which South Africa defeated...
The Maoris give a haka for the Springboks before the start of play in which South Africa defeated the Maori team 9-8 at Napier on September 7, 1921. — Otago Witness, 20.9.1921
The match Springboks v Maoris was played this afternoon in the presence of about 6000 spectators, and resulted, after a hard game, in a win for the visitors by 9 points to 8.

Play was fairly even, but the South African lineout play to the backs was superior, and they were many times set in motion, but the defenders tackled well and kept them out, the spell ending with the score unaltered. The Maori had the advantage of a substantially helpful breeze, but their opponents' defence was very solid, added to which the Maori backs did not handle the ball well. Playing with the wind in the second spell it was expected that the South Africans would make it a runaway game, but the Maoris played with more vim, and fully held their own.

There was much excitement in the closing stages, as play fluctuated from one end of the ground to the other, but the South Africans were rather better than their opponents. The South Africans' fine combination between the forwards and backs was the feature of their play, especially from the lineout. Their exhibition was much more attractive than in Saturday's match. The Maoris put up a very creditable showing, their play indicating that with a game or two together they would be a hard side to beat. The backs fielded and kicked well, but lacked effective combination in attack. The weather was fine and the ground hard. Mr J.F. Peake (Christchurch) was referee.

WCTU discusses venereal disease

Practically the whole of the afternoon session of the provincial convention of the Women's Christian Temperance Union yesterday was devoted to a keen discussion on the Government's Social Hygiene Bill for the control of venereal disease, especially with reference to its provisions for compulsory notification and examination. The meeting was held in the Hanover Street Baptist Hall. Mrs W.R. Don, president of the convention, presided, and there was a large attendance, including not only delegates and their friends, but a number of visitors and representatives of societies interested in what is euphemistically called “the social evil”. Mrs McHugh, lecturer for the Public Health Department, who stated the Government's case said the only clause really in dispute was that enacting compulsory notification. There was much information in their possession showing that this was necessary. She read an extract showing that the nature and power of the temptations that beset our soldiers when back on leave in the great cities of the Old Land. There was not only this physical peril, but this evil had produced an appetite for further wrongdoing. The moral problem was extremely difficult and most important. At the present time we were faced with a terrible menace and something must be done, apart from waiting for the slow process of the uplifting of the moral standards of the community.

Mrs McHugh also dealt with the lack of protection at present accorded to women who suffered disease from infected men. She quoted a case that came under her notice in Auckland of a man whose wife left him because he had infected her. She conveyed the disease to another man, to whom she bore an infected child. The husband took up with two other girls in turn, both of whom he infected, and further diseased children were born. This awful cycle of disease and crime and suffering went on spreading, yet there was no law at present under which this man could be apprehended or exposed, and his career checked. Attaching a moral stigma to the sufferers from this disease was a cruel wrong to thousands of innocent victims. This often drove them to secrecy or into the clutches of dangerous quacks, who often extracted blackmail. The tinge of puritanism in our race probably prevented us from dealing with the evil as frankly and as boldly as it required.

 — ODT, 8.9.1921.



Add a Comment