From the Editor's Chair

ON GETTING TOGETHER

An Ideal for 1934

MACAULAY says somewhere —"Without a division of labour, the world could not go on. It is of very much more importance that men should have food, than that they should have pianofortes. Yet it by no means follows that every pianoforte maker ought to add the business of a baker to his own; for, if he did so, we should have much worse music, and much worse bread."

THE application of the above principle to the billiard world is all that is needed to bring us together.

There is only one big outstanding difference to be adjusted.

This difference is due to a fundamental misconception of a necessary "division of labour." Time was — there are men living who can well remember it—when billiards and kindred games were so confined to the relative few that table makers printed and published their own rules, ran all the championships, and regarded the control and government of billiards, what there was of it, as part of their business.

ORME'S began the Amateur championship. The Professional Championship was started by three billiard houses, who paid for the trophy won outright by John Roberts on the old three-inch-pocket table. Such action was altogether commendable, when it was taken.

At that period, billiards was nowhere near a national game. It was confined to the comparatively few who had money and leisure. There was no governing body. If the trade houses did not give a lead to organised play, there was no one else to do it. They were compelled to either go without bread, or "add the business of a baker to their own," as Macaulay has it.

BUT we happen to be in 1934, not 1874. Billiards is now a great imperial game. It is not the puny child of the 'seventies, unable to toddle, except in the leading strings of trade nurses. It must put away such childish things, and justify its man's estate. We are confident that it can and will; in fact, it has done so in every respect, except so far as the "Encashmenteer" power and influence may extend.

WE believe in facing facts. This "Encashmenteer" position, rightly considered, is the last relic of the "billiard-bakery" period. It belongs to that billiard beginning, that dawn of the game in a scientific sense, when a "division of labour" was impossible, because the evolution of the game had not rendered it inevitable. To-day the whole thing is a survival from a dead past. Let us get together, and work "each in his separate star" for the good of the game, and all associated with it. Let us realise that billiard government is one thing, the billiard trade another, the billiard press another, that each has its own sphere of specialised activity, and must be absolute master in its own house.

GRANT this recognition of complete independence and freedom of action in their respective spheres, and you create a commonwealth of interests all working to the same end. The "division of labour" is clear-cut and workmanlike.

No one is adding "the business of a baker to his own," and the result can only be beneficial to all concerned.

PARTICULARLY the billiard trade. What could be better for trade than the affiliation to the B.A. and C.C., of the many billiard and snooker leagues in the country?

This would give an official status to their play which is now lacking. It would lead directly to league contests on national lines. It would swing into league billiards and snooker much of the competitive impetus which football gains from its allegiance to the Football Association.

But before anything like this can be even thought about, the "Encashmenteer" platoon must be demobilised.

IT can be, quite amicably, if only the "division of labour" is accepted in a friendly spirit. That is the "get together" move we want. It should be made while yet there is time to avoid a clash which can only hurt the billiard business more than anything else. After all, the Control Council, considered as individuals, will not be sixpence the poorer or richer whatever happens.

Can the same be said of the billiard trade? Does not the spur of business interest, to put things no higher than that, urge all concerned to "get together" in the only possible way?

We feel sure it does, and will do all we can to bring such unity into being before 1934 is out.