RACING CLUB AND BOOKMAKERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 13011, 31 October 1905, Page 6

RACING CLUB AND BOOKMAKERS.

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AUCKLAND RACING CLUB. BOOKMAKERS EXCLUDED FROM ELLERSLIE. A MAJORITY OF TWENTY-ONE. A SPECIAL meeting of the Auckland Racing Club was held in the Chamber of Commerce, yesterday afternoon, to consider the question of whether bookmakers should be allowed to ply their vocation on Ellerslie racecourse. It will be remembered that recently the committee of the club, by the casting vote of the chairman, decided that bookmakers should not be allowed to conduct their business on the racecourse, and yesterday's meeting was called as the result of a requisition signed by the required number of members, asking for a special meeting. There was an unusually large attendance, the chamber being crowded.The Hon. E. Mitchelson (president of the club) • occupied the chair, and he opened proceedings by reading the rule under which the special meeting was allied, and the rule providing that no member could vote on any question unless he had paid his an«ual subscription. Mr. J. T. Julian asked if all committeemen who took part in the committee meetiug at which the decision to exclude bookmakers from the. course was passed were financial members. The Chairman replied that he could not answer offhand. The committee appointed br the club was supposed to carry on the work of the club for the whole of the year, and they must carry on that besiness irrespective of whether they were financial members or not. THE CASE FOR THE BOOKMAKERS. Mr. Julian then moved : — That the resolution passed by the committee on October 6. 1905. " That no bookmaker be permitted to follow his avocation on the Ellerslie racecourse," be rescinded; and that this special meeting of the Auckland Racing Club decides that during the l current year ending the first Monday in Angust, 1906, bookmakers be permitted to carry on their avocations on the Ellerslie racecourse as heretofore, at the same fee and subject to the same conditions and restrictions as were imposed by the committee during the year ending on the first day in August. 19*5. He thought that no such radical change as was sought by the committee's decision should be brought about without due notice being given. The men who followed bookmaking were, as a rule, respectable men, and bookmaking was about the sole business they did. It was Hot fair to deprive them of their livelihood without due notice. Mr. W. Hackett seconded the motion, and said it was a very reasonable one. The. only, question raised by the motion was whether the bookmakers should, during the coming 12 months, be permitted to bet on Ellerslie course, subject to the terms and conditions they had acted under during the 12 months, previously. Had it been possible, he would have liked to have seen a plebiscite of the patrons of the course taken on the question, but, as he supposed that was not possible, the next most competent body to decide the issue was the club. • There was nothing- in the motion hostile to the committee, which he believed had acted conscientiously, and for what it conceived to be the beat interest of the club, but it was within the expressed right ef members of the club to revise a decision of the committee. He thought the committee had acted > unwisely in the interests of racing i and of sport. Firstly, the end sought by the committee was a huge change in the policy of the club, and he had not heard of any cause or reason to justify that change. He had had forwarded to him a circular setting forth the reasons upon which the bookmakers should be excluded. The first part purported to be a report of the delegates who attended the racing conference, and that was practically the first time that report was put in circulation. The circular stated there were two reasons why the bookmaker was inimical to racing : the first was that the bookmaker was inimical to the totalisator, the allegation being that the presence of the bookmaker on the course was opposed to the interest of racing insomuch as he jeopardised the existence of the machine. Included in the circular was an article . from the Weekly Press and. Referee, an article which he took the responsibility of saying was incorrect in fact. This article stated the Auckland Club stood alone amongst metropolitan clubs in the matter of allowing bookmakers to bet on its course, and, seeing that the object of the establishment of the totalisator was to do away with bookmakers on the course, the wonder , was the incongruous position had not been realised earlier. The article also stated further on that the totalisator was established to prevent bookmakers do-, ing business on racecourses. This was a very bold statement, to make, and the writer should have been sure of his facts. The speaker went on to quote remarks of the Minister for Justice on the second reading of the Bill to show that the object of the totalizator was not to do away with the bookmakers, but to prevent fraud on, and misuse i of, the totalisator, and he then quoted from the remarks of the Hon. Mr. Mitchelson, as contained in an interview in the Herald, that the object of . doing away with the bookmaker was to raise the tone of the club. He (Mr. Hackett) questioned whether the | exclusion of the bookmaker would be the ; means of raising the tone of the club. Was. j the bookmaker something to be despised, a culprit, or a felon, or had the bookmaker been the medium of any scenes on Ellerslie course?' The bookmaker here was on a totally different footing from the bookmakers in the South ; here the bookmakers were members of a regularly organised body canying on business on a fair footing. The bookmaifiors owned horses here, and ran them fairly and squarely. In the Herald interview the chairman had said the 33 bookmakers contributed £2600 a year, and that this would be fully made up by increased totalisator returns. If the members reflected a little they would see what a great contributor to the wealth of the club the bookmaker had been. The club owned. a magnificent property in Ellerslie racecourse, and it had got that through the assistance of the bookmaker. The Southern clubs which did not license hookmakers were not able to acquire such great properties. Then the club had recently suffered a loss of some £3000: in addition to that, it had embarked upon a venture involving £4000, and- had gone into improvements at the coarse, and if bookmakers were to be excluded' there was grave prospect of the financial position of the club being not so good this year as it was last. The exclusion of bookmakers meant that patrons of the course would have to bet £1 or nothing at all, and the result would be a host of unlicensed walking bookmakers, who would contribute nothing to the club. ' He hoped the motion proposed by Mr. Julian would be carried. (Applause.) AN AMENDMENT. 1 Mr. J. Marshall moved, as an amendment, "That the action of the committee has the approval of this meeting." He pointed out that the decision was no surprise to the bookmakers, because 12 months ago a similar proposal was brought up and defeated. Personally he had no objection to bookmakers; he betted with them, and on the machine, but he looked at the matter from a financial point of view. If the club kept to the totalisator it would do better than with the bookmakers. If the bookmakers were allowed to continue, the chances were that Parliament would abolish the machine. The amendment was seconded by Major Pitt. Mr. Hackett, speaking to the amendment, said the article he had referred to before said Parliament might take up the attitude that if bookmakers were licensed the totalisator would have to go. The Legislature had not taken up that attitude, and when

it did would be quite time to exclude the bookmaker. If it was a case of one or the other, he (the speaker) would have no hesitation in voting for the machine in preference to the bookmaker. If a plebiscite of patrons of Ellerslie course were taken next race day, 90 per cent, would vote for the retention of the bookmaker. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT IN DEFENCE. The Hon. E. Mitchelson said, as chairman of the committee, they would expect to hear something from himself The issue before the meeting was a very simple one, and that was whether the action of the committee had the approval of the meeting? The mover of the motion (Mr. Julian) had said that an unfair advantage was being taken of the bookmakers, owing to insufficient notice, and Mr. Hackett had said practically the same thing. These statements were absolute and pure nonsense. The club's delegates at the Racing Conference reported that members of Parliament present agreed that the totalisator was never in greater danger than now of being abolished, and one cause was the licensing of bookmaker?. That report also contained the statement that the club was endangering the prospect of using the totalisator through issuing bookmakers' licenses. The bookmakers were perfectly wen aware that that report was in existence, and upon that report being presented he (the chairman) gave notice of motion in 1904 that bookmakers should be excluded. That was lost by a small majority. He took his beating fairly and squarely; he did not go round with the hat and ask members to call a meeting to rescind the motion. During the election of the committee, he was sorry to say, the bookmakers, and some of the trainers also, endeavoured to influence the election by voting against committeemen if those committeeuen's views were against the bookmakers, and, as a matter of fact, they did reject some candidates, and at the election hist August they used the same tactics. They, and .heir friends canvassed members of the club. There were members of the club they could not approach, but they approached them through others. Possibly they succeeded in getting one. or two added to the committee. They knew before the committee was elected that this question was to be raised at the first meeting of the committee. At the first meeting of the committee he (the speaker) t/ave notice that he would move the motion which had caused all this hub-bub. That very same evening the bookmakers were made aware of the motion, and they energetically canvassed members of the committee, in order to defeat the motion, and some went so far as to say they had a majority up their sleeves, and he would be "knocked out." He was not "knocked out." When the day came for the motion he postponed it a week, -it the request of a member who was ill, and who was opposed to the motion. (Applause.) These facts showed that the bookmakers knew what was going to taxe place. Mr. Hackett had referred to the words of Mr. Dick, who was a colleague of his (the speaker's) in the Atkinson Ministry, and he (Mr. Mitchelson) had full knowledge of what the intention of the Legislature was then, and it was to do away with Uie bookmaker. He looked upon the Auckland Metropolitan Club as the primcipal metropolitan club in New Zealand. o (Applause.) It was the strongest, wealthiest, and most successful metropolitan club in the colony, and he thought it a disgrace t « such a metropolitan body to find that it was the only metropolitan club in Now Zealand to license bookmakers. That disgrace shou'd be wiped away. Mr. W. R. "Bloomfield : Why is it a disgrace? Mr. Mitchelson continued that it was a fact the club possessed the mast valuable club property in New Zealand, and membeis should feel very proud of it, but Mr. Hacked forgot that some of the other clubs were not. racing on freehold, but on reserves, from which they could not exclude any person. The Wellington Club was one of these, and it had, at the expense of £30,000. acquired a freehold from which the bookmaker would be conspicuous by absence. When the totalisator was legalised the club allowed the bookmakers to ply their calling at Ellerslie on the clear and distinct understanding that there were to be no " tote odd.-)," but faith had been broken, and they had continually laid "tote odds." One or two stood out, but were compelled in their own interest to follow the rest. It was generally agreed that gambling was objectionable, but the totalisator was the lesser of two evils. Were the totalisator and bookmaker both to go, racing would still continue -(Voices: "No")—and continue for all time. The bookmaker encouraged young people to bet on credit, and members must all know there were cases in this town of young people who had been betting to such an extent on credit that they had to resort to stealing from their employers. The bookmaker made the bets, but didn't care where the money came from, and members knew that ruin had been brought to many families in this and other towns in consequence of betting on credit. . He had given his casting vote for his motion. It was Parliamentary procedure to give, a casting vote in favour of further consideration, and if this question had been raised for the first time he would have adopted that course; but the question had been .on for over 18 months. The amount received from bookmakers, 190405, was £2593 10s. To make this up on the machine, basing the club's profit at 7£ per cent., would necessitate an excess of £35,000 to be put through the machine. This would net the club £2625 as against £2593 10s. During the year there was racing on 13 days, and a total of 101 races. Dividing £35,000 by 13 gave an average of £2693 per day, or £347 per race. The profit to the club by excluding bookmakers would be very large. He had worked out an average and supposing the 11 bookmakers held £6960 per day, or £90,480 a year, the commission at 10 per cent, would be £9048, and, deducting 2\ per cent., there would be £7012 10s. Supposing the price received for the sale of the booths would be £20 less per day, and deducting £260 from the £7012 10s,'there would still lie £6752 10s, and deducting the amount received from the bookmakers' licenses, there would be £415 9s. He had only taken 11 bookmakers, while there were 33. Allowing them an average of £26 per race each, a very low allowance, the amount on each day would be £6900, or.a total for the year of £89,700, which ' would work out on the same basis as in the otlier instance, at £4097 15s net profit to the club. Taking even £13 per race, the profit would be over £2000. The speaker then went on to instance the Kurow (Oam&ru district) Club, which increased totalisator receipts from between £700 and £800 to £2078 by excluding bookmakers. The bookmakers hail put it about that he would be badly beaten, and that prohibition would be carried if the committee's decision were not rejected. (Laughter.) He was told the club would nothing for the booths ; £1700 was the figure last year, and tenders called this year resulted iii the offer of £1715. It was not now a question of the committee ; it was more serious than that, it was a question of whether the club was to he domineered over.and ruled by the bookmakers and their friends. He could not answer for other members, but if the decision of the committee was upset | he had a soul, and he would not remain a | member of a club that was going to be dictated to by bookmakers and their Wends, If Mr. Julian's motion were carried he (the ! chairman) would hand in his resignation of all the offices he held' in the club. The ballot would be open till five o'clock. (Loud applause.) THE RESULT. .Some time after five p.m. the following result, certified by the scrutineers, Messrs. W. McOutcheon, P. Butler, and W. J. Ralph, was read by the Hon. E. Mitchelson:— For the exclusion of bookmakers ... 99 In favour of the bookmakers 78 Informal ... 1 Majority in favour of exclusion ... 21 THE CHAIRMAN'S OPINION. When the result was made known, a HKEALD representative sought an expression of opinion upon it from the Hon. E. j Mitchelson, who replied that the voting . was very good. The result proved that ] the majority of the club members were desirous of making the club purer, and of bringing it up into line with the other metropolitan clubs in New Zealand. The club would now stand m the very first rank, and he was confident, it would stand to loss nothing by the action of the com- , mittee just confirmed by so large a meet- ! ing of the club.