RACING CLUBS AND THE BOOKMAKERS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9438, 9 June 1896, Page 2

RACING CLUBS AND THE BOOKMAKERS.

I To the Editor. f Sir, —I assume from the apace yon have allotted your correspondent " Island Bay," who holds quite opposite views to yourself regarding the tobalisstor, that you have no objection to free discussion of matters of prominence in connection with betting and bsttora. As a contributor of many years' standing to the original New Zealand Referee, you will perhaps credit mc with writing on a subject I know a little about. I quite agree with you in opposing the abolition of the totalisator, but at the same time cannot xip'nold the action of those who argue that all betting should be through the medium of the "machine." Such arguments will do more to kill the totalisator than any yet vouchsafed. Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and racing clubs must uphold the totalisator ; but why advocate the abolition of all legitimate and honest bookmakers, some of them having unblemished records extending over thirty yeara. I am sure your courtesy will not be withheld when I ask you, on behalf of several legitimate bookmakers of long stand, ing, to put before your readers their side of the betting question. I will comment on a few cases in the order of their seniority and take the case of the veteran E. F. Yuilc first. Here we have a bookmaker with an unblemished reputation of twenty years' standing, one who has also always been ready to subscribe both publicly and privately (more often the latter) to any charity or cause requiring assistance ; and yet he was selected from a number of others by the Manawatu Racing Club as the one on whom they could exercise their petty authority. I use the term petty advisedly, as the Manawatu R.C. is only a country club, and not even invested with the powers of a Metropolitan body. It was openly reported both before the race meeting and during the meeting that the stewards intended to make an example of Yuile, or his representative, ! shonld either put in an appearance at the meeting. One man was unfairly selected from a large number, and subjected to the indignity of being ejected from the racecourse. Yuile protested that he had not infringed the club's rules or the law, and made an application in writing to the president of the club for an investigation, but without avail. He subsequently, through his solicitor, challenged the club to bring a case against him in the R.M. Court to test the matter; this they likewise declined, although they reported to the Metropolitan body (the Wanganui Jockey Club) that Yuile had been disqualified by the Manawatu R.O. for laying totalisator odds. On the matter being investigated by eminent legal authorities they gave it as their opinion that the announcement in the "Offioia , Calendar" that Yuile had been guilty of laying totalisator odds was libel (he not having been convicted of that misdemeanor). However, as the Wanganui Metropolitan Clnb had, by their endorsement of the Manawatu Club's action, become responsible for the publication of the libel, the action would therefore have to be brought against the Wanganui stewards, and against your paper for publishing the libel. As Yuile had no grievance against either, he allowed the matter to drop. He had the satisfaction of learning from many prominent sportsmen that they bad no sympathy with the action of the Manawatu R.C. stewards, and that their action was looked upon as contemptible by all who knew the circumstances. Next in order we have the wholesale ejection of bookmakers from the C.J.C. racecourse at Easter. Amongst those I "ordered off" was Wm. Proffitt, a metallician of known integrity and respectability, and in addition he has been for years one of the strongest supporters of racing in New Zealand. Your reader* can call to mind many horses run by him (Macaroni, the cream steeplechaser, among the number). Proffitt has for a number of years made books on all principal events, and all owners of horses have found him a great convenience, inasmuch as he laid them liberal odds, and is noted for being an easy man for an unsuccessful horae owner to settle with, while at all times he has settled promptly himself. • Now, sir, I would ask you how are men who make legitimate books to conduct their business in fairness to horse owners (and horse-owners are their principal clients) if all the racecourses in New Zealand are to be closed to them. They must either cease making straight out books or lay very cramped odds. Either alternative will be opposed to the interest of horse-owners, and likewise racing clubs, as you must admit, sir, that if owners can back their horses for say three or four thousand pounds to win a New Zealand Cup, they are more likely to assist to increase the acceptances and fields. I will next allude to the case of Mr Livingston, a bookmaker well-known for hi 3 respectable demeanour and integrity. Livingston is also a horse-owner, and has liberally supported the : racing club 3, and like those before mentioned can be classed a legitimate bettor of considerable magnitude. Livingston had engaged his horse, Marino, at the Napier Park Winter Meeting. On his arriving at Napier he was notified by the stewards that bookmakers would not be allowed access to the racecourse. He argued that as he was the owner of a horse engaged at the meeting he claimed the right according to the Rules of Racing to be present as a horse-owner, and reminded the stewards that they had an Act specially passed to enable them to cope with him or others should they lay " tote odds." His pleadings availed him nothing, as the stewards took the law in their own hands and ejected him from the ceurse, leaving his horse to the care of his jockey, who, luckily for the owner, was R. Derrett. But suppose the jockey had been a lesser artist, who would have attended to the owner's interest during the meeting ? Having given instances where I consider the arbitrary action of racing clubs has borne unfairly on respectable and honourable men, let mc add that I have not one word to say in the defence of " tote bettors.' Let the law be strictly enforced if the clubs choose. All respectable bookmakers are aware of the penalties, and would gladly welcome the rigid enforcement of the law, as, were there no " tote betting," there would be plenty of scope for both double and straight-out books on the principal events at each meeting. Bookmakers of known integrity could, on the payment of a small license fee to the clubs, be admitted to the racecourses, and such licenses could be cancelled on sufficient grounds. Should some such course be adopted, racecourses would be purged of the men who now are responsible for the greater part of the tote betting that i* laid to pi oa. All ptnon* with any

knowledge of racing must admit that legitimate bookmakers fill a useful purpose. Owners, to a m&n, will endorse the suggestion I have thrown out re licensing reliable metallicians, and as the racing clubs are dependent on horse owners for their existence, surely their wishes are entitled to some respect; but leaving' horse' owners out of the question, it is patent that some such sirrcngement should be arrived at \xx the. interest of all concerned. Trainers and jockeys are licensed, and arc under the control of Metropolitan Clubs. .. Why.not bookmakers ? The importance of the subject must be my apology for the lengifi of this letter.—l am, &c, J. H. Pollock.