RACING AND THE WAR.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15860, 27 March 1917, Page 7

RACING AND THE WAR.

to the Eniron of "the tress."

Si f; I have, as President of the New Zealand Racing Conference, found myself obliged to state publicly my view in favour of the continuance of racing ander the present circumstances of the War and of this Dominion in relation to it. I do not intend to enter into controversy with all who may chooso to .jxpress contrary opinions, but I would »sk all educators of the public to rei-ify the facts 011 which they baso arguments. Mr Grcsson, for instance, in this morning's "Press" informs us that the daily ration of horses in training is three bushels of oats. Few horses, indeed, would approach that consumption in a week. Hta further states that the freezing hands at Pareora and Smithfield Freezing Works took a day off to attend Waimate races. fhi s is an objectionable half-truth. In fact, these men were entitled to their customary annual picnic, and they chose to fix it for a day on -which, they had entertainment provided for them. >.'0 day was, therefore, wasted, unless indeed it is desired that tho picnic secured to them by award should be denied to them. May I append an extract from a speech delivered in January by Lord Derby, tho Secretary of State for War:—"ln individual hearts, and in individual homes, there were great sorrows which no time could eradicate, though it might to somo extent dull them. But the nation, as a whole, was not grieving. The nation as a whole was glad when it thought that from all parts of a great common Empire men were coming cheerfully, willingly, to Jay down their lives, if Providence so willed, in defence of a great and a just cause. (Cheers.) The nation rejoiced —and it had a right to rejoice, so long as everything that was necessary was done for the men —that the people's amusements, whother in the home, the open air, or in the theatre, should go on, so long as the public interests did not suffer. Those 'who came homo should be met by cheerful faces, and their time away from the trenches should bo made amusing, so that it would distract them from all the anxieties and danger 8 they undergone, and fit them, for further exertions with renewed vigour. (Cheers.)" —Yours, ctc., GEORGE CLIFFORD. Ohristchurch. March' 26th.

to the rniTon op "the press."

Sir, —Permit mo to correct an obvious slip which appeared in my letter on this subject. I there stated that a racehorso in training consumed about 3 bushels of oats per day. This, of course, should read "3 bushels of oats per week." As a matter of fact niv informant stated from 3 to 4 bushels per week, but I put it at three so as to be on the safe side.'—Yours, etc., MAURICi£ J. GRESSON.

TO THE EDITOR OP "THE PRESS."

Sir, —It is with surprise, mingled with regret and amusement, that I read the statement of the President of the Racing Conference, Sir George Clifford, regarding curtailment of racing during the war. I must say I gave a man of his standing credit for being able to put forth a better defence than he lias, to say nothing of his absurd 'suggestions regarding admittance of eligible men to race meetings. In my opinion, he has the wrong end of the stick altogether. For instance, he says that it is a revenue producer of no mean value, and quotes figures in support. Well, we all know that. Secondly, that it's an industry of national importance, from a remount point of view. Yes, that may be so. Also, that the labour employed is of a: kind Tinfitted for farm work. Thirdly, that his Majesty and other notables l©«d the way by continuing to support the Turf at Home. Very good, but nothing new. And lastly, that the authorities of racing are willing, note the word, to debar admission to eligible men to race meetings who cannot produce an exemption pass at the gates. Did you ever hear of anything so absurd,, and from the President of the Racing Conference, too? I should like that gentleman to state here and now, who are the "authorities" he quotes, and when and where was this decision arrived at/ nlso, how the C.J.C. could prevent anybody Entering the Riccarton course. Should such a scheme bo put into operation, clubs will strangle themselves with their own ropes. You must take the Firs s and Second Divisions oe the eligible men, and I think I am safe in saying 76 per cent, of men on racecourses are eligible, Thereforo, where is the attendance coming fromP Also the owners, trainers, jockeys, stable lads, and also some clubs' officials, would all be debarred, unless they had come, out in the ballot, or otherwise rejected. To oome to hard facts, i'o means this, that practically every racegoer would have to submit to the dictation of a racing club. Why not go the whole hog and invite the Medical Boards and all other Boards along and let them all be in attendance at the ?ates as well. This ridiculous idea, proposed by such a person as the Presiient, when conscription is the law of ;he land, is simply side-stepping the real issue. Why did not he suggest r U S~' . lv^en appeals. from every platform in the country was being made for voluntary recruits P To come to finality, it means this, that every man must enlist, whether First or Second Division, before he could view a race meeting. I say its too absurd for consideration, because no man of any intelligent would submit to such, in order to see a race meeting, to say nothing of those in tho industry. In my opinion, the opponents of the sport would gain their desired end. There j would, be no racing. | While tho questions of revenue and labour are two main points, let us look at it from a wage-earner's point- cf view. Take, for example, the facts and figures that could be produced by clubs, also by that well-known caterer, P. Burke. Think of the many who never seo n race meeting, but who supply tho various necessaries for holding " one. Then take the case of the women employed in "the refreshment booths alone. Why, their side aloue is worthy of consideration. Roughly, I should say they earn about £8 per year, and these aro hard-working, struggling women, trying to bring up a family, and to make 'oth ends meet, and tho little they earn n this way goes to help to clothe and eed their children, and the same ap- . 'lies to tho numerous other attendants. Fhey are there for the wages earned, and not for racing purposes, and what they receive is considered part of their renrly income. Take the case of stable lads and apprentices. It's their bread and butter. They are mostly unfitted for manual labour, and what is to become of them. Most especially does it apply to apprentices; there is a very large number of them, and they are there to team thc industry (I am pleased to note tho President termed it such), and to be cut off in tho middle of it, and turned adrift, is indeed a serious question. Then again, thero are the trainers, those who supply and grow the large amount of grain consumed in a year, those who keep accommodation houses for visiting trainers, their staffs and ! horsc6, and altogether there are thousands who arc dependent on the sport \ for their living. I think if those who are opposed to the gamo were to devote their time and energy to the growing evil of picture shows and extravagant tea rooms, etc., that are building '■ so rapidly, and which do not devote their profits to patriotic purposes, they would bo doing a more useful work. What I do say is this, that if the State wants more revenue from racing, then tax the man that collects tho 6takes. j Ho who owns studs and races horses is

the man-to tax, not the other man, who does the work. In conclusion, I trust the Trainers' Association -will take their side of the question up, as well as tho clubs, and that the jockeys and stable lads will form an association to protect their interests, and seo they get n 6quare deal, and so let all sides of tho case be put before the powers that be, or somebody will wake up and find he is the sufferer. If I can be of any assistance to anybody, my «?rvices aro at their disposal"—Yours, etc., L. J. MULLAN'EY. Itiecarton. TO THE EBITOR OF "jIIE TRESS." Sir, —In regard to the question of races which is being discussed, may I take the opportunity of mentioning two small happenings in that connexion which camo to my knowledge within the last year. 1. Last August the members of a Reinforcement were down on final leave. Before they left Wellington they were told they were to come back on the Friday instead of the Saturday, as the Saturday night's boat from the south would havo its accommodation required for those returning from the races. 2. Last September I was going up to Featherston Camp to spend the day there, leaving by tho express which, of coursc, takes the shortest time, getting up from Wellington in something over two hours. I vrae talking with ono of the officers (who had been down to Wellington, where his home was. I was returning). I said it was lucky to get tho express up, as the train by which one had to return to Wellington took so much longer, and I added: "It is a pity it takes so long. It doesn't matter so much for the ordinary citizens, but it must cut such a lot" out of the soldiers' leave." Ho answered: "It does, in any caso . . . but what does make men feel bitter is when the troop train is shunted, and when you ask why, you are told, 'Oh, to make room for tlie train for the races 1' and you wait there, knowing all tho while that the time you might spend with wife and children is slipping by." As lo races and all that, it seems a thing that lots of people enjoy immensely, and lots of other people enjoy pointing out tho wickedness of immensely, so that it means a lot of pleasure in one wav and another, and that's an excellent thing at ordinary times, and provides enjoyment for a good many other folk, too. But at a time when sentiment is being poured forth by tlie bucket (for words cost nothing), and our "brave lads," "our sons," and so on and so forth, it does seem a bit odd to the average unsentimental person who, nevertheless, has possibly given without words what they hold dear, to come across thing after thing of tho kind I have quoted above, and of which these two happenings are only samples.—Yours, etc., ONLOOKER.