The Professors and the Turf.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18095, 10 June 1924, Page 6

The Professors and the Turf.

Some time ago it was announced at a meeting of the Council of Christian Congregations that a report had been obtained from the Professors of Political Economy which made out a shattering economic case against the Turf and the totalisator. Thi s report was the outcome of the Council's anxiety to rebut our contention that there was

no other economic case against the totalisator than could be brought against a hundred other social institutions. That tho Turf involves waste

—of time, labour, and material; of productive energy, in short —we have ourselves pointed out over and over again. So far there is an economic case against racing exactly the same in kind as tho case against theatres, dancing, pleasuro motor-cars, holidays, drink, golf, the wearing of good clothes, picture collecting. And there the economic case ends. Against the spending on racing and other social institutions such as we have mentioned time and energy which might have been spent in the profitable production of consumable wealth we set the recreational value of all these things. Now we have the report of the four Professors, which we printed yesterday, and it turns out to add, on tho economic side, not a single consideration or fact beyond those which we have admitted and which are known to everyone. They show nothing more than that racing, like every othar form of pleasure and recreation, involves the expenditure of time and money and labour on unproductive ends. They leave tho ease precisely where it was, and they leave where it was what must be a matter of opinion only, since there is no authority to whom or to which anyone can appeal: namely, the question whether the economic loss is worth while.

Wo suspect that the enthusiasm with which the Council referred to the report was due entirely to tho zeal with which. tho Professors, turning from economics to general invective, expressed their antipathy to racing. Having briefly stated the economic case, and finding it very unconvincing, since mutatis mutandis it could be applied against many social customs which they shrink from attacking, the Professors said that "in the last ire- " sort the test must be a test of " values." Now, most people wiil listen respectfully enough to Professor CondlifEe and his colleagues when they are discussing economics, but they know nothing more of moral values than any four men picked at random in the street. Nobody would listen to these Professors making a joint pronouncement on engineering or poetry or theology, but their equipment to discuss such topics is just 1 as great as their equipment to discuss moral values, and rather more, we should say, than their equipment to discuss the recreational value of racing. "In " our opinion," they say, the cost of racing "is out of proportion to tho " recreational value," and they proceed immediately to speak of "socially " undesirable" occupations and interests and racing frauds. The rest of their memorandum, which is curiously superficial and inconsecutive, consists mainly of their opinion that "gambling " makes for social unrest," that gambling is "anti-social," that this seems "only too probablo" or that that "may be argued," and that au " atmosphere" is created unfavourable to stability and honest industry.

It will thus be seen that the memorandum is as completely unlike a caroful expert opinion on an economic problem as anything can be. The Professors may bo trusted where economic questions aro concerned, but they are very unlikely to know anything concerning the vital factor in the problem they have ventured discuss. It is possible that they know rather less about ( it than the average racegoer knows about economics, an'l for this reason: that tho average racegoer and to some extent must, avail himself of the unlimited facilities open to him to give at least some attention to the simpler facts of economics, while between the Professors of Economics and the recreational needs and satisfactions of the mass of men there is tho high barrier of antipathy and incomprehension. . This is made clear by their neglect to discuss, even to the extent of one sen-

tence, the value of racing and betting as a way of intellectual escape to many thousands of people who have not tho means or the capacity to find romance and relief in. gardening, in golf, in literature, in social work, or in study. The whole question is whether racing is worth the price. Economists can tell u s the price, but if they have the modesty and sincerity of the true scientist they will tell us that the return for the price paid is not a question for economists at all, and it is a pity that the four Professors should have misled the Council of Christian Congregations by suggesting that there is an economic sanction behind a memorandum of antipathies which would have been of exactly the same economic authority as if it had been issued by four Professors of Physics.

In the circular letter on totalisator betting which has been issued over the signatures of Archbishop Julius and the Rev. J. J. North a comparison is made between the amount of racing in Great Britain and the amount of racing in New Zealand, as follows: We remind you that we have already 453 more races per year than Great Britain with its population of 50,000,000. Our total is 2260.

It is thus asserted that the number of races in Great Britain per year is 1816. The basis of comparison is obviously unsound. If we were to allow it to be sound, we should be obliged to conclude that, our population being roughly one fortieth of Great Britain's (if Britain's population is 50,000,000, aa asserted) we ought to have only one-fortieth of 1816, or 45, races in New Zealand per annum. No doubt there are some people who would say that even this would be 45 races too many, but the business men to whom the circular letter is addressed will be very likely to come to the conclusion that the argument is as unsound as can be.

One might have supposed, at the same time, that the signatories of the letter would at least have done their best for their argument by presenting the figures correctly. Their British statistics, however, are quite incorrect. Last season in England there were 302 days of flatracing under Jockey Club rules, and 1816 races. But there were 256 days, and 1536 races, under National Hunt rules, making a total of 558 days' racing and 3352 races. In addition there are many "unregistered" meetings, and there are a great many trotting meetings (Glasgow has one a week) to be added. As the argument in the circular letter has no relevance to anything we can think of, the exact figures are of little account. But the fact that the writers of the letter omitted all reference to the race-meet-ings under National Hunt rules and to the unregistered meetings is worth noting for its evidence as to the amount of knowledge the local opponents of racing bring to their discussion of the subject. If the Council had heeded the advice we gave them concerning their expert some time ago, its members would not have made themselves responsible for such errors as we have pointed out..