BETTING BY STEWARDS

Otago Witness, Issue 2320, 18 August 1898, Page 31

BETTING BY STEWARDS

If the Manawatu Club confirms the resolution passed at its annual meoting, prohibiting stewards or officials from betting, we may see the working of a somewhat interesting experiment. I say "may," because it is nc certainty that even if passed it will be found practicable to pufc the motion into force. There are difficulties in the way ; there would be, at any rate, in the case of nearly every club that I have a personal knowledge of. The main difficulty is to find thoroughly competent stewards who do not; bet. Possibly tUete, ws &uoh mcii available to the, Man.awa.tu.

Club ; but they are not found at every" corner. To ba candid, I at present do not feel at aL sure that if they were forthcoming they would be an improvement on the ordinary rank and file. Look at the question from this point oi view: Brown, Jones, and Robinson aro selec' ted as stewards because they do not bet. But Brown has a brother who occasionally puts a bit on ; Jones is very chummy with an owner who likes to invest when ho has a chance ; whilst Robinson is, say, a baker oi a saddler or a butcher, depending for hie business on a wide circle of customers. Is it arguable, simply because 8., J., and R. personally abstain from betting that they are thereby of necessity straighter and freer to give honest decisions than three other stewards who frankly acknowledge a partiality for a small wager now and again? The idea is one that will not hold water for a moment. These considerations appiy in the case of a club so peculiarly circumstanced as to be able to unearth and convert into stewards men who have the nece*s*ry tnowledg© and never bet. Now, let us t-ifco rho matter from, another aspect: the rose of a club which simply decides to have noii-tutoinx stewards, and doesn't know whether it, van at the same time secure expet wisdom. Abstention from betting being the primary, and, indeed, the only test, the choice is narrowed very considerably, and, the club having few to pick from, may be forced to select men who in a general way or for particular reasons are \mdesirable — men, say, with strong likes and dislikes, and hence incompetent to assume judicial functions. I claim to be genuinely desirous of getting rid of betting stewards. They ought to be done away with ; in the happy and more perfect times to come they will be. Tho question is whether the reform can be brought about jusl yet. In considering this one must first come to a rational conclusion as to what shape the reform is to take. Personally, I think it will establish the system of paid stewards. That may be arguable. If that is the remedy for existing ills, the present answer is that the times are not yet ripe for such a change. We cannot afford it. Meanwhile, we shall do well to proceed cautiously. I mistrust the abrupt surgery of the Manavraiu proposal. It means the lopping off of the unsound limb without due thought of the possibility of a dangerous hemorrhage. In getting rid of stewards who bet, we may have to take stewards who lie or take bribes ; we may. in short, be driven to a selection from candidates of low character. It seems to me that under existing conditions we shall be acting wisely by adhering to the old rule of choosing our stewards for their personal worth and intelligence and knowlndge. Men who pc.psess such qualities may be trusted even though they do at times put 5s on the machine. Men who do not possess such qualities are not redeemed or made eligible for one's confidence merely because they do not bet. To argue otherwise would be to repose faith in Jabez Balfour and James Nicol Fleming and discard such proved men as Sir George Clifford and the Hon. J. D. Onnond.