Sporting Review. SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1891.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume I, Issue 34, 21 March 1891, Page 3

Sporting Review. SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1891.

Last week we referred to the action regarding trotting and pony racing that had been taken by the A.R.C. Committee, calling their attention to the fact that Rule 20 of the Rules of Racing had no effect on pony and trotting races, and that they were exceeding their power as a Metropolitan Club in trying to interpret and enforce it in the way some of the members wished. The Auckland Racing Club has really no power to interfere with pony and trotting racing, their functions being to superintend all flat races, hurdle races, and steeplechases, and see that they are all properly and legitimately carried out; beyond that they cannot go. Our opinion last week is, we think, pretty well corroborated by the following letter, received by J. S. Williams, Esq., President New Zealand Trotting Association, Christchurch :—“ Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of February 5, asking that the Resident Magistrates might be instructed to recommend applications for licenses to use the totalisator at trotting meetings, provided that the programmes of such meetings comply with the rules of the New Zealand Trotting Association (copy of which you enclose), and further that licenses should not be granted to Clubs which are not affiliated, to your Association. In reply I am directed by the Colonial Secretary to inform you that on carefully reviewing the whole case as between Trotting Clubs and Racing Clubs, the Government have decided to approve of the rules of the New Zealand Trotting Association, as submitted by you, in respect to race meetings held under its rules, and the Resident Magistrates in the chief Provincial towns have been advised accordingly. Every Club applying for a license to use the totalisator must forward with their application a copy of the programme of . the meeting, endorsed by the approval of the ;N,ew Zealand Trotting Association, and must be in the hands of the Colonial Secretary at least three weeks before the date of such meeting. —I have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient servant, G. S. Cooper. Colonial Secretary’s Office, Wellington, March 6, 1891.” We can only gather from this letter that the Hon. P. A. Buckley, the Colonial Secretary, who is,a prettv sharp lawyer, has agreed to the petition that w“as sent him praying that trotting and pony racing should be put on the same footing, as flat and hurdle racing, also steeplechasing.. The rules relating to those branches

provide that any Club holding more than three meetings in the year must give an average of at least £5OO per diem in stakes; any Club holding three meetings must give. £4OO per diem ; any Club holding two meetings must give £2OO per diem; and any Club holding one meeting must give £lOO. Under the Trotting Association’s Rules no Club can hold more than four meetings in the year ; any Club holding four meetings must give an average of £2OO per diem in stakes ; any Club holding three meetings must give £l5O per diem ; any Club holding two meetings must give £125 per diem , and any Club holding one meeting must give £lOO. Now comes the serious question to those interested in the sport. The Auckland Clubs, with the exception of the Northern Pony and Trotting Club, refused to join the New Zealand Trotting Association, and formed an association of their own, and are using Potter’s Paddock for their races. This is in direct contravention to the spirit of the Colonial Secretary’s letter, where it distinctly states: “ The Government have decided io approve of the Rules o f the New Zealand Trotting Association, as submitted by you, in respect to races held under its rules, and the Resident Magistrates have been advised accordingly .” How the Otahuhu Trotting Club and other Clubs held under the same auspices stand with regard to the use of the totalisator entirely rests between the Colonial Secretary, Resident Magistrates, and themselves; but it is quite evident the A.R.C. Committee have nothing at all to do with the matter, and if they persist in their absurd reading of Rule 20 they will further stultify themselves, as they have in the opinion of many already done. The A.R.C. Committee appear to be very anxious to enforce Rule 20, but there are other rules of much more importance, notably Rules 38, 66, 67, 81, 14.1. Not a race meeting occurs at which you do not see horses entered in names that are not those of their owners, or in fact of anyone connected with them ; also you sec the same horse entered in different names at different meetings ; therefore, unless you are thoroughly conversant with racing men, it is impossible to know who the horse belongs to. As we interpret the different Rules of Racing, it means that anyone entering a horse must either do it in the real name of the owner, or his assumed name, which must be published in the Official Gazette. As things are now going on in Auckland, horses are entered in the names of trainers, jockeys, or, in fact, in any name except the legitimate owner’s. At the same time it very often occurs that the same horse is entered in different names at different meetings, a practice which enables any amount of swindles to be perpetrated, without anyone being a bit the wiser. If the A.R.C. Committee would employ their energies in putting a stop to this abuse, instead of interfering with trotting and pony races, they would be conferring a benefit on the racing man and the public in general. [Since the above was in type the A.R.C. have passed a resolution that “ Rule 20 be not in force on any programme published up to date. ”3