Sporting Review. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1891.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume II, Issue 59, 10 September 1891, Page 5

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1891.

The Government has determined to impose a tax of one and a half per cent, on the totalisator to replenish their depleted treasury. By so doing they expect to make £ 10,000, by dragging the vitals out of the country Clubs—the Metropolitan Clubs can make it up by sticking it on the unfortunate horse-owners, etc. The Government, if they liked, could get the amount from other sources where it would not be felt. Let them keep their own salaries and the honorarium, etc., at its proper limits. But it has always been the case in New Zealand —“ The weakest must go to the wall" and everyone for himself.” We are an impoverished Colony through gross mismanagement. Racing is the national pastime of an Englishman — why should it be taxed. It is the means of hundreds, we may say thousands, of pounds being circulated through the Colony. How many hundreds of people are employed through the agency of racing. It is a benefit to all classes. Money and men are employed at the stud farms —then comes the yearling sales. The young ones pass into another phase. Trainers, stablemen, boys, and jockeys have to be employed, and their wages have to be found. Most masters and trainers generally feed their employees. This means a circulation of money with the grocer, butcher, baker, etc.—therefore they are benefited. Then comes last, but not least, the farmer. It is a direct benefit to him in this way : if they have a good sample of oats, hay, carrots, straw, etc., they get a longer price from the training stables than they would from livery stables or a private gentleman.

Leaving out this question —foreigners come to buy our blood or draught stock. This brings in capital. Still, in the face of all this, our sapient Ministers must bring in an Act to tax all this. It is their policy, so the unfortunate racing man is the first to suffer. If the Government are so hard up for the £ 10,000, let them put a tax on luxuries, which at present get off almost scot free. Tax them to the utmost. Put an extra one on the ‘ ‘ fal-de-lals ” that the would-be ladies decorate themselves with, so as to get the £ 10,000 required, but leave alone the sport that circulates thousands among the struggling settlers and gives amusement to millions. We are surprised that this view of the tax has not been taken up by the Labour portion of the House of Representatives.

The actions taken by the stewards of racing are of such an extraordinary kind, both in Australia and New Zealand, that it makes it very dangerous for the most straightforward owner to escape unscathed. Our readers will remember that at the Victorian Amateur Turf Club meeting, held on the 25th July, Dillon 7st 131 b, won the Murrumbeena Handicap, one mile and three furlongs, by a length and a half from Bloodshed, 7St 31b. The winner started at 5 to 1. The same afternoon Dillon, Bst izlb, started for the Kambrok Handicap, seven furlongs, Bloodshed, carrying 7St 51b —the latter finishing a bad third to The Doctor and Epi, the former finishing fourth. Dillon and Bloodshed’s starting price was 6 to 1. The stewards, in their wisdom, disqualified the owner, Mr. Dumlerie (secretary of the Adelaide Racing Club), the trainer, A. Miller, the jockey, Milne, and the horse, for two years for suspicious riding, basing their judgment on the idea that the position of these two should have been the same as in the previous race, ignoring the fact that the distance was four furlongs shorter and that there was a difference of 1 ilb in the weights. It was also proved that the owner had backed his horse to win a good stake. The defendants appealed to the V.R.C. stewards, who sent the case back to the stewards of the V.A.T.C. to review. After the evidence had been carefully gone through a second time, the Caulfield stewards saw no reason to alter their previous decision. The V.R.C. having postponed the case until the next meeting, their verdict is anxiously waited for, as it will give a precedent. Unless there is something more than the public know of, the Caulfield stewards were decidedly wrong, and show their unfitness for their business, as, let alone the difference in weight, the extra four furlongs in the previous race would make a difference between two horses.

Our readers will remember that when the A.R.C. sent down their delegates to the racing conference at Wellington one of their propositions was that no race less than 40 sovs. should be on any programme. This virtually meant shutting out nearly all the suburban and country meetings, and we mentioned this fact at the time. On looking through the A.R.C. programmes for the coming season we find two races of 30 sovs., viz., the Shorts Handicap at the second spring meeting, and the Novel Handicap on the last day of the winter meeting. This is blowing hot and cold with a vengeance.

We take the following from the Canterbury Times’. — “ A totalisator case was heard in the Brisbane District Court on August 20th. At the Tattersail races a horse called Buttons passed the post first as winner of the Australian Cup, Ralston being second. Many of those who had tickets on him tore them up. Subsequently the stewards sustained a protest that Buttons started before the post, and ordered the race to be run again. This was done, Ralston won. Those that had torn up their tickets demanded a dividend, but the number of claimants exceeded the tickets actually on the horse. Harris, the proprietor of the totalisator, decided only to pay those that produced tickets. The result was that he had surplus. This he offered to give to the hospital, but Tattersail’s Club objected, and claimed the amount as they contended the proprietor of the totalisator was virtually their servant. Judge Paul, after hearing a lengthy argument on both sides, nonsuited the plaintiffs, expressing the opinion that the balance on hand should have been

divided amongst those who had not torn up their tickets on Ralston. It is understood that ihe decision will be appealed against. This forms a precedent; if there is an appeal, the decision will be watched with interest.

Our confrere in the Canterbury Times appears to be rather in favour of early two-year-old racing, and quotes Lord Lyon, Ecossais and Peter, as having run wonderful trials before they were twenty-four months old. With regard to the former we can assure our confrere that he did nothing wonderful until well in the spring, though from the time he was a yearling General (then Colonel) Pearson and Sir Richard Sutton on account of his breeding fancied him, but Dover was never sweet on him until just before the Doncaster meeting. Lord Lyon may be put down as the worst horse that ever won the treble, and all connected with him were well pleased when he weighed- in and won by a head from the unlucky Savanake for the Derby and St. Leger. The other two were as perfect brutes as ever faced the starter, only going when they liked. With regard to early racing of two-year-olds you may get some that it does not hurt, if in the hands of a good trainer, with proper ground to work upon, and last, but not least, a jockey that knows how to ride a young one, and we must say there are very few of them in New Zealand.