Sporting Review. THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1893.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume III, Issue 150, 8 June 1893, Page 4

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1893.

In our last issue we indicated generally our opinions as to the resolutions adopted by the delegates of Auckland and Country Suburban Hubs who met on the 30th ult. The crowded state of our columns last week would not permit of our discussing the proposals at the length we should like to have gone to, so we will now take up our parable and proceed to examine them more closely.

The question of the basis of voting power at future Conferences is of course the crucial one. With the main points of Mr Ormond’s scheme in this direction the country and suburban delegates were in accord, and they did not trench on the functions he proposes to confer on the Metropolitan Clubs of each district, but they made some slight alterations as regards the voting poWer for some of the country clubs. Mr Ormond proposed that “ the voting at Conferences should be taken on the following basis The Auckland Racing Club, Canterbury Jockey Club, and Dunedin Jockey Club, three votes each ; the Wellington Racing Club, Hawke’s Bay Jockey Club, and Wanganui Jockey Club, two votes each ; the Taranaki Jockey Club, Greymouth Jockey Club, Marlborough Racing Club, and Nelson Jockey Club, one vote each ; the combined country clubs of the Auckland, Otago, Canterbury, Wellington and Hawke’s Bay districts, two votes each ; and the combined country clubs of the Wanganui and Taranaki Districts, one vote each.” The Conference suggested an amendment in this so that the combined country clubs of Auckland, Canterbury, and Dunedin districts should have three votes each ; the combined country clubs of the Wellington, Hawke’s Bay, and Wanganui districts, two votes each ; and the combined country clubs of the Taranaki district, one vote. This means that the Metropolitan Clubs’ voting power is ig and the country clubs’ 16, as compared with 19 for Metropolitan Clubsand 13 for country clubs under Mr Ormond’s scheme. When the number and the status of the country clubs in the Auck-

land, Canterbury, and Dunedin districts is taken into consideration we do not think that the three vote proposal is out of the way, while, on the other hand, the small clubs under the jurisdiction of the Grevmouth, Nelson and Marlborough Jockey Clubs—three very small Metropolitan Clubs—are so insignificant as not to deserve a vote if that vote serves to exclude in any way or to act to the detriment of the legitimate country clubs that are to be found in strong force in both Auckland, Canterbury and Otago. As we have said this question of voting power is the crucial one, and.it is one with which we doubt not the country and suburban clubs summoned to the Conference at Ashburton this month will deal very carefully. So, too, will the Metropolitan Clubs when instructing their delegates what attitude to assume at the next Metropolitan Clubs’ Conference. We fancy that the meeting last week cut the Gordian knot in the most satisfactory way ; that they have in their proposals given no undue prominence to the interests of the country and suburban clubs as compared to those of the Metropolitan Clubs, and we hope to see their proposals adopted and made the basis of voting power at all future Conferences.

In this connetion it is interesting to know that the question was tackled by Mr Stead in the report delivered by him as hon. treasurer to the annual meeting of the Canterbury Jockey Club’s members last week. Now, if we mistake not, Mr Stead—than whom there are few shrewder level-headed racing men in the colony—was for a long time utterly opposed to anything that would abate one jot of the Metropolitan Club’s power — in faet he was ever a staunch stickler for the arbitrary ruling of Metropolitan Clubs, holding almost that they had a right to be as autocratic as the Czar of Russia. But he has evidently, like a sensible man. observed the “handwriting on the wall,” and thus it comes about that in his report to the C.J.C. ‘ he says :

Members are doubtless aware that at the next Conference of the Metropolitan Clubs a resolution will be proposed in the direction of providing for the representation of country clubs at future Conferences. As this is a subject of some importance members may possibly wish to give an expression of opinion upon it. So far as I can judge, there are no grave reasons way the country clnbs should not be represented; The Metropolitan Clubs have no other object in view than the good government and proper control of racing, and if the country clubs can and will assist in framing more perfect rules than those now in use, and will assist in restricting the undue amount of racing carried on in New Zealand, then there can be little doubt the Metropolitan Clubs will only be too glad to have the cooperation and assistance of the representatives of their country friends.

It was probably only an oversight that in No. 4 of Mr Ormond’s proposals no provision was made for notice being given to the country clvbq of any proposed amendments or alterations. His proposal reads that “ Delegates representing not less than five. Metropolitan Clubs shall form a, quorum.” This the Conference amended, so that the word “ Metropolitan ” was struck out and the following words added after the word “clubs”: — “Either Metropolitan or country.” . • ',

The voting power clause was a most crucial one, but another question that naturally caused a lot of discussion was that of expenses of delegates to Conferences. Delegates lare but ordinary mortals, and their tastes will differ when it comes to a question of expenses. Hitherto we think we are correct in saying that most of the Metropolitan Clubs, if not all, have voted lump sums to their delegates, and fine holidays some of these have had at times when the business transacted at these Conferences have been practically nil. This sort of thing would never suit the finances of some of the country clubs, and it was pretty generally understood as the wish of last week’s meeting that a delegate should simply be allowed his bare travelling expenses and his hotel bill. How to get together a fund to defray these necessary expenses was a question that involved a lot of consideration, but eventually it was arrived at —and, we think, satisfactorily—in this way : —Each club that holds three meetings during the racing vear is to pay an annual fee of £3, each club holding two meetings a year £2, and each club holding one meeting a year £l, excepting those who, while holding one meeting, do not use the totalisator. and these clubs will be let off with a fee of 10s. This will make up a tidy little fund to work on, and it must be remembered that in addition to the expenses of sending a delegate to the Metropolitan Clubs’ Con-

ference, there will be minor expenses attached to these Conferences of country and suburban clubs in the shape of providing stationery, stamps, printing, etc., while some remuneration will in all fair ness have to be made to the secretary for his time and trouble. . r r.

Clause i i of Mr Ormond’s proposals too did not deal with the powers of the country and suburban clubs to levy any fee for expenses of their delegates, but only gave that power to the Metropolitan Clubs, and it was therefore just as well that last week’s Conference gaye effect to their ideas on the subject in such a practical manner, thus showing that while they claimed their right to certain representation at Conferences they were at the same time willing and anxious to bear a fair share of the expenses attaching thereto.

These being all, the Hon. J. D. Ormond’s proposals-—with the exception of those re the Stud Book— the meeting passed on to other business, and the first thing that engaged their attention was a resolution which the committee of the Auckland Racing Club have intimated their intention of bringing before the next Conference. This resolution reads: That no delegate should be elected to attend a Conference who represents proprietary clubs or who is financially interested in any club. Last week’s Conference suggested that “ the clause should not be carried as it is both unreasonable and unjust.” They might have gone further and said that it is ambiguous. On what lines or by what method are the Metropolitan Clubs or the members of any Conference going to decide whether a delegate represents proprietary clubs ? What is to be the definition of a “proprietary club” for the purposes of the enforcement of this rule ? And furthermore hovr when a delegate has been chosen by a club or clubs are the rest of the members of the Conference going to declare that he is not a fit and proper person to sit with them ? Are they going of their own motion to disfranchise the club or clubs which he represents ? The proposal seems to us to be unworkable. And then there is the other part of the proposal which, as we said above, is ambiguous. What is the definition of a delegate “financially interested in any club ?” Does this apply to the secretary and the paid officials ? We know of several instances, too, in which members of committee of some of our .acing bodies are financially interested in such bodies in that they have become part guarantors at the bank for an overdraft to enable their club to erect a grandstand or make certain alterations and improvements to the course and club’s enclosures. Some years ago, too, we remember that certain members of the Canterbury Jockey Club went guarantee to the bank for the money required to enable them to complete the branch line of railway to their- course. Was not each of these gentlemen, when they had so become guarantee, “financially interested in the club ? We should think so. And yet it seems to us that if the present proposal of the Auckland Racing Club be carried any gentleman in a similar position would be debarred from sitting as a delegate at a Confererce. We hope this proposal will not be entertained by the next Metropolitan Clubs’ Conference.

Tuesday’s Conference struck out a novel and somewhat startling line when it affirmed its opinion that it should be empowered to elect at least two representatives as members of the committee of the Metropolitan Club. The resolution is not clear on the subject, but we understand that what is intended is that the representatives so appointed shall not take part in all the deliberations of the Metropolitan Clubs’ committee, but only those which touch on questions affecting the Rules of Racing or the. conduct of the sport generally. But even with this reservation we think the posal goes too far altogether. We presume that in common courtesy the secretary of the Metropolitan Club would notify the secretary to the country and suburban clubs’ Conference wheneverany business affecting those clubs, the Rules of Racing, or the business at future Confferences, was to be brought before .the Metropolitan Club’s committee, and there would then be an opportunity for the country clubs to appoint someone to interview the Metropolitan Clubs with any suggestions that might be thought necessary. But to want “at leasC’n two representatives on the Metropolitan Club’s committee is to. ask too much

ottV? opinion. The country and suburban clnbs 'will do very well if they get the representation they seek at future Conferences, and having got that they must hbfgo to unnecessary lengths. They wiif overreach themselves if they do.

The Auckland Racing Club intend at the next Conference of Metropolitan Clubs to move in the direction of altering the ..stake money limit in Rule 22 so as to bring it back to the figures that were in force before the last alteration. Last week’s conference also affirmed the desirability of altering the stake money limit. We have so often expressed our . opinion that the present scale presses harshly on legitimate country clubs that we'need not at present go into the whole question. We hope at any rate to see the next Conference make some reasonable modifications in the tariff, and thus give a chance to several struggling country clubs against whom no plea of pjrp.prietary ?’ interests can be urged. In Auckland, Canterbury, and Otago particularly are there several of these well conducted institutions which the present scale of added money has played sad havoc with. The rescinding of Rule 23 whereby a club has to give away in stakes a sum equivalent to the net amount received in commission out of the totalisator at the corresponding meeting of the previous season was considered ' unnecessary by those present at last week’s Conference, but we must say that we look upon it as one of the most wholesome rilles in the whole code. If clubs are to continue to have the totalisator there must be some kind of check placed upon its use and administration, and in this respect Rule 23 is—or at least should be—a safeguard. Unfortunately, we aie sorry to say, on some occasions it has not been strictly conformed to, and if it contihues in force, as we sincerely hope it Will, secretaries of Metropolitan Clubs ' should, when such clubs are passing programmes, see that Rule 23 is complied with.

We were quite prepared to see the much vexed pony question trotted out at last week’s meeting, and so it was, and it took the form of this resolution :— ■ race meetings exclusively for ponies ’"‘ Tie permitted to be run in any Metropolitan district during a racing season, only one of such nieetings to be run on any course, the dates of such meetings and programmes to be submitted and approved by the Metropolitan Club. The amount of added money at any such meeting to be not less than These four pony race meetings will, of course, be altogether independent of the clubs’ ordinary meetings, and it is intended that the money given at them shall not count in the season’s added .money. This will, it seems to us, be introducing the thin end of the wedge in the direction of holding pony racing all over the country. There is no doubt that pony racing, looked at from the point of view of nominations, acceptances, and ; totalisator commission, is exceedingly remunerative to any club that brings off races for the lilliputians, and therefore we shall, if the proposal be passed in its present shape, be quite prepared to see a general scramble among some clubs for . suitable dates. And which four clubs are to be the chosen ones to have the meetings in each district ? This will be a beautiful problem for the Metropolitan Club in each district to decide without giving offence We have frequently pointed -out the anomalous position in which pony racing now stands and the attitude in connection therewith assumed by the different Metropolitan Clubs. It is high . time some definite ruling on the subject was given by these Metropolitan Clubs, and they can easily do so when they meet at the next Conference. In the Auckland district pony racing is at present confined to Potter’s Paddock, and is run in conjunction with trotting, but the trainersi and jockeys taking part therein come under the ban of the Metropolitan Club. We do not see why this pony racing should not continue, and the Auckland Racing Club allow their registered jockeys to ride at such meetings and the trainers to train ponies if they be so minded. The fact of it is, put in a few words, that there is some jealousy in local circles at Potter’s Paddock having the monopoly of the pony racing here, but as long as the Auckland Trotting Club conduct their operations and spend

their money in as legitimate and liberal as they have done we see no teason why they should not continue in the possession of the monopoly. , , ——

JAnother motion brought up at the Conference was that affirming the desirability df altering Rule 169. This rule deals

with jockeys’ fees and for some time past there has been a feeling among owners in the Auckland district —whatever feeling may exist in other parts of the colonies—that jockeys are none too well paid. Rule 169 provides that

In the absence of special agreement the fee to a winning jockey shall ba 5 per cent, upon the net amount received by the owner up to and 2J per cent, additional for all moneys over that sum provided that in no case shall a winning jockey receive less than £3. The fee to a losing jockey shall be' in any race up to j£ioo, up andfor any race over that amount. In hurdle races and steeplechases double these fees will be allowed.

Rule 170, following this out, says that in the absence of special agreement a jockey’s retainer cannot be terminated otherwise than by a three months’ notice in writing on either side.” What is the “ special agreement” referred to in both these rules ? That is the vexed question with owners, and one which the Metropolitan Clubs will have to decide at a very early date.

We mentioned in a previous issue that there was a lot of dissatisfaction expressed in Sydney about fees owing to jockeys being in arrears, and we doubt not that several jockeys in New Zealand have had to put up with a similar experience. But in Australia they go straight to the fountain head in matters like that, and thus the Sydney correspondent of the Melbourne Sportsman reports that

For some considerable time past there has been dissatisfaction in the ranks of the jockeys in the metropolis regarding their riding fees. The boys who ride for the ponymongers are the worst off in every respect. It may not be credited, perhaps, but I am acquainted with one of the successful riders of the little ’uns, who is owed considerably over for mounts. Riding has become such a mania with our little nippers, who, by the way, should be at school, that trainers of ponies have no difficulty in obtaining the services of youngsters who are able to ride work, and who are also capable of riding a stiff ’un. The services of a horseman” are only engaged when a clever piece of shunting has to be done, or when the little neddy has been backed to win a fair stake. To ride losers without being paid for it is bad enough, but when it comes to steering a winner, and then no dividend to be forthcoming, well, it is carrying the little game a bit too far. The same unsatisfactory stete of things exists witb the boys who ride “ big” horses, only not to the same extent. With a view of altering the abuse, the jockeys licensed by the A.J.C. presented a petition to the committee of the leading club asking that body to legislate in some way so that riding fees could be collected, say, at scale. On May 18 the committee of the Australian Jockey Club held a lengthy sitting to consider the matter. Those who signed the petition were examined, and have been requested to forward a written statement of the amounts owing to them, and the names of the persons in default.

The Auckland Racing Club’s committee held a meeting on Monday, when they were approached by the delegates elected by last week’s Conference to interview them. The answer given to the delegates was that time would be given to the consideration of their side of the case, and that the committee would meet on Thursday (this) afternoon and give them an answer.

Previous to the meeting of the Auckland Racing Club’s committee we had penned the article appearing above as regards the ambiguity of the resolution “ that no delegate should be elected to attend a Conference who represents proprietary clubs or who is financially interested in any club.” The Auckland Racing Club’s committee evidently recognising that the proposal was somewhat ambiguous, amended their resolution on Monday to this effect: — That no delegate shall shall be elegible who represents a club whose profits are divisable among the members thereof. With this we cordially agree, but why did the Auckland Racing Club’s committee take so long to make up their mind about the question ?

The Auckland Racing Club’s committee have also made a proposition to the Metropolitan Clubs’ Conference which will involve a lot of discussion. They propose to amend Rules 38 and 39, which as they at present stand read :— Rule 38. —No horse shall carry less than 6.7 in any handicap on the flat, or 9.0 in any Handicap Hurdle Race, or 9.7 in any Handicap Steeplechase. Rule 39. —At any meeting held on any date from June I to the Ist of September the lowest weight in any race on the flat shall not be less than 10.0. The Auckland Racing Club propose that Rule 38 is be amended so as to read that “ no horse shall carry less than 7.0 in any handicap race on the flat,” and Rule 39 to be amended so as to read that “ at any meeting held on any date from the Ist of June to the 1 st of September, the lowest weight in any race on the flat shall not be less than 9.0.” In

this direction we are in thorough accord with the Auckland Racing Club, but we must express our dissent from their proposal about the minimum in ordinary handicaps. We have always held that a handicapper’s hands should not be tied at all. In England the minimum used to be 5.7. We are not advocating such a minimum scale being adopted in this colony, nor do we believe in an introduction of the old rule whereby if the highest weight accepting in a handicap was under 8.12 the top weight accepting was raised to that impost, and the others accordingly. If a handicapper is worth employing surely he can be relied upon to exercise his own discretion.

We never could see exactly why the Metropolitan Clubs should declare that “ close ” season for flat racing during the winter months, and therefore we hope the Auckland Racing Club will carry their proposal to decrease the minimum weight to 9.0. A stone more —as under the present rule —is a serious “ anchor ” to a good many horses.