Sporting Review. THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1894.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IV, Issue 208, 19 July 1894, Page 4

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1894.

Through the courtesy of Mr Freeman R. Jackson, the secretary of the Wanganui Jockey Club, we are enabled to publish in another column the annual report and balance-sheet to be presented to the members of the Club at the annual meeting on July 27th. As will be seen by the figures published elsewhere the club is in a very sound position. The total receipts amount to £4,796 16s Id, and the decrease as compared with the previous year, when the figures stood at £5,005 0s 3d, is occasioned mainly by the totalisator tax being paid out of the commission instead of being found by the public as formerly. A firm check has apparently been kept in the matter of expenditure, with the result that the year’s operations result in a credit balance of £192 16s 10 The invested fund, which formerly stood at £750 has been increased to £lOOO, and in the report mention is made of the unsuccessful effort that, was made in the direction of boring an artesian well. This experiment resulted in a loss of £64 13s 9d.

Considering how well managed the Wanganui Jockey Club is, we must compliment them on obtaining that excellent result at a very moderate expenditure. According to the balance-sheet Mr Freeman Jackson, the secretary, is remunerated at the rate of £lOO a year, at which figure, by the way, he stands side by side with the handicapper. If the latter gentleman’s services be worth the sum mentioned, the secretary cannot be said to be overburdened in the way of remuneration. We have a different style up Auckland way, where.the handicapper does not receive one third of the secretary’s salary. However, Mr Jackson knows his own business best, but as we before remarked we must congratulate the Wanganui Jockey Club upon obtaining the excellent results they do in the secretarial department for a very modest expenditure.

Tetford has gone the way of all horseflesh, and the cause of his death is set down as inflammation of the bowels. He was well bred enough for anything, and although a fast mover when on the race track, he was a terribly unlucky horse. He was got by Musket from Pungawerawera, by Golden Grape from Atalanta, by the imported Towton from Crescent, by Sir Hercules. letford’s dam’s sire, Golden Grape, was by Barnton, an own brother to Voltigeui, whose descendants, Galopin and St. Simon, are amongst England’s most fashionable sires. When on the turf Tetford won amongst other races the Wanganui Cup, running the two miles in jmin 57 i-sth sec, and the Wanganui Stakes, his time for the mile and a half zmin 44sec. At Ellerslie he won the Victoria Handicap, one mile and a distance, carrying 8.10 in 1 min 58|sec. In that race he met wellbred horses, amongst the defeated contingent being Antelope, Tamora, Balista, Bangle, and Friendship. It was Mr Bobbett who first bought Tetford, and when making the purchase he was undecided whether he should take Tetford or another colt. Eventually he decided on Tetford, and the other colt was none other than the great Trenton I That’s so like the beautiful uncertainty of the Turf and its connections.

Racing people can once more breathe freely, for Sir Robert Stout’s Gaming Bill has been shelved for twelve months. Clubs can now draw up their programmes in peace, and while no doubt retrenchment will be the order of the day, owing to the future being so uncertain, we are glad to see that the Canterbury Jockey Club have not been frightened, but have increased their stakes by 2"55°- We like to see a similar policy pursued up North, but we very much doubt such a state of things coming to pass. Curtailment will, we feel certain, be tne order instead of extension. To a z great extent we must express approval of Sir Robert Stout’s measure, for it has a very desirable provision which would make it an offence to bet with or invite an (C infant” to bet or sell a tptalisator ticket to such persons. Laying totalisator odds would also be made a punishable act, and such a provision would prevent the existence of that curse of Australia, betting shops. But when we come to clause 5 of the Southern knight’s Bill we must certainly withdraw our support. This reads, “ It shall not be lawful for the Colonial Secretary to grant in any one year more than fifty licenses, authorising the use of the totalisator, and every such license shall state the number of days on which the totalisator may be used by the club to which such license is granted, and such number shall not exceed in any one year seventy-five days. As a Southern contemporary points out, the legislative knight appears to have gone slightly amiss (as we say in the racing world) in drawing up this clause, for it certainly reads that each of the fifty clubs licensed may use the totalisator on not mote than 75 occasions ! That would ceitainly suit the most exacting club. The error to which we allude would of course be repaired if the bill were passed. But Sir Robert Stout really wishes to reform too speedily. There is no doubt that there is a little too much racing in the colony, but if only fifty licenses were issued, and only seventy-five race days allowed the country people who regard their races as an annual holidays would be very unfairly treated. The rights of the Metropolitan Clubs with their expensive holdings, etc., would have to be respected, and we are afraid the small fry would receive scant justice. Take the six principal clubs, the C.J.C., A.R.C., D.J.C., H.8.J.C., W.R.C., and the W.J.C. They had last season

forty-five days’ racing; other principal but not Metropolitan Clubs had about 40 days racing, and the remaining small clubs brought the total to about 300 days. To fairly divide 75 days between all those clubs would hardly be practicable. Let there be a reduction in the present amount of racing, but let moderation- attend the reformer’s councils. Such drastic measures as the one under notice only defeat their own object.

A Victorian horseowner, Mr Crass welter, writes to the Australasian in favour of the totalisator, and in the course of his letter he puts forward some strong argument on behalf of the machine. The main objection of those who regard the totalisator with eyes of disfavour is that it will entirely do away with the Ring and compel those who feed and train horses to come in on exactly the same level as the racing public. In answer to this Mr Crassweller points to the existence of the rich French bookmakers betting side by side with the parimutuel and to the fact that the English pencillers make a regular practice of visiting all the big meetings in the neighbourhood of the French capital. They don’t go over for pleasure or for the beauty of the Channel passage, therefore the writer quoted argues theygo over to make mondy, and if they could not profitably fight against the machine they would stay at home. Their presence shows that in a land where the machine is a firmly established institution owners are not required to take the same price as the public. Mr Crassweller points out that one of the greatest objections to the present system of Victorian betting is the absolute impossibility of obtaining anything like a fair outside price, and the answer of the Ringmen to this is, of course, that they get so little support that it is quite impossible to lay long prices with any hope of getting round in their books. Some of Mr Crassweller’s otner arguments in favour of the machine are as follows :— The impossibility of getting anything out of a ‘dead ’un,’ and the consequent absence of motive for giving losing orders ; the fact of so large a portion of the percentage taken by the machine being utilised for the increase of stakes and the consequent encouragement and improvement of racing. To quote Mr Crassweller To my mind nothing is more certain than that the totalisator would diminish gambling, if only for the reason that by causing so many of the small bookmakers to forsake their calling the temptation offered to bet would be so much less, and that because the machine cannot solicit. Mechanical ingenuity has not yet reached such a pitch as to render possible the construction of & totalisator capable of perambulating the paddock, and copying those dulcet tones with which all racegoers are so well acquainted, persuasively begging of the passer-by to back the ‘ little double.’ The machine is stationary. It is only to be found in one place, and that place the racecourse, and no one will be tempted to use it who doesn’t go to see the races and who is not prepared to gamble. And then, again, no credit is given, and so that stock excuse urged by dishonest clerks and shopmen, generally, I believe, without any basis in fact, that they were induced to, rob their employers because they had got involved in gambling transactions, will be entirely taken away so far as betting on the machine is concerned.” The clerical party will of course be opposed to the machine, but to show that even the church is not averse to gambling the writer quoted alludes to “ Parson King,” one of the best beloved of English clergyman and a man whose success on the English Turf is celebrated in the old country. This cleric won the One Thousand, Oaks and Leger in 1874 with Apology, and when he died his demise rendered void the nomination of a leading favourite for the Derby of 1875 —Holy Friar. Why betting should be forbidden when every man gambles more or less is what Mr Crassweller cannot understand. As he remarks, a man willingly accepts the odds of £lOOO to £2 ! about his furniture being destroyed by fire and cheerfully takes the enormous price of £lOOO to Is. that he will be smashed up on a railway journey. Yet the same man would probably shrink with holy horror from betting on the speed of a horse. Churchmen who advocate bazaars and anathemise racing and betting lay themselves open to a big charge of narrowmindedness and inconsistency.

Another champion of the machine has sprung up on the other side in the shape of The Australasian, and now. that that.

powerful journal has taken up the cudgels on behalf of the machine we may regard its Victorian prospects as being very considerably improved. The journal in question asserts that it has always believed that the totalisator had advantages over the bookmakers for those who will bet which render it worthy of being adopted on all racecourses.* The fact that it gives a backer the exact odds as determined by public opinion at the start of a race is, of course, seized upon by our contemporary as a strong argument in the machine’s favour < and stress is laid on the fact that under its working no money can be got out of a non-trier, and that clubs receive a revenue which they can devote to racing stakes. The big value of the machine is held to be that it builds up prizes for owners Keeping a racehorse is within the reach of many men, provided there are big prizes •to be sought after, and the possibility of getting your money on at an outside chance is a further inducement to men to run horses. The main argument against the totalisator is that it would weaken the Ring, and so deal a blow to the Turf. This is the view held by the machine’s leading Victorian opponent, a large owner and breeder, and this view of the case is dealt with as under by the Australasian : “ This gentleman asserts that England’s greatness from a racing point of view is due mainly to the money power of her bookmakers. Without a strong ring you cannot, he says, attract the best horses, and he affirms with great earnestness that once the totalisator becomes law the glories of Flemington will depart. The main object of the 1 strong ring ’ in this connection is, of course, to supply the wants of a few owners who may require huge amounts about their horses. To begin with, we doubt very much if the totalisator would decrease the ' strength' of the ring. We think, on the other hand, that it would reduce its numbers but increase its betting power. The ring of ten years ago, • when there were not half as many bookmakers, was, we think, much stronger than the ring of to-day. This is a fact easy of demonstration.” Another argument used against the machine by Victorians is that it would bring down the price of yearlings and thus discourage breeders. Our contemporary, after remarking that prices could not be worse than they are now, contends that the totalisator would, if anything, improve, the price of blood stock. It holds the idea that the machine would bring more owners into the sport, consequently there would be more buyers and keener competition. And respecting the Charge that the machine would popularise gambling, attention is drawn to the fact that while the machine never bets in less than half-sovereigns, Melbourne bookmakers can be found by the score anxious to bet in shillings and half-crowns. It is very evident the cause of the machine is steadily advancing in Victoria, and its adoption in that colony is, as we have always argued, only a matter of time.