Sporting review. THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1894. NOTICE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume V, Issue 210, 2 August 1894, Page 4

Sporting review. THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1894. NOTICE.

-■ ——— As complaints have been received from Southern subscribers respecting coupons sent by them being adjudged informal through reaching the office more than fourteen days after the issue of the paper > containing the coupon, the Proprietor has decided that for the future all coupons bearing a South Island postmark will be allowed three weeks’ grace. The Proprietor. ■ '

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ! __=? The speeches delivered by the people’s representatives in Parliament during the B discussion on the totalisator and Sir Robert Stout’s Gaming Bill, and reported in Hansard, are very interesting, and serve to show What extremists are the people’who oppose the machine. Mr " W. Hutchinson, who introduced the motion for the abolition of the totalisator, opened fire by denouncing the machine as a blot upon our legislation. The conversion of it into an instrument for j the. purposes of public revenue went one worse/so the hon. gentleman affirmed, and vas, “ without putting too fine a

point upon it,' a disgrace to us as colonists.” The thing is a further disgrace to us,'he says, for not content,with giving pur approval to “an instrumentality essentially favourable to vice, we stoop to share a portion of the wretched spoil.” One of the hon. gentleman’s points was that whereas there is honour amongst thieves there is none in the jockey clubs, for they do not. he declares, deal honestly with the Government, their confederate in the plunder. He says the Government never contemplated that their. per cent, should be taken from the gamblers but from the io per cent, of the clubs. Yet he is. astonished and pained to find that it is taken from the gamblers for the most part, even after a distinct remonstrance from the Government. Gambling, Mr Hutchinson says, is the national curse and craze of New Zealanders, and all the opponents of the machine echo the charge. Considering that New Zealanders are all blighted with the gambling curse, that it is part and parcel of New Zealanders existence, it is really astonishing to find the moral men we have to represent us. Of course all the members who craved the machine’s abolition confessed to having no experience of gambling —“ thank God, they had never speculated on the machine”— but for all that they professed to be well posted,up in the fearful fascination and machinations of the accursed “ tote.”

Mr. Hutchinson was willing to agree with the argument that if the machine were abolished the bookmaker would return in full force; but such reasoning he holds is beside the question. The principal duty of the House was to get rid of all complicity with the evil itself. Legislation, he declares, has scotched bookmaking in South Australia; but let us ask how has it done that ? Simply by introducing the totalisator and cutting the ground from under the bookmakers feet. Mr Geo. Russell had some very sensible remarks to make when he declared himself in favour of the machine. He asked wha£ would be the effect of its abolition, and answered the query by asserting that in all our towns there would be gambling hells started. Gambling would exist despite legislation, was his argument, and as it could not be exterminated the best thing was to regulate it. Mr Carncross, who was one of the machine’s advocates, asserted that the people who were at the head of the anti-totalisator agitation were the bookmakers. It was the bookmakers in Dunedin who put questions to candidates as to whether they were in favour of its abolition, and Captain Russell sup ported his hon. friend by stating that one of the men who asked him his views on the subject at the. hustings was a penciller. The best argument against the agitation was supplied by Mr Carncross. He certainly made a strong point when he pointed out that the anti-machinists —to coin an expression—argued that the totalisator was the cause of so much racing in New Zealand, and then went on to ask—what about Victoria ? As he pointed out, Victoria is the sporting country par excellence —they have race meetings every day of the year there—and yet there is no totalisator 1 He was not ftr out of it when he declared that the taking away of the totalisator would simply result in races all over the country for the smallest imaginable stakes. And Captain Russell was quite on the mark when he affirmed that gambling in bank and gold shares was no better than gambling on a racecourse. And he might have stated further that the man who takes /iooo to 2s 6d that he will be killed on a railway journey is just as bad as a man who backs a certain horse’s speed.

Sir Robert Stout, in introducing the Gaming Bill, showed his hand pretty plainly. In his introductory remarks he asserted that he did not mean to altogether abolish the machine, but before he finished he remarked: “ Help me to get this amendment, and perhaps in time we shall be able to get a bill to abolish it altogether I” Exactly, his little bill is only the thin end of the wedge. Mr Lawry evidently knew the intentions of the would-be moralists, for he asserted in his speech that if the bill were passed the machine would be as dead as a door nail. And he is not far out. In one part of Captain Russell’s speech he made a most absurd statement, and one that has been taken up by the local Press, a body that certainly should have been aware of the hon. gentleman’s absurd charge. He gravely asserted that one firm of bookmakers had made no less a sum than./' 14,000 from the public in the same time that “ the principal jockey club on East Coast of the North

Island (the H.B.J.C. we presume) had made £ 1 3,000.” Then the hon. gentleman asked what was the relative evil. To say that one bookmaking firm made that sum while the H.B.J.C. was making /’iooo less is simply moonshine and wild talk. To show what audaciously wild statements the hon. captain makes, mention need only be made of his allegation that “ for every penny that goes on the legitimate totalisator £ 1 goes to the private totalisator shops, and/' 10 through the pockets of the bookmaker.” What rank rubbish 1 Our contemporary, the Canterbury Tinies, seizes on this deliciously wild statement and points out that Captain Russell’s statement implies that £\80,748,800 was handled by the proprietors of the betting shops last year, and that the unwieldly sum of £1, 809,488,000 passed through the pockets of the bookmakers 1 We wonder how the hon. captain feels when he sees those absurd figures in the cold print of Hansard. Mr Thompson, while willing to discourage gambling as much as possible, pointed out that clause 5 of the bill simply covered a stealthy attempt to create a monopoly for the large centres of the colony—that is to prevent the use of the totalisator except by the wealthy jockey clubs of the colony. An interjection by Sir R. Stout that he did not mean that, was answered by Mr Thompson asserting that his bill certainly meant that. He reminded the House that the very fact of the member for Hawke’s Bay so ardently supporting the measure was quite sufficient to arouse the attention of every member who represented a country district where small race meetings were held. If clause 5 were passed he asserted there would be an end to all race meetings outside the large centres. Clause 5 was simply a cunningly devised trap.

Mr Lawry was very warm in his support of the machine, the abolition of which he contended simply meant inviting the appearance of hordes of Australian spielers. While it is evident from his speech that the hon. gentleman prefers the machine to the bookmaker he is apparently no shrieking denouncer of local pencillers, for he went out of his way to assert that our metallicians compare with the Australian ones as angels do to fiends And to one local layer he paid a very high compliment. A statement on his part that he had the privilege of knowing an Auckland bookmaker raised a chorus of “ Oh’s 1” from hon. members, at which Mr Lawry said : “ Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but I venture to say that any honorable gentleman in this House would be glad to call that bookmaker his friend. He has been a neighbour of mine for years. He is a man who has never gone back on his word, whose personal honour is above reproach, whose word would be taken by every man, woman or child in the provincial district of Auckland. I appeal to the honourable member for Eden when I say that the man I' am speaking of is Robert Blaikie, and ask him if he does not deserve all I say of him ” A very high compliment indeed this, and one we are confident is well deserved. Mr Lawry pointed out very truly that there was another phase of the totalisator question that had not been touched on by hon. members. He asked if his brother members who were in favour of the destroyal of the machine realised the enormous amount of money that was at stake. He asked Sir Robert Stout if he had read of the annual sales of blood stock in Auckland, where men have given their two thousand guineas for a colt in order to enter him in due time for a cup, the Derby, or some other great race. “ Abolish the totalisator,” argued Mr Lawry, “ and the colt that is worth a few thousands to-day is not worth in New Zealand more than 500 guineas to-mor-row ; because the value of the stakes to be run for will be so much less in consequence.” If there be no big New Zealand turf prizes New Zealanders will not bid high for yearlings, and then there will be no necessity for Australian Horderns to leave one or two thousand guineas behind them in New Zealand. And the same argument meets the belief that with the downfall of the machine New Zealand racing will contract into limits which will be considered small enough for our parliamentary purists. Racing would not contract; on the contrary it would extend. Owners of blood stock could not let their animals stand still eating their heads off, and racing clubs with their expensive holdings could not meet their bank overdrafts if their meetings were cut down by one half. Throw out the totalisator and what will it mean ? Simply the reappearance of the bookmakers, a periodical descent of Australian pencillers, and a general in-

crease in the number of race meetings at which the stake money will be lowered to the lowest possible limit. There is ho totalisator in Victoria, yet they race there every day of the year I Kill the totalisa-. tor here and we will be soon in a similar position.

A candid friend of the- Nelson Jockey Club has arisen in the shape of the Marlborough Daily Times, which journal has recently indulged in some very plain talking respecting the club in “question. After addressing the club as an institution that is unable to keep up with the times, and stigmatising the committee as a body blessed with the least common sense, least idea of equity and justice, and least knowledge of racing rules, our contem porary dashes into a fervid attack on the club in connection with the Jenny case. It will be remembered that at the last autumn meeting of the Nelson Club a mare called Jenny won a trotting race and a protest was entered by the owner of the second horse on the ground that the winner was on the unpaid forfeit list. As a matter of fact, the Times asserts, Jenny was placed on the unpaid forfeit list some days after she was nominated for the event at Nelson for an amount of 15s due to the Wairio Jockey Club. “ The owner took immediate steps (writes the Times') to have her name removed, and the amount was paid to the Dunedin Jockey Club on April 10th, two days before the race at Nelson was run. Thus Jenny was not on the black list when nominated or when competing for the event in question. The Nelson Jockey Club, however, took the absurd and mon strous view that the ma r e ■■ ’indei disqualification, not from the : she placed on the unpaid for’eil lis’. but from the date of the i t .ne Wairio Jockey C'.;' u e .an.C.'ab asking that her _ thereon. What confident ; can put in a club of such pecui - aeas it would be hard to say, but for their own credit sake and for the good of the sport itself the committee should meet again and discuss the matter. Surely they cannot have understood the facts of the case.” On these grounds we must admit the Nelson people appear to have come to a wrong decision in awarding the stakes to the owner of the second horse. The secretary of the DunedinJockeyClub.it appears, informed the Nelson people that the default of the owner of Jenny had been made good two days before the acceptances closed. That being so, the mare was eligible when nominated, and when she ran her qualification was undoubted, as the fact of her name not having been removed from the list was not due to a fault of her owner. The Times winds up its onslaught as follows:—“ The Nelson Jockey Club are becoming looked upon rather with suspicion by racing men in general because of their peculiar and unaccountable decisions on matters which they have proved themselves utterly incapable of giving fair and unbiassed consideration.” Without going so far as that, we must, under the circumstances, support the suggestion of our contemporary that the Nelson people should meet again and discuss the matter.

An interesting return showing the number of totalisator licenses granted to Metropolitan and country clubs in the colony during the year 1892-93, and which are affected by Sir Robert Stout’s Gaming Bill, has been supplied from Wellington. From this it appears that the Dunedin Metropolitan Club heads the list with five meetings which resulted in eleven days’ racing. Auckland comes next with five meetingsand ten days’racing; and Canterbury is third on the list with four meetings and eight days’ racing. WeL lington has four meetings, and seven days’ racing, and Hawke’s Bay has four meetings and one days’ racing less than Wellington. The other centres have the following figures : — Wanganui, three meetings and five days’ racing; Greymouth, two meetings and four days’, racing; Taranaki, two meetings and three days’ racing; and Marlborough and Nelson, one meeting and two days’ racing / each. In the matter of country racing, Dunedin tops the list with forty-three meetings and fifty-two days’ racing; * Auckland is second with thirty-two meetings and forty days’ racing; and Canterbury comes third with thirty meetings;and thirty-seven days’ racing. The grand total for all the clubs shows that 200 meetings were held resulting in 266 days’ racing. For 1893-94 the totals were 181 meetings and 242 days’ racing. A returnshowing the amount of the percentages paid to the Treasury from the investments on the totalisator in the several Provincial Districts of the colony respeo-

<• ■ -.. ,■■■.•.,■ . ■ • ■■. tively for the year from April 1 st, 1892, to March 31st, 1893, makes the total revenue out to be £IO,BOO Ils 9d. Wellington contributed £2,509 5s 9d, Canterbury £2,129 Is Bd, Auckland £1,897 18s ss, Otago £1,586 13s 4d, Hawke’s Bay £1,425 9s Bd, Taranaki £449 15s sd, Southland £303 6s, Westland £342 ss, Nelson £lO6 4s lOd, and Marlborough £SO Ils Bd.

A report of the Conference of racing delegates held in Wellington to consider the Gaming Bill shows that a resolution was passed asking Mr McLean to endeavour to have the following alterations made, viz., that Clause 2 of Sir P. Buckley’s Gaming and Lotteries Act Amendment Act be included in Sir Robert Stout’s Bill, and that the words “any authorised officer of a racing club ” be inserted in the 18th line of Clause 5. It yas also resolved that a reduction of onethird of th© licenses' granted for the use of the tota&sator be made in each Metropolitan district, and that the delegates bring up a scheme for submission to the Racing Conference showing the reductions proposed in their several districts This is a step in the right direction, and it will rest with the Conference to take the wind out of the sails of the parliamentary opponents of the machine by 'restricting the use of the totalisator without waiting for legislative action. The report of the Conference tells us that on the motion of Mr Maginnity it was resolved, “That this Conference is of opinioh that the establishment of a New Zealand hockey Club in the near future will be absolutely necessary in consequence of legislation referring to the ‘gaming laws of the colony, and remit this Question to the consideration of the • Variousracing clubs throughout the colony.” l,1 '“In tae absence* ol ! r.'.r McLean, Mr G. M. Bell said he v requested to record the opposition, of r' < Aletropdlitan and country clubs of i o district. With the exception of Otago the motion was carried unanimously. On the motion of Mr McKay it was resolved “ That a sub-committee be appointed to draw up a circular pointing out the reasons for the establishment of a New Zealand Jockey Club, and that the same be distributed to the various clubs.” It will be noticed that with the exception of Otago,, the motion te the .New Zealand Jockey Club was carried unanimously. What about Auckland ? As the representative of this Province Mr Lawry could not have been well advised of local Wishes, for we understand the A.R.C. delegates are pledged to oppose the motion for the establishment of a New Zealand Jockey Club 1