TATTERSALL’S SWEEPS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 449, 2 March 1899, Page 13

TATTERSALL’S SWEEPS.

Mr John Norton, editor of Truth, has addressed a somewhat sensational open letter to Mr George Adams, well-known in the sporting world in con. nection with Tattersail’s Sweeps. The following is a specimen of the accusations made by Mr Norton : — “ Sir, —‘ Tattersall’s’ time has come. He must either reform or ‘ go bung.’ After a very long and prosperous run, in which you have had all the best of it, without risk or loss, he has been pulled up with a round turn by Truth, or rather by the public in the columns of Truth. By sinister means, not far to seek, ‘ Tattersail’ has managed to nobble the Press of the whole of Australia—in fact, by means of big, fat advertisements, he has practically bribed those putative patriotic organs of public opinion, but really of a perverse and putrid plutocracy, into silence concerning his Sweeps. He has crushed criticism by Coin. The coin did not come out of his pockets, but out of the pockets of the public, in whose interests criticism was called for, and against whose interests it is suppressed, by means of the public money entrusted to you to administer for the public advantage—from a public sporting point of view. You have been acting for many years now as the Sporting Steward of the Public. How have you discharged your trust ? Give an

account of your stewardship ; satisfy the public that all is, was, has bren, and ever will be, straight with ‘ Tattersall’s’ ere you are overwhelmed with the blast of combined suspicion, exposure, and denunciation which now threatens ‘ Tattersall’s’ Sweeps with discredit, disgrace, and disaster. “ This is not the first time you have been publicly called upon to give a public account of your public stewardship. Why haven’t you done it ? Won’t you do it ? If not, why not ? You won’t do it, eh ? Well, I’ll do it for you ; and when I’ve finished the job shares in ‘Tattersall’s’ Sweeps won’t stand at. a premium. Why should Ido this ? By what right do I poke my nose into your business ? What is it to do with me ? I’ll tell you. The public to whom you appeal for support and subscriptions, have a right to know how a concern supported by their money, and ostensibly run in their interests, is really conducted. I’ve as much right to poke my nose into your Sweep business as you have to poke your hands into people’s pockets to run it, at least to your own if not the public profit. ‘ Tattersall’s’ Sweeps are as much my business as they are yours ; and the reason I now, in this direct and public manner, interfere in the matter at all is that I believe that they are not conducted with invariably honesty and regularity ; that in some cases they are swindles (you understand me, swindles —gross, glaring, gigantic swindles), and that it is my duty, in the public interest, to tackle ‘Tattersall’s’ as 1 would any other dirty, dishonest, despicable dodgery on Turf or Tote. “ You should be the last man in the world to • complain of my doing this. You’ve been scooping the pool —collaring *‘ Kitty”—out of these con-Bul'a-ions for nearly twenty years. From the position of obscure country pub. keeper you’ve come into public importance and affluence. You run a first-class city hotel and a big restaurant; you build marble bars, beautifully adorned with costly paintings, sculptures, and carvings ; and, last, but not least, you build a beautiful bijou theatre, the Palace of Yarieties ; and all out of what ? Public money—commissions, perks, and pickings out of ‘Tattersall’s’ Sweeps ‘rattersail has had a good deep cut at the public ; and the time has now come for T’rwtfZ* to take a hand in the game, if only to see fair play. You have hitherto given no heed to the repeated complaints of the public made in these columns against the administration of what you call ‘ Tattersall’s.’ Your refusal to either reply or reform has already recoiled on you, as is shown by the enormous decrease in the number of your subscribers since the last Melbourne Cup. Then you filled every consultation you opened ; since then you’ve called for £lOO,OO0 —you get £30,000 ; you’ve called for £50,000, and you’re lucky if you get £20,000. Your No. 1 All the Year Round Special was perforce kept open from last Cup date till Anniversary Handicap—three solid months —while other current Sweeps you’ve had to draw pro rata” * * The matter is one of much importance to New Zealand readers who have contributed so freely to Tattersall’s Sweeps in the past, but the character of Tattersail has stood so high at all times that it would be grossly unfair to be prejudiced against him without solid proof. There does not appear to be much against Tattersall in the correspondence already published, and upon which Mr Norton seems to rely. This is how Truth deals with the correspondence alluded to : — A Mrs C. Kerr, whose address at the time was c/o Mr J. P. Sheehan, Forbes, N.S.W., received the following telegram : Mrs C. Kerr, — Ticket 5480 drawn Advance, Queensland Cup. Small stake. Please yourself. “ Tattersall,” C/o G. Adams. To this telegram Mrs Kerr replied as follows : To “ Tattersall,” C/o G. Adams. Lay owner of Advance £lOOO first; £5OO second; £3OO third. Mrs C. Kebr. And in due course she received the following answer :

Mrs 0. Kerr, — I have laid owner as instructed. “Tattersall.” Woman-like, perhaps, she was curious to know who owned the horse Advance, and accordingly telegraphed the following inquiry : To “ Tattersall,” C/o G. Adams. Who is the owner of Advance ? Mrs C. Kerr. To which she received the following most peculiar and impolite reply : Mrs C. Kerr,— Why do you ask owner’s name ? Have laid wager as instructed. “ Tatteesall.” The Queensland Cup was run, but Advance did not start, and Mrs Kerr having found out (no thanks to “ Tattersall”) the name and address of the owner of Advance, wrote to him, making certain inquiries, and received this reply : Doncaster Villa, Hendon, Queensland. , Mrs C. Kerr, — After the drawing of the Queensland Cup “ Tattersall’s” manager, Mr Grant, notified he wanted to see me, and I called on him. He then fold me the drawer of Advance had authorised him to lay me £5OO for a win, £3OO for second, and £2OO for third. I told him I wanted, besides the above, £5O to start, but he refused to notify such to the drawer. I told him he was doing the drawer a great wrong if he did not point out how valuable the prize for a starter was. If Advance had started you would have been entitled to £250. I only accepted Advance knowing there would be very few starters, and that the drawer would make it worth my while to start. I did not think Advance could win lhe Cup. He was in another race I thought he could win, and in which he was only beaten by a head. I am very sorry for your sake and my own that you were not informed what I intended to do, and Mr Grant is to be blamed for the whole matter. I am, Yours faithfully, H. A. Walsh. Hereupon Mrs Kerr placed the matter before “ Tattersall,” and asked for some explanation of these peculiar proceedings, and was comforted with the following curious communication : Mrs C. Kerr, — Dear Madame, —We are in receipt of yours dated February 11th. In reply beg to state that we laid the owner of Advance £lOOO to nil first; £5OO to nil, second; and £3OO to nil, third; and, if he disputes this, refer him to us. The £5O to nil was a second thought with him; and as we do all in our power to discourage the blackmailing of our subscribers by the owners of horses, we did not entertain the request. Yours faithfully, “ Tattersall.” Naturally enough Mrs Kerr, sensible woman as she seems to be, was not to be bluffed off in this fashion. She again wrote to “ Tattersall,” complaining of the scandalous manner in which she had been dealt with, and, as an answer, got the following conf used and illogical letter, which for cast iron front and chilled steel cheek beats the best Bessemer ever blasted: Brisbane. To Catherine Kerr, Forbes, N.S.W. Madam, —Yours of the 25th to hand, and, in reply, we beg to say that you are quite at liberty to publish the correspondence, but please do so in its entirety We can only repeat that we are not misleading you, and we laid the owner of Advance £lOOO, £5OO, and £3OO, for first, second, and third, to nil respectively, and have witnesses to prove same. When you wired asking owner sname, we did not refuse the information ; we merely asked for your reasons for inquiring, thinking the owner might have surreptitiously obtained your address, and was resorting to blackmail. We certainly think that a man demanding a certain amount for a certainty is blackmailing. We did most flatly decline to give the owner in question the name and address of the person drawingthis horse, and do we not advertise on all our forms that we never divulge that information? I conclusion, we again repeat that the person who is misleading you is not “ Tattersall,” and we feel confident that if you publish the correspondence the unbiassed public will be quite satisfied to take our unblemished word in preference to that of your other correspondent. We have been before the public too long, and have served them too faithfully, to be injured by the writing of a spiteful and extortionate horse-owner. (Signed) “ Tattersall.”