MR. STEAD DEFENDS THE TOTALISATOR.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIV, Issue 848, 7 June 1906, Page 5

MR. STEAD DEFENDS THE TOTALISATOR.

Of late we have been so flooded with wholesale denunciations of the totalisator by doubtless well-meaning clerics, who, as they never visit a racecourse, are perhaps hardly the best judges of the matter. It is therefore a very refreshing change to hear the common-sense view of the case put forward by a shrewd business man who has had many years’ experience of the totalisator, and knows what he is talking about. At the annual meeting of the Canterbury Jockey Club, the chairman (Mr. G. G. Stead), referring to the totalisator, said the opponents of racing were unable to advance any evidence in support of their allegations that racing and the totalisator were prejudicing the welfare of the community. As a matter of fact, it was unanimously admitted that New Zealand was never more prosperous than at present, and the opponents of racing might look in vain for practical proof that the ma-

terial welfare of the people was suffering through the colonial love of sport. Mention had been made that in 15 years the money invested on the totalisator had increased from rather over £500,000 to something under £1,500,000 a year. It, however, should be remembered that during the same period the population had increased by nearly 300,000, and that the public revenue had increased from some £3,000,000 to rather ovei’ £7,500,000. The amount invested on the totalisator last year ...jthrough the racing clubs was £1,231,011, but to a great extent it was the same money that went through the machine again and again. The actual cost to racegoers of investing on the totalisator was the 10 per cent, commission, which last year amounted to £123,120, and, accepting the estimate that over 100,000 adults attended the various racecourses, it was not an excessive amount for a prosperous people to spend on a popular form of amusement. The thousands who enjoyed racing, and liked a wager on the results, appreciated the totalisator, because it was democratic in principle in affording the small investor “ equal opportunity” with the wealthiest. It should not be overlooked that publicists held that amusements were essential for the well-being of the body politic. Public amusements all cost money, but so long as the necessary funds were voluntarily provided by by the sport-loving section of the community to maintain a popular amusement, interference by those who were not asked to contribute savours of a “ dog-in-the-manger” policy.