THE RUIN OF THE TURF IN NEW ZEALAND.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1225, 20 March 1880, Page 2

THE RUIN OF THE TURF IN NEW ZEALAND.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE OAMARU MAIL. , 'Sir, —I have jjuat read with much interest the two reviews of my essay which appeared in the Oamaru Mail of the 15th and 16th insts. That the reviews are perfectly legitimate specimens of criticism I freely admit, with this im,i portarit limitation—that the reviewer confessedly knows nothing of sporting matters. I was perfectly well aware when I penned the essay that many of my remarks would be misunderstood and misinterpreted by persons ignorant of turf affairs, and for that very reason I specially addressed my work to "lovers of the turf"—to men who, whether they agreed with me or not, would at all events understand what I said. Knowing that the subject was one of public interest, I certainly prefaced my remarks with a few explanations of terms, &c. ; but, when I expressed .the hope that these explanations mighit' serve to render my arguments intelligible to all, I was morally certain that the hope was vain. But I confess I .did, not expect,to be accused of asserting facts without proof, or of making contradictory statements.,; The reviewer does not giye any, instances of unsupported assertion on my part, but he does giro

what he regards as two cases of self-con-1 traduction. May I be allowed to show that tkese cases are not in reality contradictions at all. 1. I am taxed with showing " that an owner cannot hope to back hi 3 horse at the totalisator," and a few page 3 on going to some pains to show how "an owner might easily back hb horse at the totalisator and work a swindle," &c. 2fow r ynnr reviewer has mixed up two totally different matters. I maintain that an owner cannot back his horse with the totalisator, i.e., he cannot invest any considerable sum with the machine. But it is certainly open to anyone owning an entered horse to win a good sum by effecting the swindle I suggested. Backing and swindling are, sir, very different matters. Owners of horses do not count on swindles to maintain their studs ; they are, so far as my experience goes, a body of gentlemen, not of black-legs. _ Under the- proposed new totalisator regime, no 'doubt, frauds such as the one I have mentioned would be common enough, because the present clas3 of gentlemen•owners would cease to exist. The one object of the few speculative scamps that would take their place, would naturally be to win with an outsider, since it is •only by successfully backing an outsider that any considerable sum could be won J ait the totalisator. _ _ 1 2. My second alleged contradiction is iftated thus :—" Again he (' Kosmos') declares that the bookmakers cannot hope to coatpeto against the totalisator in prices, that they cannot offer such large odd 3 ; j and a little further on he adduces figures j to prove that the odds given by the! anachine are exceedingly deceptive, that j they are, in fact, very small indeed." jSow, Sir, here again the contradiction •exists solely in the imagination of the reviewer. Again I maintain that bookmakers cannot compete with a co-opera-tive gambling machine. But how does that clash with my proof that the machine's •odds are not so large as is commonly supposed ? I merely wrote it to show that the friends of the totalisator are guilty of downright dishonesty when they exaggerate the machine's odds in order to make the bookmaker's odd 3 appear ridiculously small. The truth is, Sir, that the gentleman who honored my es3ay with a review has mistaken wholly the nature of my arguments. Ifay, he even mistakes my English. On page 7of my little book, speaking of backers of horses, I say that :c the wise few make money at the expense of the foolish many"—meaning that a few •clever backers make money, and that the many stupid backers lose it. What right has a reviewer, in defiance of the grammatical construction of the passage, to strengthen bis criticism by making the " wise few" refer to bookmakers and the " foolish many" to the public? The second part of the review is, I am happy to say, much less one-sided than the first. The writer asks for information and enlightenment on some points. I shall be pleased, Sir, in my next letter to throw all the light I can on the difficulties he mentions. —-I am, &c., Kosmos.