view raw text
+ 4. IIMTCRCSTIIMG AFTERMATH OF THE KENTUCKY STATE RACING COMMISSIONS MEETING + 1. — j. Lexington, Ky.. March 25. — As an aftermath of the Kentucky State Racing Commissions nieeting of Saturday, it is related that Messrs. George J. I-oiu: and Johnson N. Camden took the ground that 110 license should be granted to the Ilouglas lark Jockey Club, while Col. Milton Young and Major Faingertielil held the opposite view. The argument over the ipestiou covered more than two hours. The attitude of Messrs. Iuig and Camden appi ars to have been taken as an outgrowth of the action of the Doogiae lark Jockey Club against the commission iu l.KMi. the first year of the existence of the governing body. In that year the Douglas lark Club, with its track but recently acquired and then in a state of unprepa redness, made application for thirty-two lays, extending from May V2 to June 15. The commission refused Ihe application on the ground that the dates asked for had previously been assign* d t the New Louisville Jockey tlub and the Litonia Jockey Club aud it was the province of the commission to have no conflict in dates. The I ..ul: las Park Jockey Club Hied suit iu the United States District C01. it at Fouisville praying for an injunction against the commission and testing the constitution Bitty of the act under which it was created. This court decided adversely to the commission and an anneal was taken to the United States Court of Appeals at Cincinnati, where, on October -. 1!» M». an opinion sustaining the commission and holding tile act to be constitutional was given by Judge A. M. J. Cochran, with Judges Lurton and Severe na sitting. Fending this decision there were eighteen days racing at Douglas Park in September. 1906. The following March the New 1/oui-ville Jockey Club and the Donglai lark Jockey Club were put into a holding company for live yearn, the time expiring on the fourteenth of the present month. In 1!K " there was no meeting at Douglas Park, all of the racing at I/Ulisville being at Churchill Downs. In the fall of 1!MH a meeting of eighteen days was given at Douglas lark. All of the raoiag at Louisville since then lias been at Churchill Downs, the owners of the two tracks dividing the nrofita under the holding agreenseat, which was not renewed, it is said, because General Manager John Haehaaaiater had come to the conclusion that the Douglas Park Jockey Club was being made to stand too great a share of the expense of the improvement of the Churchill Downs plant. As the story goes. Messrs. Long and Canuleu. reviewing tin- past, and noting the fact that Douglas Park had this year tuadw application for the same dates that Churchill Downs wanted, were fearful that the management, if granted a license, might attempt to create agitation similar to that of six years agM . Messrs. Daingornehl and Young, argued, it is said, that the ownership of the Latonia plant and the IKuiglas lark plant, while probably not identical, is not dlanlmllar and has the same general manager. If Latonia. the question of ownership and manage ment to govern, is entitled to a license. Douglas lark unquestionably is. Again, during the life of the holding compauy known as the Louisville Racing As-.ic.iton. the owners of the Churchll Downs plant and the Douglas lark plant were business partners. As such partners Douglas Parks owners received a license tho-e hve years. The mere fact of dissolving the holding company would not deprive Douglas Park of the right to a license. Hie vote standing two and two at the conclusion of the argument. Chairman K. F. Clay voted in the affirmative and the license was granted. The fact that dates were not granted to Douglas Park cannot be construed as a turndown. The Douglas Park people having asked for the same dates that Churchill Downs wanted, the latter, being the older plant, was given preference, it is aneened in see ton three of the act ereatng the rnmmlBBloa that any racing 11-soci: tion licensed by the commission shall have as many as forty days of racing during the year if desired by the owners of the track, and it is to be presumed that when the Douglas Park Jockey CIul asks the commission for a reasonable number of dates that do not conflict with the dates of other tracks they will lie granted. The defeat of the rule providing that the commission should appoint the presiding judge and other officials to act at the different race meetings was a great surprise and it came about in an extraordinary way. When the rule was brought up for action George J. Long and J. "N. Camden, after explaining their position, voted against the rule and Col. Milton Young for it. Maj. F. A. Daingerlield declined to vote on the uonjnd, as he privately explained to his associates, that his name had been mentioned in connect h 11 with the appointment of presiding judge, and although be believed the rule would lie in the interests of racing, and he had expressed his advocacy of it long before he had been mentioned in eonnectloa with an appointment, still he could not put himself in the position of being a possible beneficiary of the legislation in which he took part. Chairman F. F. Clay, whose pet measure this rule had been for years, and who had prepared and offered it. as presiding officer failed to vote because I there was not a tie. and. although he might have placed sonic other member in the chair until he had I voted, he declined to violate the usual precedent or to go out of his way to effect his personal purposes. Colonel Clay declared from the chair the rule defeated by a vote of 2 to 1. A feature of the incident also was that Mr. Camden had been, with Colonel Clay and Chairman Young, an open and enthusiastic advocate of Major Ihungerfields election as presiding judge, ami it was understood until today that he was in favor of the rule. The ricing associations of the state, especially those at Louisville and Latonia. were naturally opposed to the rule, preferring to select their" own racing officials. In discussing the matter after the meeting Messrs. I,ong and Camden stated that they had voted against the rule for the reason that under the arret at rules the racing officials have to be approved by the commission and that for it to appoint these officials savored too much in their opinion of the commission entering into the details of running the tracks. "The commission was created to regulate, but not to conduct racing," concluded Mr. Camden.
