view raw text
THE MUTUELS IN AUSTRALIA In connection witli a movement for the niutuels fti Australia the Svdney Referee has this to say sayThe The New South Wales Totalizator Commission reached Melbourne and the first thing that struck the chairman Mr Levien was that he would have trouble in finding witnesses for examination Well with the antitoialisator section rather strong in the southern capital that was only to be expected However a few witnesses for and against the ma ¬ chine did put in an appearance and one of these Mr T C Moule secretary of the Victoria Amateur Turf Club gave it as his opinion that the installa ¬ tion of the totalisator would increase prize money and suit breeders small owners and small bettors Mr C F Orr secretary of the Williamstowu Racing Club also favored the machine which he believed would lead to larger stakes and lessen the neces ¬ sity for owners to bet AVhen such small prizes as 250 were given an owner had to bet in order to pay expenses He did not think it necessary to sweep all the bookmakers off the course at once Tile totalisator would weed out those who were un necessary Another advantage of the machine was that it did not permit credit betting bettingMr Mr R G Casey chairman of the Victoria Rac ¬ ing Club was examined and said he was entirety in favor of the machine and did not think it would increase bettiug in any way Mr J C Boweu also favored the totalisator but held it would be a de ¬ cided injustice to entirely wipe out the bookmaker Detective Subinspector D G ODonnell also re ¬ garded the totalisator as a better system of bet ¬ ting than through the bookmaker The witnesses opposed to the machine were Messrs E V Goller and S Bradley bookmakers the Revs 0 J Martin and H Worrall and Mr Nicholson superintendent of the Scripture instruction campaign in Victoria Mr Martin said that the to ¬ talisator would encourage women to bet and he would sooner have the liookmaker than the machine preferring to light the evil he knew to the one nf which lie knew nothing Mr Nicholson was really opposed to both bookmaker and totalisator and did not think it would be a right principle to apply money derived from gambling to charities Mr Goller in his evidence stated that in Victoria the ordinary breeder and owner were against the ma ¬ chine but 90 per cent of the public favored it be ¬ cause they were hopeful of participating in big divi ¬ dends dendsMr Mr S Bradley said that though he turned over about 12000 a week he did not make n profit of 1 per cent also that bookmakers would l e satisfied to puy big fees for the privilege of betting tote odds And yet In face of all It is alleged they can do when bcttjng in opposition to the totalisator neither Mr Bradley nor his fellowbookmakers seem to relish the idea of its legalization in New South Wales or Victoria Ten per cent deduction was too heavy for the public to stand Mr Bradley said
