view raw text
» , , Maryland Commission and Track Heads Discuss One Per Cent Fund I I I 1 j ■ J | : j | i 1 ; , ! : I j ! ! • | 4 i j - i , i ; ; j ; : , , J [ | j ■ Meeting Is Called in Order* » That Certain Items May Be Clarified by Associations BALTIMORE. Md., April 17.— Although no decision was rendered by the Maryland Racing Commission, further inquiry was made by that body into disposition of the one per cent improvement fund at a meet- ing held today at Pimlico between the commission and representatives of this states four racing associations. The get-together was called by States Attorney-General William C. Walsh, who attended in an attempt to have the tracks clarify certain items included in accounting of the one per cent. That privilege was given the four tracks in July of 1938 and constitutes an allowed deduction from wagering pools for the one per cent for improvements of racing. Early in February of this year the commission requested full reports from each track on usage of monies so received. At the conclusion of the meeting, H. Courtenay Jenifer, one of the three commission members present, the others being chairman Frank Small Jr. and George P. Mahoney. touched on the reason for the conference by stating that "the commission was desirous of having the tracks explain about various items and that, following the explanation, the commission would consider in its discretion to what extent the reports were acceptable," and. further, "that, under conditions of the grant certain items included would probably be disallowed. Levy Speaks for Havre de Grace In what comprised the opening address, Herbert Levy, counsellor for the Harford Agricultural and Breeders Association ex- plained that the one per cent was origin-; ally granted in order to meet competition by other tracks, place racing in this state I on the highest possible plane and that the fund, accrued from wagering deductions was not segregated and that its expenditure was not under commission jurisdic-; tion. He further went on to say that inas-, much as the annual reports submitted by the tracks were acceptable to the com-, [ mission, it was felt the associations had observed the directions of the privilege, It was also brought out by Levy that no . accounting of the fund was required after 1939. The discussion then reverted to j questioning by commission members, i j Mahoney on occasion interposing numer- , ous queries on his own initiative. The general line of inquiry pertained to defin-I ing what constituted maintenance and what improvements and the party or I parties responsible for the decision. B. ; Tittsworth, a representative of the audit- , ing firm of Haskins and Sells, which inspects the books of each association as the in- strument of the commission, but paid by i the tracks, revealed that the commission ; | audi r was required to determine the dif- , : f erence between repairs and improvements. In some cases he stated 75 per cent of the ] determining was left to the auditor. He used Havre de Grace as an example and i stated that that association did not carry , separate lists for repairs. Questioned Concerning Listing of Items A representative of each track was qu«- tioned concerning listing of items — as in , the case of Bowie — as a sprinkler, sofas and armchairs and other incidentals. The commission stated that it desired to know what* manner of reasoning was taken to construe such things as improvements of racing. Speaking for Bowie, Alton S. Jump, treas- • urer of that association, stated that the items were carried as capital expenditures. J This explanation was vouchsafed by representatives of the other organizations in I touching on such things as shades, benches, a flagpole, furniture and fixtures. , Representatives of the tracks, particularly Harry A. Parr III., president of the Maryland Jockey Club, operators of Pimlico, ex- | ] plained that the items had to be included 1 j in the over-all listing, since the money was I taxable, and, he stated, "everything we do 1 we hope to profit by and at the same time 1 j have racing profit from." In turn, Mahoney contended that expenditures for improve- i ments would have had to have been made regardless of whether or not the tracks had I been given the added 1 per cent grant. The meeting was disbanded on a humor- | ous note when Jenifer stated: "If the ex- | penditure of the sums realized from the 1 1 per cent privilege are in order, this meet- ing has been useless, but if the tracks have , misused the monies, then a decision by the commission is necessary." Present at the session were the afore- I mentioned commission members, Attorney- 1 General Walsh, Parr, Levy, Jump, Titts- i worth, Matt L. Daiger secretary of Pirn- lico, Robert Archer attorney for Havre de i Grace, James Ross representing the same track , MaJ. Goss L. Stryker president of i Laurel Park, Luke OBrien treasurer and general manager of the same track, and I Hampton Magruder, president of Bowie., i
