134 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



a $400 purse here, and if we win we don't even get a chance to look at 

 half of it; instead of it being $400 it is only $200." If we have got to 

 meet that problem, it seems to me that we have got to put the purses 

 where we can afford to give the amount of money that we advertise for 

 the races. Make them pay cash if we cannot do it in any other way, 

 for if you start ten horses you will have to pay the money. I think there 

 is no question but the horsemen will bring about some such rule, and we 

 have got to meet it. 



M. E. Bacon (Clay): I think Mr. White's suggestion about the $10 

 entrance fee with a $200 purse being payable in advance is a good sugges- 

 tion, for this reason: Take two fairs, both being held in the same week in 

 Iowa, and Mr. Horseman makes entries at both places. He gets the list of 

 horses entered and discovers that there are ten horses entered at one fair 

 in his class, while at the other fair there are twenty horses entered. If 

 there was no penalty attached, he would go to the fair where there were 

 but ten horses entered. However, by demanding the $10 in advance, he 

 would only enter in one place. 



Carl Leytze (Woodbury) : I would like to state that at Rock Rapids 

 every man that entered his horse paid $10 entrance fee. That is, he 

 either got entrance there or at the South Dakota I'aces. 



C. E. Cameron (Buena Vista) : I just carried this computation out a 

 little bit farther. On a $400 purse the man that wins first money wins 

 $200 of that purse, but he has invested 5 per cent to enter and 5 per cent 

 on the purse, which brings it down to $160. The next man wins $100 of 

 the purse, less $40, leaving him $60. The third horse wins 15 per cent 

 of the purse, or $60, less $40 deducted, leaving him $20. The fourth horse 

 wins 10 per cent or $40, and after he pays what he owes he breaks even. 

 That is under the present arrangement. Under the suggested plan, the 

 first horse would win, with a $300 purse, $150, and it would only cost him 

 $10, leaving him net $140. He is just $20 loser. The second horse would 

 win $75, and deducting $10 to enter, leaving him $65. In other words, 

 he has $5 more than under the other plan. The third horse would win 

 $45, and after deducting his entrance fee of $10 he would have left $35. 

 In other words, he would be $15 ahead of the other arrangement, because 

 he would only net $20. The fourth horse would win 10 per cent or $30, 

 and after deducting his entrance fee of $10 would have $20 left. In 

 other words, he would be $20 ahead of the other plan. 



Under this second plan, it is true that the first horse earns less, but 

 on the other hand the others win more and there is some inducement for 

 them to stay in the game. You all know from experience that it is the 

 "bear-cat" that kills the game. No man will take his stable out when 

 the other fellow is winning week after week while he is getting nothing. 

 Under the present plan a man cannot afford to win only third and fourth 

 money, but under this proposition every man comes out a winner. There- 

 fore, don't you think that the future success of the game is dependent 

 upon our seeing that the second, third, and fourth horse fellows get 

 something out of it, than to have the man who owns a "bear-cat" win it all? 



Another thing, the article saying, "No declaring off of races if there 

 is one horse to start." I have thought of this: You should make your 

 entries show that it requires three horses to start. If there aren't three 



