Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-10-08
...sl2,59O so sl1,OlS 50

5U Sll,Olo ~
There can be no question, l should Judge.
that the life-membership tickets sold in
former years must be telling more and
more against the proceeds OF subsequent
years, and it would be instructive for the
public to know how many life-member-
ships have been sold since their first issue ?
and, if possible, how many have lapsed by
demise? For we can easily imagine the fu-
ture time when all, or nearly all, the habit
ues of the fair will become life-members,
and so far from their adding to the future
years profits, they will virtually crowd out
the paying public. OF course they will be
entitled to such future free entrance, but it
is plain enough that they will not help out
annual expenses one cent, and perhaps the
time may come that the further issue of
life-membership tickets must be abolished,
and it appears to me the sooner the better.
Of course in early necessitous times, and
perhaps up to the erection of the present
Pavilion, the sale of life-memberships may
have been a valuable help; but life mem
bers are something like a~nnuitants-the
sooner they are defunct, the better for the
insurance Office. The existing life men,
berships are necessarily a cause for reduced
season-ticket holders and reduced single
admission sales; and, if We are seeking
causes of apparent depression, the life
memberships may afford a partial explana-
ton. But even the figures, as you pre-
scented them on Saturday, dispel at once
the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS rumors that
were rife regarding the falling off this year,
which l have heard guessed at even $40.
900! l was perfectly convinced that such
statements were p1eposterous, and the
facts now show that the receipts at the
Park were greater this year than last-or
tOt 4 20 IN aA,Nrn~4l r,fAl 4Of 100 A 1nn&
year and this Notwithstanding there were
some hundred less single admissions and
season tickets sold, amounting to $517 rs,
as the Bee takes care to show.
With regard to items, however, it seems
clear that racing men took 1925 65 more
interest in the races this year than last, and
yet, by good management, they seem
to have yielded a profit of at
least $1,000 Is, exclusive of gate
receipts, as you say, while last year
they incurred a loss of $1,3S7 10, making
together S3,477 80 saving owe last years
management of the races. Surely that is
commendable, and shows that the right
sort of vigilance was exercised to prevent
the unnecessary leakage recurring again,
that last years showing, by undue extrava-
gance, presents and, per contra, has SO well
rewarded their efforts this year, to the tune
of $3,477, entirely offsetting the largely-re-
duced receipts at the Pavilion, and some
falling-off at the Park, and resulting, as we
have seen in making a total, a better show
ing than last year of SS12 SIS, which is a
gratifying fact. The reduced receipts at the
Pavilion are unfortunate, but the increased
amount of Entry Clerk receipts, or $3.50
compared with $155 last year, seems to show
conclusively that much more space was
flied this year with exhibits, SO that
the falling of in receipts from visitors
could not be attributable at all to a less in
teresting exhibition, but perhaps almost
wholly to the Grand Army and other en-
tertainments. which had been costly, as
well as half-tired-out pleasure seekers. No
that any regret the Grand Army entertain
ment. But, besides that, some misunder-
standing arose regarding the new issue of
season tickets, which unintentionally gave
dissatisfaction, and was probably more felt
at the Pavilion than in the Park although
it has been manifest in times past that
much undue advantage was taken of the
privileges afforded by season tickets and
some reform was necessary.
But besides those causes of reduced re-
ceipts, fruit-growers and others were
largely occupied in shipping their fruit 20
Eastern markets, and other harveStings
were still in progress. But all these re-
HeCIOnS convince me more Llan ever LnaJ
the reckless obloquy which certain parties
have mouthed so loudly against the State
Fair officials is beneath contempt, while all
good citizens should rather tender them a
heartily vote of thanks. recollecting also
the considerable financial responsibility
the Directors had personally incurred to
insure the stability and success Of the fair
at all times in our midst. Although as an
individual | do moi care to publish my
name, I feel confident that there are nun
dreds, if not thousands, of good citizens
who would readily indorse my views if
laid before them. Very respectfully,
Sacramento, October 6, 1886. G.