Year: 1874

Men.


New York Clipper.


We maintain as TO all wagers predicatedOf
coming events that there shall be no snap
judgment, but that their settlement shall
depend wholly upon the actual occurrence
of those events. The gist of such wagerS
is performance; and We desire it 10 be un-
derstoOd by all who may appeal 10 our col
umns that the Clipper is a craft steered
upon the broad principle that there can be
no winning in default of performance.
This principle is imperative in but two In
stances. The first of these instances Is as
to fOrfeit-mOney. for that covers a double per
formanee-the putting-up of the remai1der
of the stakes, and finally the grand pertOT1l-
ance itself. The second instance is where
the wager, either expressly or implicitly, is
made s.play or paw" An express ''play or
paw provision scarcely needs explanation
at our hands IL is well known TO mean
that the parties to it are willing to take all
chances save death-that they will risk
even fraud (this of itself yitiates the wager)
by running the slim chance Of obtaining
absolute proof of fraud. Implied ''pay or
paw is not so well understood With the
Clipper, il covers all those wagerS in which
the bettors on both sides are also the per-
foFmers-in other words, the men who not
only furnish the money, but who also play
the match. Not TO regard this class OF
wagers as s'play or pay" would be to open
the door for the unimpeded exit Of either
party. In the cases of these 1mplledly
ssplav or pay wagers, all the money
up becomes his who is lr2ting to
perform, vet whose living antagonist
denied him the opportunity. But
where the same parties provide for forfeit,
nothing but an express provision will make
their wager 'play OF pay The meIe stak-
ing of all the money does not release tie
| hold that the clause as to forfeit has upon
| the final performance. If SO forfeit binds
| a match at the outset, it binds il also 10 the
| close, unless it has been superseded by a
new provision for a greater forfeit, or Dy the
ssplay or pay' clause. This relates alike to
bettOrs who are also performers, and to bet
| tors who are not. The difference is that,
although both classes are held strictly to
| their forfeit clauses, the first are held al
ways to mean .'play or pay" unless they
saw ..forteit," while the second are held
never to mean ''play or pay" unless they
state so expressly.


But let it be understood that this appli-
cation of the principle that, save in a
specific "play or pay match, bettor can
| not. through the unwillingness or inability
of another party to perform for him, lose
money where he has no chance to win
any, is not to be regarded as supersedins
established rules, even with the Clipper.
/ While it may combat the traditions by
/ which gamblers have IRON time to time
| immemorial obtained snap judgment, the
/ principle is not in any sense designed as an
| encroachment upon the usages Of the turf,
for example. Those usages are nearly all
fortified by the Ier scriptd- The law
may be good law, or it may be bad law
but it is the law on the turf, and that Is
enough for us. The Clipper, in requiring
that, in the absence OF a law 10 the contra
~, there shall be no pay where there is NJ
| play, has in view the vast body of people
who are ignorant of sporting techniealities
There is no sound reason that the horse
man or the professional billiard-playei
shall bring his special practices into the
social circle by way Of arbitrating upon
disputed points at euchre or chess