SATURDAY FEBRUARY 21, 1891.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 44, 21 February 1891, Page 4

SATURDAY FEBRUARY 21, 1891.

Gambling is one of those vices which has many friends, but few apologists. The number is small even of those who would admit that it lies on the debateable border line between morality and immorality. Nor is this merely the judgment of persons who are popularly supposed to hold very narrow religious views. It is the deliberately expressed opinion brraeii of the world, who are influenced simply by the effect which gambling, in its various forms, has upon the well-being of society. The professional bookmaker is seldom willing to defend his calling from a moral standpoint, while a large proportion of the people who attend race meetings confess to their losings and winnings in a somewhat shamefaced way. As for the churches, they lift up their hands with horror at the mere mention of the word "gambling." The clergyman who ventured to say a word in favour of the totalisator, for example, would have a warm half-hour with the elders and deacons afterwards. Indeed, gambling, in every Protean shape in which it has appeared in society, has been a favourite subject of denunciation from the time of the Puritans to the present day.

So much for the ahstract principle. In practice, as we all know, the experience has been an essentially different one. Historians tell us that the Chief Temple of Christendom owes much of its grandeur to cpntributions drawn from sources in which gambling played a prominent part. £>'Aubigne, referring to the traffic in indulgences, by which large sums were raised in aid of St. Peter's Church, the glory of the Eternal City, says that the interests of souls were frequently staked upon a throw of the dice. But we need not go far afield for proofs. Score's of churches and parsonages in this coloDy owe their existence to funds drawn from lotteries, and some of them would probably never have been erected if gambling had not been resorted to. It is true that it is gambling of a modified 'kind, and practised in a way not to shock popular prejudices.' A Church Committee would hardly care to borrow the totalisator, and conduct their betting business directly by the aid of machinery. Eut the principle is the same. The lucky winner of the cushion or cosy for which dice has been thrown is surely as much a gambler as the habitu£ of the racecourse who has backed the winning horse and pockets the result of a lucky venture on the totalisator.

The excuse usually put forward for what may be called religious gambling is that it is for a good purpose. If this be valid, we have only to devote the whole or even, a part of the totalisator proceeds to religious or charitable purposes and the end would sanctify the means. This is actually done in France. Not that the light-hearted Gauls pretend that they are actuated by such high and lofty aims as influence us when we raffle a stand of paper flowers at a bazaar for ;£ 2 ios that no one in his senses would give ios for by way of direct purchase. The French simply maintain that legalised amusements, among which they include gambling, are to contribute a certain percentage of their takings to make provision for the poor and to aid in the maintenance of charitable institutions.

The totalisator is likely to exercise a considerable influence in future on the

condition of the poor in France. The French Legislature has recently prohibited every other form of betting on the racecourse. In doing so the Government seem tohavebeen actuated by two motives. The first is that the use of the totalisator has a tendency to check high gambling, and the second that owing to the popularity ot this species of gambling, a fixed percentage on the stakes paid into the totalisator would prove a substantial addition to the funds devoted to charitable purposes. The authorities have no need to be disappointed with the resuits. In the month of June last, the amount paid into the Bureaux de Bienfaisance, which administers all forms of poor refliefmthe Republic, amounted to no less a sum than 100,000 francs or This procedure, strange as it appears when viewed from a colonial standpoint, is in accordance with French opinion, and expresses the policy that has been adopted by successive French rulers. The general revenue in that country is only charged with themaintenanceof the insanepoor, and of the Industrial and Reformatory children of the nation, but many institutions which with us are thrown upon the State are left by the French Government to be dealt with by voluntary societies aided by municipal grants and the outcome of specific imposts. Such are hospitals for the sick, asylums for the aged and infirm, and foundling hospitals and orphanages. There is a fixed conviction in the French mind that legalised amusements should furnish their quota towards augmenting the funds of charitable societies. We make spasmodic offorts in this way in the shape of a charity concert, or an occasional theatrical performance for some destitute widow and orphans, but in France the principle is extended to embrace all habitual pleasure-seekers. Persons who frequent the theatre, not only enjoy histrionic advantages, but have the satisfaction of knowing that ten per cent, of their ticket money is legally devoted to charitable purposes. Concert and theatre tickets used to produce about seven per cent, of the revenue required for relieving poverty and sickness all over France, but in one month the totalisator produced seven times the amount raised by " admission tickets " for charitable purposes. Gambling by public lotteries has always furnished a considerable quota to the coffers of the French poor, but the recent legislation restricting all -forms of racecourse betting to the totalisator, seems likely to cause that uncanny machine.to hold a chief place on the charity lists of la belle France.

The difference in the tone of thought which prevails in the colonies is not likely to permit the introduction of that part of the French system which taxes the totalisator for charitable purposes. Gambling is so associated in the cciionjal. .ifiind ,with drunkenness. £nd poverty "that to draw revenue from it for the poor meet with a strenuous resistance. There may be no real distinction between church lotteries and secular lotteries, but none the less the public instinct would be shocked. The totalisator has been legalised in our colony, but it is run in the interests of racing clubs, and they are likely to retain a monopoly of the privilege. That part of the French system which consists in taxing public amusements for charitable purposes is not without its benefits; The amount of money taken at the gateis in tbe case of many outdoor amusements in Auckland is frequently in excess of requirements for expenses, and probably neither the members of the clubs nor the general public would feel that in such cases any hardship was experienced by furnishing a quota of the proceeds for charitable purposes.

The hardship of a direct tax in such cases would really not be greater than the indirect levy upon certain sections of the community. It is said that S,ooo people virtually support all the hospitals in Victoria, and that except for small sums collected on Hospital Sunday, the majority of the public are not reached at all. In our own colony we have not even advanced to the stage when an annual collection is generally devoted by the churches to the hospitals. Even if this were the case, the large number of persons who do not attend church would be untouched.

The system of public charities in the; colonies will sooner or later need to be i overhauled. Some time ago we pointed out that the multiplication of agencies in Melbourne by benevolent but irresponsible persons had only intensified the evil by largely increasing the vagrant class. Nor are the means we employ in our own colony for maintaining charitable institutions altogether satisfactory. A handful of tradesmen in Auckland seem to keep the Prison Gate Brigade going, while the general public do not contribute. How to adjust the burden so that all may share in supporting the sick and poor is the problem. While there would be strong objections raised to helping charities by profits drawn from legal gambling, there is much to be said: in support of the French system of supplementing private beneficence by a quota drawn from the proceeds of public amuse ments. • ■..-...■■'