THE GAMING ACT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12978, 4 December 1907, Page 8

THE GAMING ACT.

BOOKMAKERS AND RACING CLUBS. ' ATTORNEY-GENERAL INTERVIEWED. A WARNING TO BOTH PARTIES. (TROM A COERESTOSDKNT.) WELLINGTON, December 3. About twenty bookmakers waited on the Attorney-General this morning to complain about the manner in which the new Gaming Act had been administered by the Feildmg Racing Club last week, and to aak that the law should be carried out in the spirit intended by the Legislature Mr Scott said the deputation represented the bookmaker* of New Zealand, who wished to protest against the manner in which the Feilding Jockey Club had violated Clause 35 of the Act. They asked the Attorney-General to issue a mandate to racing clubs compelling them to administer the Act in the spirit of fairness intended by the Legislature. They protested against the charge of £20 per day each for a bookmaker and his clerk. The Woodrille Club intended to follow this lead, and would charge £20 per day for a clerk ac well as £20 per day for a bookmaker. Further, the deputation wished to protest against the portion of the Feilding course set apart Tor the bookmakers (near the latrines). The "enclosure," which was 9ft by 39ft, was roped in. The Attorney-General eaid he was strongly of opinion that betting should be confined to come proper part of the course. The whole thing, however, j would become a farce if unreasonable J stipulations were made. Mr Scott, continuing, said tho bookmakers did not want to bet on the lawn or grand stand, but they did object to being roped in. Dr. Findlay: I don't know whether yo» are going to carry, out the intention of the ActP Mr Scott: We are. Dr. Findlay: You will have noticed that statements have been made in the newspapers that this is not *o. You cay you have shut down? Mr Scott: Absolutely. Dr. Findlay: You are obeying the lawf Mr Scott: Absolutely. Mr Barnett, of Chrietchurch, made the suggestion, that the fee to bookmakers to carry on their calling on racecourses should be on a basis of 1 per cent, on the stakes offered. At Wellington this would mean a fee of £20 per day, £15 at Feilding, and from £5 to £10 at emaller meetings. Dr. Findlay: You represent the South Island? Can you give mc any assurance that you are trying to oarry out the A«t, and that_jou are observing its provisions ? Mr Barnett: There was an article in last night's "Evening Post" which undoubtedly referred to ourselves. We opened a book on the Auckland Cup and Railway Handicap before the Acl was passed, and had a liability of perhaps a thousand pounds either way. We thought we would have to close down, but we took legal advice, and found that there was nothing in the law~to prevent ue making our antepost book, and that we could do "business as usual." We only keep an office for the purpose of entering up, and not to bet Dr. Findlay: Of course, we will deal with that matter independently. Mr Barnett: We are quite prepared to observe the law. THE (MINISTER'S REPLY. In the course of his reply I>r. Findlay stated that bookmakers had no right to expect, and would not get. any indulgence from tho Government. The duty of the Government would not permit any favour being shown to )any agency for gambling; that he wished to make clear. It was the plain duty of the Government to see that the Act, whether for or against bookmakers, was being genuinely oarried out. He was not going to deal with quibbling interpretations of the law, nor with suggested evasions. The plain intention of the Act could be recognised by everyone who had intelligence to read it. The intention of th« Act was to confine betting to horse racing, and to racecourses, and the calling of a bookmaker had been limited to a specific area. There was nothing in the law to compel a racing club, which owned its own racecourse, to grant licenses to bookmakers' at all. The obligation was on those , clubs which held permits to use tfhe totalisator. The justification for Clause 35 or the new Act was this—that if a club came to the Government and obtained a license to gamble toy means of the totnlisator, tfhen the State had a right to impose such conditions as it saw fife. For the future, one condition of tho right to use the totalisator would bo compliance by olubs with Clause 35 of the Act of 1907. If a club refused to carry out Section 35, then under the authority conferred on hhn as Minister in charge, a license to such club to use the totalisator would not be granted. He pointed out that Section 46 of the Gaming Act 1881 gave the Colonial Secretary full discretion in the issue and cancellation of licenses to use the totalisator. While he recognised that if the law was stringently enforced—and stringently enforced it would be—tho operations of reputable bookmakers would be more confined than ever before it wee the Government's right to protect a bookmaker in the exercise of such provisions as he was entitled to, to protect him against unreasonable restrictions, and the whittling away of such rights as ho possessed to a mere shadow or delusion. Speaking entirely for himself, Dr Findlay said he considered it was the duty of the Government to exercise the discretion given it under Clause 46 of the Act of 1881, and to say whether a totalisator license should be issued or not in certain cases where clubs were wilfully refusing to carry out the spirit of Section 35 of tho Act passed last session. He desired to make'it perfectly clear that ho was not condemning the action of any racing club since tho Act came into force. Be would ascertain whether the conduct of the two clubs referred to (Feilding and Woodville) waa reasonable or not, but he could not make any definite pronouncement on the question without hearing the club's side of the case and making full enquiry. He had received information that several people connected with racing were arranging to induce clubs to make Section 35 o dead leftter. He repeated that if after full enquiry he found that any club was acting in the manner indicated, then, subject, to the approval of his colleagues, he would not hesitate to do his duty and rescind the permit to us© the totalisator. Ho urged the bookmakers to come to an understanding with the clubs, and said the clubs had no right to place bookmakers in a worse or better position than the totalisator on their courses. The bookmakers would have to observe the law as well as.the clubs.