BOOKMAKERS AND THE LAW.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 45, 16 November 1907, Page 4

BOOKMAKERS AND THE LAW.

The drastic action of the ■ Christchvrch . and, Invercargill Magistrates, who inflicted terms of imprisonment on various men charged with trespassing on the Iticcarton and Invercargill Racecourses, has evidently given rise to ii great deal of hostile feeling. What appears to have affronted the Southern public's sense of justice is not the laws of discrimination between the totalisator and the bookmaker,' but the infliction of imprisonment for an offence which is not of a kind that should be punishable otherwise than by fine. The exclusion of bookmakers from racecourses is not inspired by moral considerations, but is obviously —and quite properly—designed to restnet the gambling impulses of a racecourse crowd to expression through the. legalised channel. Since the State, theoretically opposed to promiscuous gambling, has sanctioned the use of the totalisator, and has placed its working in the hands of the racing clubs, it is perfectly reasonable that the State should penalise every attempt by an individual who seeks, by his private operations, to extend the gambling facilities open to the public. Accordingly, it is proper that such men as those who came before the Southern Magistrates should be punished, but there is a vast difference in point of propriety between fine and imprisonment as the method of correction. Hitherto Magistrates have been accustomed, by fining such trespassers, to affirm _ that their offence is in reality civil in its character. We are convinced that the drastic measures now adopted are much in advance of public opinion, and it is not impossible that these decisions will react against the racing clubs. Between the keeper of a two-up school, who cultivates an unhealthy growth which works serious injury to those whom it affects, and the trespassing bookmaker who —quite illegally,'of course —strives to get a share of the total isiitor'a monopoly of racecourse betting, there is a difference that is obvious enough, and the protests received by certain members of Parliament mean that the public feels this difference. Nor can we say that ■Mr, Day's attitude in hearing the cases .at Chnfltchurch waa in accordance

with what should be expected of a Magistrate. He sought to justify his severity by the fact that he had, on an earlier _ occasion, threatened that he would inflict substantial terms of imprisonment on such offenders in the future. And, referring to one of the accused, he added: "He knew that, navvy or no navvy, there is a sort ol freemasonry among bookmakers, and what ene knows they all know." To this counsel pointed out very incisively that " it would be a very strange thing if the laws of the country expected every man to read the newspapers." ' It is clear that the Magistrate went far beyond his narrow duty of treating any case at any time solely upon its merits. It is not the business of a Magistrate to set himself up as the instrument of repression by increasing the harshness with which lie enforces the law, nor to expect that his Magisterial threats must be noted as if they were legal principles or statutory enactments. The sentences of imprisonment seem to us to be unwisely stringent, and to have been made so at Christchurch on quite improper grounds. Everyone who supports properly-conducted horse-racing will deplore the injury which the Christchurch and Invercargill Magistrates' unwise decisions will, by 'a process of reaction, work to the racing clubs which make for clean sport.