THE GAMING BILL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 51, 23 November 1907, Page 4

THE GAMING BILL.

Criticising one of the various amendments proposed to be made in the Gaming Bill in the Legislative Council yesterday, the Attorney-Gen-eral declared that it was out of tune with the principle of the Bill. Now, the public has before it this morning the fact that the Bill has passed both Houses, aiiil it will be inclined to ask, upon reviewing its heterogeneous provisions, what exactly the principle of the measure purports to be. Is it a Bill to limit the volume of gambling by restricting betting on horse-races to the scene of the racing? Or is it a direct assault upon the gambling spirit ? Or is it a first step towards the abolition of the totalisatorj and, as a result, the virtual extinction of horseracing? Had the Bill been introduced earlier in the session, the full and thoughtful consideration which could have been given to its provisions would have made these issues clear. The discreditable circumstances of its discussion, however, left a dragooned Legislature no time to consider a general scheme of intention; the discussion in neither Chamber was directed by any single and definite purpose; each debatable clause was wrangled over without reference to its meaning as a cog in a coherent machine. The result is a Bill that is excellent in parts, but that is in other places unwise, and may be expected to create a condition of things : which the Legislature did not intend to bring about. So far as the clauses relating to gaming-houses and street betting are concerned, the Bill is in the main highly commendable. In its original form the Bill prohibited the publication of advertisements relating to forthcoming horseraces, and the Committee to which the Bill was referred gave this prohibition the drastic extension of making illegal even the publication of " any information, advice, or suggestion as to the probable result of any race." This amendment has been adopted, and also the further prohibition of the publication of the dividends upon races or the starting prices of contestants. These provisions will practically kill sporting journalism, for it is conceivable that they can be interpreted to cover the publication, hot only of " tips" and dividends, but also of the bulk of general sporting intelligence now appearing in the Press. As part of a general scheme to restrict betting on horse-races to the racecourses, these clauses seem to be thoroughly efficient, and they will doubtless put a check upon the volume of betting. But what justification can be urged for the recognition of the bookmaker, as a person deserving special protection, in a Bill presumably directed at the ; human instinct upon which the book-

maker lives? The bookmaker is suppressed in the towns because his operations encourage gambling, and he is simultaneously given the run of the racecourses in order that he may continue the activity which the earlier portion of the Bill treats as inimical to the public interest. It is no wonder that the bookmakers are the only people who are thoroughly pleased.' The effect of the Bill will therefore be to penalise the sporting journalist, and to inflict a heavy blow upon the racing clubs, the only set-off being the isolation of the betting-areas. Under the pressure to which it was subjected, Parliament had no proper idea' of the general effect of the measure, and the result is the endowment of the bookmaker, and the discomfiture of both the respectable supporters of horse'racing, and its opponents. Probably the Bill will work its o-.vn cure, but its enactment in its present form is highly discreditable to Parliament, both for its want of logic and for the improper haste with which it has been forced upon the country. ■