THE BOOKMAKER

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 254, 21 July 1920, Page 8

THE BOOKMAKER

HIS POWERS AND HIS WILES

DOUBLE TOTALISATOR ADVOCATED

Tho Minister of Internal Affaire (Mr. 6. J. Anderson), in the House yesterday, moved the-second reading of tile Claming Amendment Bill. lie said that tiie necessity for tho Bill was owing to the actions of the bookmakers themselves. AH previous attempts to stop tlfc operations of bookmakers had failed. He had often heard of bookmakers being able to influence the running of certain horses, and no dou'bt other members interested in racing h«d had similar experiences. Of late years bookmakers had carried on bijr biisinev in double- beftimr, and if the second "leg" of a double-was to cost the- Ixxiltmaker a great deal it would pay him better to have tho horse stopped rather than to face the loss of big wagers. Although bookmakers could make large incomes, they sought to increase them in this illicit way. Somo bookmakers, lie wished to say, were quite fair. Attempts had been made to prevent tho telegraph service from being lised by bookmakers and their clients, but without success. Very ingenious codes had been devised. The Minister read some specimen telegrams, and the instructions sent out toy bookmakers in circular* to clients.

ir/. Wilford: Does your Bill defeat all codes? ...

Mr Anderson: "I think it Trill do -very hard for anyone to devise a code which will keep a" bookmaker out of gaol. 1 know tho bookmakers have said that it is impossible to prevent them from operating, but we are going to have a trial of strength, and see whether the State can regulate this business or stop it. or whether the bookmakers are to be sn powerful ns to bo able to laugh to Rcorn all our efforts." Mr. Anderson added that if tho Bill were not strong enougn it would bo strengthened and made nioro drastic.

Mr. Wilford: Do you contend it is any worse to bet with a bookmaker than with tho totalisator? Mr. Andereon: "Except that one is unlawful and the oilier is not." He went on to explain the Bill in detail.. Thu Bill was intended,' he paid, to make bookmaking absolutely illegal. He had under consideration the inclusion in the measure of references to bookmakers' "runners" and touts. Ho believed tho Bill to be in the public interest. The community required to be protected from illicit betting and gambling. About the Jockeys. Mr. W. E.' Parry (Auckland Central) gavo notice of an amendmeni providing that racing clubs should not bo entitled to. exclude or remove bookmakers from the racecourses unless the rules of tho clubs had been approved by the Registrar of Inmistrial Unions, who should satisfy liimself that the rules mado adequate provision for safeguarding. the wages and conditions of labour of persons employed in connection with racing. Mr. Parry prceeded to state tho claims of the jockeys and to argue that tlio riders had not been treated fairly by the racing authorities. Jockeys were eubiect to the absolutely autocratic control of racing stewards, who usually were horse-owners, and who represented merely a small group of racing men. Mr. Parry referred to the chairman of the Racing Conference as the "racing Tsar," and discussed the details of the jockeys' dispute until the Speaker ruled, on tho appeal of the Minister, that the subject was outside tho scope of a Gaming Bill. Another Way, Mr. G. Hunter (Waipawa) congratulated tho Minister on the introduction of the Bill, but regretted that one of the most effective means of dealing with the bookmaker had been disregarded. The legalisation of the doublo totalizator would Jake away much cf the occupation of the bookmaker. Ho believed that many of tho evils that existed in connection with tho turf were directly traceable to the bookmaker. If the bookmaker Tver© eliminated, ho would not say that swindles such as occurred at tho present time would be ended altogether, but they would be greatly reduced. Tho legalisation of the double totalisntor and the publication of dividends in the newspapers would be effective methods, cf stopping the operations of the bookmakers.

Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) aid that ho had prepared somo amendments intended to provide for the legalisation of tho double totalisator. Ho agreed that the bookmaker could jiot exist but for his monopoly of double betting. Mr. Wilford said ho proposed to move repealling tho prohibition of betting by telegraph. If people were allowed to send their money, 'by telegram to the double machine on the course the bookmakers' occupation would be gone, ire would propose also that tho publication of totalisator dividends should be permitted. The people were entitled to know what dividends were paid. He objected to the proposal to regard alleged tookmnkers as guilty until they wore proved to be innocent. The onus of proof should not bo placed 011 n man charged with any offence. Mr. Wilfcrd mentioned that he was the patron of tho Jockeys' Association. He had not been in touch with the dispute during his alwoneo from Now Zealand, but lie believed that the dispute was no'.v on tho way towards satisfactory settlement. A Plea for Freedom. Mr. E. W. Smith (Waimarino) said that ho would oppose that clause in tho Bill which, as he said, required the accused person to prove that ho was innocent. Ho would not agree with tho general idea that all bookmakers were rogues. There was just as big a percentage of honourable men among bookmakers as among men in any other business. There was no cardinal differenc* between tho bookmaker and his client— between tho man who laid tho odds and tho mnn who took them. He objected to the ban on the publication of totalisator odds. What happened was that agents of lwokmnkers on tho courses sent all over tho country to bookmnkors information about totalisator results which was denied to the public. This was unfair to the public. He supported tho proposal for the legalisation of the double to'.alisator, saying that in actual practice tho existence of this form of betting would reduce rather than increase the volume of betting. Eron the prohibition of lotteries in New Zealand had done no good; the people sent their monoy to other countries, paying as imich ns 7s. for a ss. share in a lottery taxed in another country.

Mr. E. Newman (Mnnawatu) said he congratulated the Government on an honest .attempt to deal with a real evil. He thoiight it would he a good thing if all gambling on races could be stopped, but he despaired of this ever coming about. -Of the two inothods provided for betting—with the totalisator and with the bookmakor—lie thought that there .vas Icsb evil in tho totalisator. Tho machine was always honest, and it did not seek custom, whoroae the bookmaker, though often honest, was fometiniKS otherwise, and sought and found his customers among young people of small means. He would like to fee racing encouraged. Root and Branch. Mr. 1,. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) congratulated the Prime-Minister on his Minister in charge of this jlill. Mr. Anderson had showi' ignorance of the inner mysteries of ruce gambling which had exposed him to the derision of Hiitt and Ificcnrton. Jgnoraiico of this kind was really a virtue. lie (Mr. Isitt) would not hear of the introduction, of the douteo totalisator as a measure of reform. This Bill would aiford aJi opportunity to the so-callcd racing' men ot the Ilouse to show just how they stood, lie feared that 011 one pretext or another they would use their vote to protect the bookmakers. The gambling evil was a grave one, especially at a time when the Government had to make repeated appeals to the people to be thrifty. lie appealed to "the better section of tho House," mid Le made another appeal (quite a separate appeal) to the Labour membars of the House to vote to 6top tho operations of tho worst parasites known to New Zealand to-day. The Labour members were fond of denouncing the capitalist, but the capitalist did nt least some service to tho community by encouraging industry, whereas the bookmaker served no useful purpose. Mr.

Isitt was raying some linrd things about racing men, when a member asked: "Would you nccopt the judgment of Kir George Clifford i - " Mr. Isitt retorted promptly: "Ko. Sir George Clifford is the man who professes to beliovo that tho running of long-legged, herring-gut-ted weeds, doped with arsenic for months' to run about two furlongs or so, is encouraging the breeding of horses fit to carry tho British cavalrymen!" He declared that the totalisalor had done moro to encourage race-betting than all the bookmakers in the country ever could have done. Some of the members who said that they wished to reduce gambling would be asking for forty or fifty more permits to do it. Mr. K. W. Smith: Hear, hear.

Air. Isitt: "I thought so." He spoko last of all about "the sporting instinct," saving that ho could understand the sporting instinct in men actually riding galloping horses, could understand the sporting instinct in football, cricket, golf, or any other manly sport. "But," he said, "I have never been able to understand the sporting instinct in a business which depend,-! on getting hold of a set of mannikins, sweating them down to tho last pound, and getting all your excitement out of the amount of money you wager." The Other Side. Mr. G. Witty (liiccarton) defended the sport of racing and defended also tlio bookmaker, but did' not moke clear his attitude on the Bill. Mr. W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei) approved the Bill. Its evident purpose was to eliminate the bookmaker, but ho shared the opinion of tho member for Hutt «nd the member for Waipawa that the best way to ensure tho success of the Bill was to reintroduce the double totalisator. He would favour any Bill to eiminato bookmaking, because the antepost betting going on to-day, by the iwindreds of thousands of pounds, did sometimes lead to interference ivith horses, and hurt the good sport of racing He was satisfied that no law would stop betting on races, and he was snro that tho double totalisator would not increaso gambling. .Alt. W. D. l.ysnar (Gisborne) was with *Jio supporters of the double totalisator. If" feared that the attempt to abolish the bookmaker would not succeed, and tiiat the business would be "driven underground." So he suggested n reduction of penalties. Mr. A. I) M'l,efld (W&irarapn) said that in his opinion the Bill would not achieve its purpose. He would like to we the bookmaker put out of business, lmt he did not thlr.lc this could ever I>e done unless the public were allowed to deal dircct with the machine, and with a double machine. It was the prohibition of telegraphing money to the courso that hnd ; driven people into tho arms of the bookmaker. Ho would support the publication of in the nowsi>apers. ■ Leader of, Labour Party. Mr. H. Holland (Bulled said Hint this Bill did not dea« wiili a really important question. It did not deal with racc gambling as such, but only with one phase of it. He would not attempt to uphold any form of gambling, or to make a plea for tho bookmaker. . Then Mr. Holland digressed to discuss such things a.s "gambling in lives," "gambling in territories," "gambling in commodities," and "gambling in stocks." Ho declared that gambling was not different from the ordinary pursuit of profits by the capitalist. Racing to-day was not a sport, but a business, and a business of no oconomic value to the community. To the business desjiro to get something for nothing was due all the evils of racing. He was not very much concerned about tho Bill, because ho considered the question a small one which the people could be left to decide for themselves. An Owner's Views. Mr. H. M. Campbell (Hawke's Bay) supported the Bill, as a racehorse owner. He believed that bookmakers woro responsible for much in-and-out running of horses oil the turf. He supported tho demand of other racing Inen for tho publication of dividends, and for tho legalisation of telegraphing money to tho machine. Also lie defended tho thoroughbred, quoting General Allenbv as his authority for the statement that the New Zealand "spindle-shanked ihoroilghbred" was the best stayer, the lxwt weight-carrier, and tlio best horse under hardship. He advised the Minister to cut out of the Hill the option of a fine in the case of a bookmaker, but io reduce the penalties for a poison convicted of betting with a bcokmakor. His reason for this latter proposal was that young persons might easily get into trouble through lack of knowledge. The old bookmaker could make so much money that he would readily pay a fine of evon JJSOO. A Referendum? Mr. J. M'Oombs (Lyttelton) was opposed to racing, and lo gambling of any description. Ho'proposed ihe following amendment to the motion for second reading:—"That it bo a recommendation to the Government to take a referendum on the questions of the alx>lition of tho bookmaker and the abolition of the totalisator." . The amendment was seconded by' Mr. E. .T. Howard (Christchurcli South). The amendment was defeated by 49 votes to 10. ' The supporters cf the amendment wotc: Messrs. Veitcb, S. G. .Smith, Sidey, Bartram, Holland, Wright, J'ldie, I'rneer, Crcugie, Parry, Savage, M'Combs, Howard. Isitt. Hannn, and Malcolm. The Bill was rend a second time on tho voices.