STATE LOTTERIES

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 221, 14 June 1930, Page 13

STATE LOTTERIES

Sir,—-While I cannot see eye to eye with the Rev. F. E. Harry in the matter of art unions, I admire him for having the courage of his honest convictions. Every man is entitled to his opinion. In giving his opinion the reverend gentleman used such expressions as seemed to him to fit the occasion and to drive home what he considered to be his duty on behalf of those of the community who are morally concerned to keep the _ rest of us in some sort of check. For this he deserves our greatest respect, and I have no time for some of those who have charged him with being narrow-minded, bigoted, or one-sided. He might just as logically charge them with being the same. It is, after all, only a matter of opinion (ill-considered with some), and there is no reason why an argument cannot be met without recourse to abuse. I have a more or less open paind on the subject, but I Bee no great harm in legalised lotteries or art unions, if the gain is put to good public use. It has long been thought a fair thing to. help churches, hospitals, and such public institutions by granting permits for art unions, and it may just as logically be argued that if a lottery will provide funds for the relief of, say, unemployed and misery, there can be no more objection to it than to a church raffle.

A. year or two ago I suggested a State lottery, and I have not yet Been any reason for altering my views on the subject There are many things in the world which ore classed as morally wrong. Some can be stopped. Some can not. It may be possible to stop some things by taking away the means. Not so with gambling, for there is nothing to take away. A man can bet on anything without preparation of any kind —just two people and the inclination. Moreover, the State has already legalised gambling, through the totalisator, for revenue purposes. To be consistent, why not legalise lotteries for the same purpose? On the assumption that all State revenue is applied in benefiting the mass of the people, that part of it derived from lotteries would be equally welcome. We should not lose sight of the fact that thousands of>pounds (even though illegally) annually leave New Zealand for investment in lotteries abroad. We do not seem to prevent this, but we could keep a great deal of the money in our own country by instituting State lotteries, and it would entice foreign capital to our shores. I am quite opposed to lotteries the proceeds bf which benefit only individuals or groups of individuals. For thia reason I look upon a church raffle as no better morally than a public utility lottery. The proceeds frpm State lotteries would benefit all alike. To those of us who are oldfashioned and conservative, and who have not kept up with the spirit of the times, no arguments probably would be very convincing. But there is no need to be an ostrich and blink the fact that life is not now what life used to be. Try as we old fogeys will, and do as we will, we cannot stem the inclination towards naturally attractive and harmless flutters in such risks as, in a bigger way in the stork exchange, would be called business. Therefore, let us, with all due respect to our moral counsellors, bow to the inevitable, and be consistent in legalising public lotteries for public revenue, at any rate for so long as we legalise the totalisator with the same objective. I have heard Mr. Harry preach, and I have heard him lecture. I am satisfied that he is considerably more broadminded than some of those who have called him to book, and I hope he will admit my honesty in saying that I am pleased to join issue with him in repudiating such abusive attacks as have been made upon him. A little more unselfishness in the world would be welcome, in that it might persuade some people to look through the Other man’s spectacles. The other man’s point of view is always worthy of consideration.—l am, etc., ’ “8.H.” Wellington, June 12. ,