TATTERSALL'S CLUB.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 20, 23 July 1909, Page 3

TATTERSALL'S CLUB.

IS THE ACT INFRINGED? A CRITICISM AND A EEPLY. The new Tattorsall Club premises V'ere described in Saturday's issue. A deputation of anti-gamblers lodged a protest with the Acting-Premier recent]y. The club has now matured and come into the limelight. The objections felt against it by the other side are thus summarised by the Rev. J. J. North, whose interest, in anti-gambling legislation is well known. "We anti-gamblers-," says Mr. r^orth, "allege that the establishment of this club is equivalent to the establishment of a gaming-house in the heart of the city. If the authorities permit it to continue, the inefficiency of the 1907 Act ■will, we further allege, be glaringly displayed. The Act is leaking already at a number of seams. The absence of any clause limiting the number of race days has led to the establishment of the Miramar Club. We have 24 extra race clays in this district, and the Act and the authorities do nothing. The inconsistent Racing Conference is no barrier. The Government has promised to stop that leak. But here is another Jeak, and the water is pouring in. What are the facts? Prior to 1907 bookmakers held telephones under assumed names. The Government cut these off. Prior to the 1907 Act, bookmakers had city offices, and did their business as merchants do theirs. Billiard saloons licenced by the city were used to cover their offices in many cases. The Post denounced this scandal in very round terms, and the city was meaning to do Eomefching, and then the Act came. The 1907 Gaming Act shut up bookmakers' offices and took extraordinary powers to prevent their re-appearance. The motto of the Act, repeated ad nauseum, was 'Confine betting to racecourses.' The whole Act was fashioned on that motto. Bookmakers were (for dark reasons not yet disclosed) licensed to operate at race meetings, in compensation for the total loss (sic) of their city practice. What, then, is this present move? It is not merely the formation of a bookmakers' club, wherein the members guarantee each! other's solvency. That would be the affair of the pencillers purely. The Tattersall Club is, we allege, far more than that. Central and commodious premises have been taken. The confiding public is invited to do its writing and chatting there, and to meet the bookmakers there, and settle their hetting accounts there. Bookmakers were refused telephone connection. Now they have their number. The department climbs down. - No. 2772 finds any bookmaker of any standing in this city. Their offices were shut up in a. summary fashion by the 1907 Act. They have now a suite of rooms as extensive as all the old offices put together, and furnished in appropriate tints. In two interviews pxiblished in Wellington papers they have asked the public to meet them in their new home." •'What are these club rooms for? Why do men meet bookmakers?" asks Mr. North. "'Here is," he adds, "what may be a coincidence, and may be a straw on the tide. Saturday's Post described the new club rooms very vividly, and in reporting Saturday's race meeting said that bookmakers were not in evidence in the usual way. The number licensed was far beneath the average. If the authorities acquiesce in the present move bookmakers may be inclined to let the totalisator do racecourse business. Most men are in town on race The bookmakers are now in town, and may be chatted with in comfortable quarters, instead of in windy Willis-street, or they may be rung up." Mr. North refers to certain sections in the Act to support his contention that the authorities can take steps to discourage TattersalFs. HOW THE ACT STANDS. The clauses of the Gaming Act which have made it difficult for the promoters of betting or systematic gambling to conduct their operations in offices or other rooms, are sections 3, 14, 15, and 16. Section 3 (subsection 1) : — "Any justice, upon complaint made before him on oath that there is reason to suspect any premises to be kept or used as a common gaming-house, and that such premises are commonly reported and believed by the deponent so to be, may by special warrant . . . when in his discretion he thinks fit, authorise any constable to enter, with such assistance as may be found necessary, into such premises, and, if necessary, to use force for making such entry, whether by breaking open doors or otherwise, and to arrest, search, and bring before any two justices all persons found therein, and to seize all tables and instruments of gaming found therein, and also to seize all moneys and securities for money found therein." Section 14 (subsection 1) : — "On the affidavit of a superintendent or inspector of police showing reasonable grounds for suspecting that any premises, whether licensed or registered, under any Act whatsoever or not, are used as a common gaming-house, or as a means of access to or of exit from any common gaming-house, the Supreme Court may declare such premises to be a common gaming-house. ' Then come the quarantining sections for branding tho premises as a "common gaining house," and the provision of penalties. THE CLUB'S REPLY. One of the club's executive's officers, briefly outlining the promoters' policy, objects, and ideals, stated that the club was a social institution, with a scope much the same as other clubs. There had been no application for a liquor charter, nor any attempt to apply for one. The members would be content with the locker system, adopted by some other clubs. One aim was to give a definite status to approved bookmakers. No bookmaker could hope for membership unless his record would bear full enquiry, and when elected, he would be obliged to pay in £100 as an entrance fee. The hall-mark of "Tattersalls" would be a guarantee- to the public that they would be running no risks of a "welshing" ■when making investments. The promoters hoped to safeguard thepublic against disreputable practitioners who had a habit of defaulting when the luck went against them. In addition to ensuring safe bettors for the public, the club would furnish a desired set-tling-up place. No vets would be made on the premises. Tho promoters were quite aware of the law, and had no wish to break it. Some £1500 had been spent in renovating and furnishing the rooms, and the clubmen were not eager to suffer a severe loss by infringing the Gaming Act. Their attitude was : "The country has its laws and its officers. Our club rooms are fixtures ; they will not bolt. We know the penalties if we break the laws. But why should it be assumed that we mean to break them? Why are sinister intentions attributed to us?" There would be no processions of strangers up the stairs to make bets on race days or other days. The rules in vogue at othpr clubs in reference to the admission of strangers to the rooms would apply to Tattersall's as well. The club would help to minimise street betting. It would enable men to have an agreeable and respectable meeting place away from the hotels. Not one bookmaker would be on the controlling committee. Tho promoters utterly failed to see why there should be any interference with people who were forming a club for socia' intercourse and recreation,