The Evening Star. SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 1906.

Evening Star, Issue 12883, 4 August 1906, Page 6

The Evening Star. SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 1906.

From the news wired from Auckland the other day it appears that The State's the Telegraph Department inconsistent has informed the " bookPnsltlon. makers" that their telephones will be disconnected, and that they will not be allowed in future to connect with the Exchange. So far as the Regulations go it would seem that the Department has power to carry out thin expressed intention, for it is therein provided that "the Electric " Telegraph Commissioner or Superin- " tendent of Electric Lines may refuse to " connect with the Telephone Exchange " any place of business, house, or pre"mises which, in the. opinion of tho " Commissioner, is or are used for any " illegal, immoral, or improper purpose, " and may, either with or without pro- " vions notice, exclude from the Telephone " Exchange any subscriber who allows the " telephone instrument in his custody . . *'. to bo ppi, to any improper use. a#d.

''may remove ... any instrument :allotted to the use of such subscriber." And no one is to h,ave any claim for damages in consequence of such refusal. The trade of bookmaker being an illegal one, bookmakers, at all eyents, apparently may bo disconnected from the Exchange and the telephones removed at the will of the Commissioner. It is doubtless necessary to give the Commissioner very wide powers, but making him a means of enforcing a rigid morality, contrary to the opinions and practice of a very large section of the community, is carrying things too far. Wo need not at present discuss the ethics of gambling in its many forms. Some regard it as a mere foible, others as a vice to be discouraged in every way. Cut the State itself, with remarkable inconsistency, strives to suppress betting, makes laws of unusual rigor, and lays all sorts of traps to catch the guilty; and when by phariee it does catch some poor unlucky Chinaman contravening the statutes iu that behalf made and provided, fines him heavily. Society thereupon smugly remarks : " What a dreadful' thing gambling is, and "what wicked people those Chinamen must "bo"; then Society turns on its heel and puts its own money on the totalisator! Is it not equally wicked and equally illegal to bet on the totalisator? "The Slate, however, says "No." Murder is a crime whether committed by the in-dividual-or the State: theft likewise; but betting apparently "is on a different footing. The rich man can wire his tens or hundreds of pounds to bo put on the machine, but tho poor man dare not venture to bet half a crown with a bookmaker, except with the risk of having to suffer the dire penalties of tho law if by any possibility he should bo caught. The State evidently considers that the profit to be obtained from tho machine more than compensates for the evil that is done by the betting that is carried on by its means. Tho huge sum of £126,000 annually effectually gilds the vice, and all may gamble to their heart's content provided they patronise the Government institution and support the State monopoly. But woe betide anybody who passes by the State " Lote" for the individual bookmaker. Somehow we fail to see how it can be right for tho State to endeavor by every means in its power to suppress betting and at the same lime to legalise betting on a large scale—bring it, so to speak, to everyone's door, and provide every facility for carrying it on, and in adchtion to that, derive a huge profit from this legalised "vice." It is a scandalous condition of affairs that the State should prosecute tho individual for what it stamps as illegal and morallv wrong and claim for itself a monopolv of evil-doing simply because the evildoing pays. Either gambling is wrong and should be put down or it is a matter for the individual, and should be left to him. If it is wrong, then there can be absolutely no excuso for the State thrownig its rogis over the totalisator and receiving a substantial revenue from it. The interference with individual liberty that is allowed by the law in many instances such as tho present is beeominc; somewhat serious, and there is no saving where it may end.. Where the State meddles with matters of morals it alwavs runs the risk of either doing too much "or too little. If it docs interefere, its action should be absolutely consistent and completely above suspicion.