ART UNIONS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 25 March 1926, Page 4

ART UNIONS.

The statement made in Dunedin by the Minister of Internal Affairs, regarding tlie administration of the law governing art unions, was not before its time. Apart altogether from ethical considerations, this art union question demands investigation and the attention of Parliament. Some months ago the Minister announced that he would in future limit first prizes to £SOO immediately a fresh crop of easily won thousands was offered to the speculating public. It appears now that no new applications for higher “ stakes’ •’ than £SOO are being granted, but that there is an accumulation of permits already issued, and that it will take a year to work these off. For another twelve months, then, we shall have the spectacle of a Government which makes it an offence to participate in a Tattersall’s sweep—or at any rate, to post money with that intention —nevertheless setting the seal of its sanction upon the local equivalent of “Tatts. ?’ However, while restriction of prize money might with .justice have come earlier, the inconsistency of the official attitude is explained away by Mr Bollard’s action in publishing the facts. Proof that the Minister is not blind to the -abuses of the present system is furnished by his decision to prohibit the broadcasting of books of tickets. To thrust a shear of tickets upon a citizen before he has asked for it, and then to endeavour to enlist him as a selling agent, is at best an impudent manner of doing business. No organiser has a right to pester people through* the post, no matter how favourably disposed they may be towards his enterprise. Also, it would not be out of place were Parliament, some time between now and March next, to review the section of the Gaming Act which sped-

fies the classes of prizes which may be offered by the promoters of art unions. If restriction be desirable, then the restriction imposed by the law should be enforced. If restriction be not desired by Parliament, the law should not pretend otherwise. At present “works of art” and “mineral specimens” are permissible prizes. Thus gold dust is within' the law. But at one time or another bungalows, pianos, motor cars and gramaphones have managed to squeeze through'/ either as actual prizes or as openly advertised substitutes for prizes. And how some enterprising promoter is proposing to disguise a pedigree dairy bull either as a work of art or as a mineral specimen! While cash —by its equivalent' in gold dust —remains a lawful prize, it will be no very difficult task for a winner to gratify liis desire for anything from a Jersey calf to ,an aeroplane; but, as the Act stands at present, both are illegal. And, if a law is worth having on the Statute Book, it is worth enforcing. It might be )possible, of course, to prove that the law in this particular is an ass; but that is a different matter.