GAMBLING.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VI, Issue 269, 30 October 1916, Page 2

GAMBLING.

IS IT ESSENTIALLY IMMORAL? EXAMINED FROM THE PULPIT. (Contributed.) At the Hastings Methodist Church yesterday morning the Rev. M. A. Rugby Pratt spoke on the ethics of gambling to a congregation that filled im* building. After introducing his iliente Mr. Pratt said : —

The gambling evil in this country has grewn to colossal proportions. The scale of its operations, the stupendous sums involved, and the devastation wrought by it to home and character call lor protest and denunciation. The vice is protean in its manifestations, and perI meates all classes of society, in factories. workrooms, shops and offices the staple ta.k is too often of betting. The •sports ground, the athletic lieid, the billiard saloon and the fashionable club • alike are under the malign influence of gambling. Even respectable organisations condone tne vice by such sutfter- ' luges as raffles, art unions and bazaar ! lotteries. The totalisator records re- ! vea. the magnitude of the business of i betting in iXew Zealand. Bookmakers, prombited by law, ply their nefarious calling, and grow’ rich, whilst the Tasmanian iniquity of Tattersail’s sweeps finds thousands of patrons within our coasts. Scarcely a judge or magistrate in the dominion but lias denounced gambling, and condemned the totaiisaror as being responsible for piling up a- record of wrong. Quite recently Air. Justice Cooper sai,:—“in tnis country a very large proportion of crime—-forgery, embezzlement and breaches of trust—is committed by those who have become j victims or tne gambling habit.” Tnat judgment is no Hysterical denun- | ciation of a petty foible of human na-. ture, but a calmly judicial condemna- : tion of a practice tnat demoralises ezery tiling it touches, tnat accustoms tne conscience to shabby tricks and dislione.st devices, and tnat is the handmaid of every vicious tiling. Any man who has the temerity to at- ! tack this evil is designated a “wowser” and a “kill-joy.” Before calling names the critics snou.d confute the reasoning of anti-gambiers and remember tne old legal maxim “abuse is not argu-, meat.” ’

intertwined with the practice of gambling is the sport of horse-racing. Against true sport or against racing as sued 1 have no protest to enter. Aly protest is against the adjuncts of racing. Racing is now carried on as a business and not as a sport, and is mainly supported for the sake of betting. It is a wery poor sport that cannot stand and live upon its own merits. During these days of crisis when the nation s whole resources snould be mobilised to win the war, and at a time when all other parts of the Empire are restricting racing, and the Motherland is refusing facilities for potteries, tne New Zealand Parliament has shamelessly increased the number of racing days by 31. The National Cabinet has connived at illegal lotteries, and ig-1 nobly encouraged the raising of money; for patriotic purposes by a veritable j saturnalia of gambling, thus strength- i ening a subtle and degrading ticte and! promoting the spread of poverty, dis- i tress and crime by the misuse oi money 7 1 that should be earning and increasing wealth. WHAT IS GAMBLING ? It is well, however, to understand what gambling really is. Some have described it as “an attempt to gain by games of chance without giving a just equivalent.” Herbert- Spencer defines it as ‘‘a kind of action by 7 which pleasure is obtained at the expense of pain to others; the happiness of the winner implying the misery of the loser.” Neither of these definitions, however, goes to the real root of the matter; hence, both are open to objection. A more satisfactory definition, at whirh none will be likely to cavil, is that- suggested by W. Douglas Mackenzie: —“Gambling is the transference of property upon the principle of chance.”

Nominally, the distribution of property, which is the produce of labour, is under the control of law and reason. The gambler puts it under the reign of blind hazard. He intentionally and gratuitious.y introduces the element of chance where it did not exist before. To chance, artificially and arbitrarily created, the gambler submits the transfer of property—a process that should be controlled by reason alone. A bet, Mr. Mackenzie points out, is an agreement to transfer property upon certain stipulated conditions. The mere possession cf property of any kind imposes moral obligations as to its use and disposition. Two righteous principles of transfer are universally recognised—name.y: (1) benevolence, in which a free gift is mado; and (2) exchange, in which an equitable purchase takes place. A third principle of transferring properry, that of theft, is condemned by the common moral judgment of men. Now, gambling is not necessarily theft, for the transference is by consent of the loser. Neither does gambling involve a free gift. The loser cherishes no benevolent intention, for he desires to gain. Nor is gambling an exchange, for in an exchange each gets some equivalent for what he gives. Jn a bet no true exchange is possible, for, obviously, equality of risks is no equivalent for actual possessions. In transferring property cither by gift or purchase, a man’s whole nature can find full exercise. In submitting its disposal to chance the will is treated irrationally, and the very elements ( that constitute a man —reason, con- I science and the higher emotions —arc deliberately repressed and set aside. The arbitrary e evation of the fickle element of contingency is sacrilege against the reason. It degrades our nature and dishonours our manhood.

A NON-HUMAN PRINCIPLE, Chance is a non-human principle, and gambling is, by its very nature, dehumanising. It is not the act of a normal, rational being, but of one who has voluntarily forsaken the conditions of intelligent action by forfeiting to chance the natural exercise of his manhood. The gambler debases his manhood as really as the man who deliberately gets drunk. Both, of their own volition, render impassible the full and normal exercise of human nature, the drunkard for the exhilaration of alcoholic intovication, the gambler for the excitement of risk. The gambler's act is immoral, because it outrages the reason. Ip the very act of gambling, apart from its consequences, there is involved the violation of a mora* principle. This is the psychological explanation of the fact that gambling weakens the moral fibre, debases tne character and, naturally, produces the cheat and the deceiver. Tiiese efforts spring from the inherent nature of the act. Repeated practice of gambling affects the very substance of one’s ■ life. It wears a mental track through the tissues of the brain, impairing the . sense of responsibility, anfi gradually j drawing from the path of rectitude, I do not mean that betting mon are necessarily bad man. For the most part they are thoughtless men, whose! consciences need instructing and quick-! ening in relation to a practice the moral effect of which is hurtful and not whole- ’ sonic. Did they consider the natural consequences of the act, man,' would abandon it for ever. The gambler’s willing escape from the control of reason is often avenged by reason abandoning its affronter. As Mackenzie puts it: —“Nature is profoundly, irresist-; ibly, relentlessly logical when she makes the gambler mad.” AVhen reason is set aside, tbc emotions, unrestrained by its influences, i have the gambler under resistless control. Thus, when a crash overtakes him. the consequent tumult of emotion which oft-abandoned reason is powerless to subdue, sweeps the victim off his mental balance. Long ago a writer in the ’‘Spectator” said that of all vicious habits -gambling most predisposed its victims to suicide. And many a gambler’s suicide has been attributed to, temporary insanity. XVhen, with reason

gone, the gambler makes “his last and greatest venture, and stakes his life on the unknown future,” he is but following his first bet to its logical conclusion. Madness is .the Nemisis that has followed his voluntary abandonment of reason. A “WILL-O’-THE-WISP.” The hope of gain by gambling is the pursuit of a veritable “ignis fatuus,” and it leads with, tragic frequency- to the bog. La Place, the famous French mathematician, dealing with the theory of probabilities, demonstrated, by the inexorable laws of mathematics, that the gambler flies in the face of the teachings of that science. That in the end a gambler must lose is not a mere moral platitude, but a mathematical certainty. Sir Hiram Maxim worked out by mathematical processes that £lOO invested in “straight tips” on horse-racing was worth only £3 6/8, and on horse-racing ns advised by experts was worth only’ £6B to the investor. Mr. Holt Schoo.ing, that great master of statistics, shows also the insensate folly of gambling. By the cold calculations of mathematics he scientifically tested the various systems of betting, and found that not one of them could, “by- any possibility, overcome the fundamental certainty of ultimate loss.” The betting man buys a chance that is worth less than the money it costs; hence it inevitably follows that constant buying of this sort must result in loss to the buyer. Mathematics demonstrate the fatuous folly of an embezzler, who hopes by gambling to recoup himself for the amount of his peculations. Gambling enriches only the racing clubs, the bookmakers and the sweepstakes promoters. The duped gambler must always foot the bill.

GAMBLING AND TRADING. | The contention is often advanced i that all business is a gambling -specula- : tion. Of course there are commercial gamblers who trade merely upon chances. But a moment’s reflection will show that legitimate trading and gamb.ing are far as the poles apart. There i is no unity or conformity between them. ! Their relation is ready one of contracts. So different are they in principle that they cannot indeed be put into comparison. The motives o f the gambler and the trader are entirely different. The , trader aims at eliminating risk. He- ! does not want to hazard his money, and !he even strives after certainty. The > risks of a business man are accidental,' and are based upon scientific know-; ledge and experience. To reduce or remove risk the trader makes a study of the reasons, the needs of the people, and a score of other things. The gambler, on the other hand, aims at eliminating certainty. To; equalise the risk and make the ru.ei of chance as absolute as possible, the ’ gambler “lays” or “takes odds.” j When betting is not based upon chance I it is knavery. The man who bets upon J a certainty is a cheat, for 'he knows! the other fellow must lose. Of course, the slender etnies of the turf allow a man to keep his own counsel, and to use “inside knowledge” to despoil another. Manifest.y, the odds are always against the honourable man. The base man has the better chance of gain. The t rue basis of trade is reepiroeal benefit. Trading transactions are twice blessed ; they benefit him w-ho buys and; him who sells. The business man gains his livelihood by serving his fellow. In catering for the needs of the community he performs a useful public function. His gains are the legitimate remuneration for his labour and his responsibility. They represent the value of the service he has rendered, and recoup him for his investment in discharging a useful office. The gambler serves and satisfies nobody but himself, and gains his livelihood by impoverishing his fellows. The economic result of his nefarious traffic is negative. He adds nought to the wealth of the community, but withdraws money from productive uses, and shows himself a traitor to trade. (To be continued.)