Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14. 1909. GROWN MINISTERS & THEIR OBLIGATIONS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLIII, Issue XLIII, 14 September 1909, Page 2

Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14. 1909. GROWN MINISTERS & THEIR OBLIGATIONS.

THE TATTERSALL'S BLUNDER. PROBABLY because tho tactful guiding hand of Sir Joaoph Ward is not at the Ministerial helm at present, the crew of the f hip of state have brought- their vessel more than once into shoal water. A notable instance is in tho utterly unnecessary speech-making by the ActingPremier and Mr J. A. Millar at the opening of Tattersall's Club at Welling, ton. It may be taken. for granted that, however Sir Joseph Ward might be inclined to fraternise with the better class of racecourse bookmakers in the haunts of men and regard them as a man of the world among his fellows may do, ho would not have been guilty of the political gaucherie of giving semi-official Ministerial countenance to an organisation intended to centralise and systematise racecourse betting. It is no question of the "Nonconformist- conscience" or of the opinion of and denunciation of gambling by those who regard it as illegal from tho standpoint of the laws of God and man. It is a clear-cut controversial issue, a factor in our politics, deliberately made so by the party_ .at present in power by the legalising "of racecourse betting solely because it has been deemed requisito to bring within control of the law an evil that cannot be stamped out. The bookmaker in New 'Zealand is no more respectable or desirable ■to-day because he mny ply his trade with a license within certain bounds than he was when ho ran the risk of prosecution as a law-breaker. He is simply legalised and restricted, just as in some countries houses of ill-fame are, in order that ho may be kept better within the purview of tho police. For Ministers of the Crown to hob-nob with and make semiutiicial cpocchfs at a club essentially rap-iwent-aUve of a legalised and Teculatcd social evil is to perpetrate an act that is not only a tactical blunder, but also a grave doroliction from Ministerial duty and obligation. The Ministers who have been guilty of it have failed to appreciate or realise their responsibilities, and they have endangered the standing of the Cabinet and its estimation by the public during the absence of their chief. • • • • • • Nothing is said or implied affirming tho conviction that politicians must alter their lives and change their ways or become less men of the world among men merely because they take Ministerial office. " Within certain well defined limits they are free by tacit convention to do and think as they choose as indivi. duals; but as Ministers they owe it to the community as a whole that they should adopt circumspection in many di. "rectiona not binding on the ordinary citizen. Tho presence of Mr Carroll, M.P., at the opening of a Tatersall's Club is of little importance or significance — but a speech at such a gathering by the Acting-Premier of the Dominion, followed by another by a colleague, is a tact-leas blunder, as well as an outrage against the accepted eontiment of Iho vast majority of the people that gambling to a limited extent is legalised and regulated solely beeauses it cannot be suppressed. There has been no regeneration of the bookmaker. He is just as much outside tho pale as he was — few of us would invite him to our homes, or put him up at our clubs, or introduce him U> our womenkind,* though W6 may bet with him, drink with him, dine with him, and be hail-fellow-well-met so long as he did not welsh us. There is no apotheosis of a social evil merely because to be evil within certain limits is not illegal. Messrs Carroll and Millar, M. s P., have a perfect right to frequen^ Tattersall's, and their movements are not restricted even though they bo also Ministers. But they nave no right to give Ministerial countenanco and eulogy to a. head-quarters of betting, for, on a public occasion, they cannot dissociate their office from their personality. Without question the Ministers imagine that they were within their right as private citizens when thsy attended the opening of Tattereall's and spoke a» they listed. But they blundered in e M.h a conception of their individuality. Their identity may be dual, but thers are cccasions when the duality cannot r-e separated, and the inauguration of n headcentre of a legalised social evil was one of them. Had Sir Joseph Ward been in New Zealand the faux pas at which his colleagues have been puilty never uouid have been perpetrated, for it would not have /been permitte'.. The liiinist'-rs concerned have committed' that which has been described bt Tiilieyrind as worse than a crime— a blunder, and they may hear of it again, no*, only from political opponents, but also fnvn their chief when he returns. Anyone wl:|> has f'llo.ved.the history of th-> latest legislation of gamiug in New Zealand must re*lise how the two Ministers under notice liaVo" ; offended againat the canons of Ministerial good taote.and tradition alike; lill the last Act was passed, our laws relating- to racecourse ancF other gambling bristled with anomalies. Betting was ibeplutely illegal— yej it was quiJiß law-

fill to bet U Hie tbtaiisiitbr. The WoiSj mhlj'erorid t.hose «hti Hot- With mm uuilid be jii'OjjocUtiSi!, vet racing odds could be i transmitted over the State telegraphs at j press rates. Public opinion brought j about a radical change, and as the bookmaker and betting could not he entirely suppressed thpy Witfo restricted to certain libfiiled areas and regulated .Xv lav,- . [ At the .saira time; /such Snppresi'.cli of . great evil fl,s was possible Wds ''h^t )«• mHiihjJ It penal to publish odds, tel<--Kaph commissions to bet, or purchase totalisator tickets, or bet elsewhere than on a racecourse. The bookmaker, who plied his calling stealthily m spite of ihe law, was permitted to bo licensed, an dto hv his odds within certain tacCj course enclosure*, JI.W? H a ffJ* d wmoly ettd-javoAirVrig to control and_ regulate £*ocuil evil-no one dreamt of making either bookmakmg or betting a re spectable calling. Yet, by cunourtyillogical processes", Ministers of the Crown sdm to have arrived at the ««w?»"«° that the bookmaker has been hab>Wat«J by law into citizenship, and that his club may therefore be officially countenanced by Ministerial eulogies of the good that it may do ! # # . Probably the Ministers "'-cant no harm, and acted only accordniu to their littlita. But Hioy nraet. »<"J- ?r ; "X~ ishod or aggrieved becauss the llimcills Puol"' 6e fovo the es™? 10113 "f 1 ", 1 ; do? of both thought and action, and rto not hesitate to express themselves in un mistakeable terms. As we have said al. ready, it is no question of the >onconformist. Conscience' 1 or of a puntaniDal concepiion of a Crown Minister s dulies and obligations and restriction?. .' is simply an issue of ordinary citizenship and the judicious exercise of the responsibility vested in a Government It is of no concern to the public that Messrs Carroll and Millar may bet, or be tolerent of bookmakers, or even treouent Tattersall's Club. It is ako a s-de Hsue that such a club may further regulate and control a social evil which the law has undertaken to regulate and con. trol. Ml that* the pftop lp Bjota* against is that Messrs Carroll and Millar have failed to realise that as Ministers of the Crown they have no right to assist officially or semi-officially at the inauguration of the head-quarlors of a social evil, howover tolerated iind popular that social evil may be.