A THORNY SUBJECT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14532, 21 November 1910, Page 6

A THORNY SUBJECT.

HOW THE BOOKMAKER STANDS, AMENDING THE GAMING BILL. {81 IBLEGEAPH.—SPECIAI. COBBK3PONDBNT.) Wellington, Saturday. Oxb of the most thorny subjects the Government has yet to dispose of this session is the Gaming Bill. A number of amendments have been made by the Legislative Council, and as there is difference of opinion as to the effect of these they will be fiercely debated in the House this week. The Prime Minister is faced with the difficulty that there are two members of the Executive who are the avowed friends of the bookmakers. The House and "the country want tho bookmaker to go but it is rumoured that in order to restore harmony in the Cabinet the Government may make the differences 'between the House and tho Council an excuse for dropping the Bill. This, however, would kindle such a blaze in the country that it is hardly likely Cabinet will take the risk, even though two of the strongest Ministers may plead hard for the "bookie." Some interesting points arose during the discussion on the Bill in the Legislative Council. One amendment inserted by.the Council provides for the whole Act- coming into operation on January 31 next. Under the Bill as it stood the clause dealing with the duration of race meetings would have come into force at once. This exempts all the coming holiday meetings from the provisions of the new law. Several members of the Council expressed regret that the Bill did not prevent bookj makers' operations altogether. I "It is merely paltering with the question," declared the Hon. G. Jones in pointing out that the Bill would allow betting to go on in private offices. Dr. Findlay remarked that this was as far as they could go short of trying to stop betting altogether. The Hon. C. M. Luke said he was. told that, the bookmakers were highly amused at Parliament's action in this matter and saying, that they would be able to play their business as successfully as ever, 6ave on tho racecourses. He would like to know whether it would be possible for a bookmaker under the guise of a commission agent to carry on business in an office. "No, he would not," said the AttorneyGeneral, adding that as far as he knew th«tre was no legal objection to a bookmaker going into an office and making a bet there. If, however, he was using a building for the purpose of making a bet, then it became a common gaming house at once. _, The Hon. W. C. Smith said he was sorry that the law could not go any further. Dr. Findlay said it must be conceded \ that it was somewhat curious that in an intelligent democracy like this the officers of the law could pounce upon an old lady telling fortunes and send her to prison, while if a man were carrying on work such as had just been described he could do so with impunity so long as he avoided conflict with certain provisions of the law. - There was a close division on an amendment moved by the Hon. J. Bigg, with the object'of killing the clause which provides for setting up a commission to determine thi number of -licenses. The clause was retained by 14 votes to 13, the voting being as follows. For the clause: Findlav, PauL Tucker, W. C. Smith, G. J. Smith. Baldey, Collins, Stevens, Loughnan, McLean, Ormand, Johnston, .Anstey, Wigram. Against the clause: Macdonald, £allan, Luke, Bigg, Barr, Jenkinson, Jones, Harris. Thompson, MeGowan, Mills, Sinclair, Samuel. _'■-./ i ; The Hon. O. Samuel moved ;to strike out the provision that the totalisator may be used on 250 days in the year, saying that Ms object was to retain the number oil permits as at present. To reduce the privileges of the peoplt as proposed, without a mandate from the public— (Voices: "Question. , ')—would be & very harsh proceeding indeed. '■■'"■ The Hon. W. C, Smith said that by striking out the number 250 it would give an opportunity to the advocates of still further redaction to move the insertion of 200 as the limit. A reduction was much more likely than an increase, (Hear, hear.) ;i " Dr. Findlay declared that there was a very widespread and growing; feeling in favour ; of • reduction in the racing days. Many people were of opinion that in leaving file number at 250 it was too much. .The amendment was withdrawn by Mr. Samuel, on* member commenting : "You are wise to do it." THE BOOKMAKER IN THE NET. ARMED WITH A SHARP KNIFE. [KT tej^egbaph.—special cobrespondent.] " WELKtNGrojf, Saturday. i There has been some discussion regarding one of the amendments in the Gaming Bill made in - the Legislative Council. The Bill, as it left the House, stipulated a penalty "for every ■■" bookmaker who makes, or off era to make, any bet or wager on any racecourse, or in any public place or premises," but this clause was struck out by the Council. In explanation of. this , the AttorneyGeneral says: "Clause 4 makes it the duty of those who are in charge of any racecourse on which a race meeting is being held to prevent by all reasonable means any bookmaker from plying his trade, and this section includes i the , power (if the bookmaker does not heed a warning) to have him put off by a constable or an agent or servant of the club. If the bookmaker, after being removed, comes back, he may be arrested and ,oh conviction sent to 'gaol for three months. If the racing club does not prevent a bookmaker from plying his trade and expel him if he persist it is 'the duty of the Minister for Internal Affairn to revoke tho club's license and refuse to issue any further I license to the club for a period of 12 months from the date of the revocation. It will thus be seen," added Dr. Findlay,- "that any club which does not use all reasonable means to exclude the bookmaker incurs the liability of b»ing extinguished. Having provided that the bookmaker could not carry on business on a racecourse on which a race meeting was being held, it would , have been inconsistent to have provided that bets made by a bookmaker on such a course were illegal.. The provision for the , expulsion of a bookmaker from the course ■,': makes him in effect a trespasser illegally on ~ premises, and is a much more drastic pro- ;, vision than merely declaring that betting by ' him on a racecourse is illegal. The bookp maker has no right on the course itself when a race meeting is in progress, and, with this in view, to provide that bets made by .'■: him on such a course should lie illegal would ; have been, to assume that he had a right, in ; the first place, to be there. That was an i inconsistency which the draughtsman of the I' amended clause,very properly avoided." . K '.• The Wellington Post, replying to Dr.Findlay's remarks, points out that there is . . nothing in the Bill :to punish a bookmaker caught betting on ; a course beyond his ex- : pulsion when r detected. ;': "For example, a bookmaker ; may 'ply* during six races and be removed just before the seventh. It may be easily proved that he was betting for six races, but this proof involves ho prosecution at Court. Are the clubs expected to employ an army of detectives? Will there be a battalion of police at every meeting? We give the Attorney-General credit for honesty of intention in trying to draw the net more closely around the bookmaker, but the Bill in its present form gives him a nice large sharp knife to free himself from the toils." . ■