THE BOOKMAKER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20969, 4 September 1931, Page 12

THE BOOKMAKER.

Sir,—Dr. J. J. North states: "I believe that Sir Joseph Ward's policy is the true policy." This policy is described as: "The restriction of gambling to racecourses." In a former letter I stated that Dr. North deserved the support and thanks of the community. I must now take issue with him. There are other policies open to us than the three described by Dr. North. And I maintain that " the true policy" is to make gambling illegal on the race grounds' as elsewhere. The State cannot consistently engage in gambling as a betting agent and at the same time ban the bookmaker. At least this cannot be done by justifying the principle of gambling in the one case and condemning it in the other. Common Sense. Sir, —The salutary strictures of Dr. North in the Hebald of August 31 have stirred the ire of the irrepressible " Revenue" and three other anonymous advocates for licensing the bookmaker—- " their national asset." And, as those idealistic patriots are evidently relying on the quiescent laxity and good-natured tolerance of the people generally, I hope you will allow me to make further comments on some of the evils that will surely result if the bookmaker by Act of Parliament becomes the legitimate equal of honourable, industrious citizens on whom this nation mainly relies for the maintenance of morality; and also its financial stability The intrinsic power of a good example cannot possibly be overestimated, and if that concomitant of good government is the principal objective of the British, whether they reside in or out of the Empire, peace and goodwill may be permanently established on this earth. But, inversely, the power of a bad example is the precursor of ominous ill-will, internecine strife, and horrible international wars. If licensed, will the bookmaker provide a good or a bad example? The answer to that pertinent query I will leave to responsible citizens, who understand the many temptations inseparable from the acquisition of money. The bookmaker " toils not, neither does he spin," excepting his "web," which will be skilfully baited to enmesh his prey—young men, and, pitiably, women also. As cunningly suggested by one of the irate advocates of licensing the bookmaker, modesty prevents some of them from appearing in the "limelight," but not so the opponents of that " honourable gentleman" the bookmaker. "They" are not concerned at all about the honour of this nation, but only by personal hostility and vanity. And, before the limelight is extinguished, I will again subscribe my name. William R. Keay, Kumeu.

Sir, —Since humour and have been conspicuously absent in Dr. North's letters on bookmakers, one may be pardoned for doubting the existence of either. Re this Indian Summer, 1908-11, was the licence repealed by public opinion generally or by the continual agitation of a few? Was a referendum taken? If not, how can it be said that the majority wished the abolishing of the bookmaker ? Legislation brought prohibition to America. Do the people obey that • law ? All attempts to enforce obedience have been futile. Unless the law is backed by public opinion it is useless- The thousands who bet with the bookmaker are otherwise law-abiding citizens. In ignoring the present law they seek the bookmaker and are responsible for his existence. In filling this public want, he runs the risk of imprisonment and is left to bear the brunt. His total extinction will not stop private bets on sports or cards, so betting will still continue away from the racecourse. The gambling spirit will never be eradicated from the people, and so long as they patronise the bookmaker, they lean in favour of his being licensed. Dr. North is not alone in his opinion, but neither am I. The question is, would the majority vote for or against the bookmaker, were a referendum taken ? Human wreckage, from divers reasons, is always present, and with regard to ruin following embezzlement to pay gambling debts, the man who bets, with no hope of meeting his debt of honour, is dishonourable from the start; embezzlement is only another step for him. Just deserts would be meted out to the individual who attempted to pass a valueless cheque through the ft tote," but every bookmaker has a wonderful collection of them. The bookmaker at present is fair game for all who choose to take advantage of his "illlegal position," from those who unfairly condemn him as a parasite to the waster who attempts to blackmail him into paying what is not due, under the threat of a complaint to the police. The responsibility for creating this social evil can be directly traced to the law which makes the bookmaker illegal and leaves him no redress. Since the bookmaker's total extinction is evidently impossible, J. thick a licence granted him to do business on the racecourse or in his office only, would be infinitely better than imprisonment for the big bookmaker and the cbntmual springing up of small ones. no man is capable of speaking for the majority, it has not been proved that the said majoritv wished the bookmaker imprisoned. A little care is needed in choosing the men to be licensed, and that perhaps with proof of a man's financial standing, was lacking in 1908. Riventos.

Sir,—As a close follower of racing for nearly 50 years I have read with particular interest the correspondence in your columns re bookmakers and the totalisator. "Revenue" made some strong points, but has been more than answered by J. J. North. If "Revenue" is sincere in his desire for more revenue for the State, he has deliberately ignored the point that if the hundreds of thousands of pounds annually invested in the Dominion through bookmakers were _to go through the legalised channel, viz., the "tote," the Government's share would come to far more than the suggested" licence fees to be collected from his estimated three hundred bookmakers. It cannot bo denied that a certain proportion of race-goers would like to see the bookmakers reinstated; on the other hand, the majority of horse-owners and of those in control of racing prefer the legalised method of providing for stake-money from totalisator profits. If it came to a referendum vote of nil race-goers, the "tote would win easily. Unfortunately there are some owners and trainers who deliberately and regularly flout the rules of racing by betting with bookmakers, thereby rendering themselves liable to" disqualification for life. However, they are hard to catch, and, knowing this, they " keep on doing it." Quite a number of country racing clubs are bankrupt, and will have" to go out, the reason being the very serious decreases in their totalisator turnover. The falling off is the result of several causes, viz., (a) the general depression; (b) the high percentage now deducted from investments, and (c) the enormous amount of money invested all over the Dominion every week with bookmakers, much of which would go through the machine if telegraphic facilities were legalised,* and if the bookies were wiped out. "Revenue" mentions 300 bookmakers, but according to Mr. Armstrong, the Labour M.P., who is in charge of the bill before the House to legalise the pencillers, there are many thousands operating in the Dominion, and their annual turnover is colossal. To my mind, the whole matter calls for vigorous handling with the gloves -off. While the present law exists it should be rigorously carried out, and every offender punished; I would suggest imprisonment for a third offence. The Government has recently beon "killing the goose" with its heavy totalisator taxation, and would probably get a better return if the percentage were reduced. Finally, the racing authorities should make special endeavours to deal with those unscrupulous owners and trainers who bet with bookmakers and disqualify them< Mobb Revenub.