RACE BETTING

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22117, 24 May 1935, Page 13

RACE BETTING

DESIRE FOR BOOKMAKER REVIEW OF LEGISLATION STATUS UNDER 1907 ACT OPPOSITION OF THE CLUBS ' No.' L The belief is held ic some quarters of the gaming world that bookmakers will be licensed by the end of the year. It was expressed before the Auckland Racing Club decided to ask the New Zealand Racing Conference to give opportunity at its meeting in July for discussion on the question whether bookmakers should be permitted pj law to operate on racecourses. The wish may be father to the thought, but; in racing parlance, one man is prepared to back this opinion to the extent of a "spinnaker" at impressive odds. A survey of the history of gaming legislation so far as it affects bookmaking, during the past 30 years, is very informative in more ways than one. A knowledge of it is almost a necessary background for those who may be called upon to nuke decisive judgments upon modes of racecourse betting in the near future.

The Gaming and Lotteries Act Amendment of 1907, by which bookmakers were given tho right to operate on racecourses, was, as the then Prime Minister, the late Sir Joseph Warcl, stated, a compromise. He decided to clean up generally recognised gambling evils, but stated definitely that; unless reputable bookmakers were given the opportunity to ply their calling on courses there would he no hope of the measure being carried.

Before 3.907 Before this time there was a great deal of open betting in the street, in "tote" shops and in offices, the occupiers of which appeared to have many loopholes in escaping from the charge of running a common gaming house. In every city, street-betting was carried on from early morning to late at night. In Auckland, Vulcan Lane was a familiar stand. Only through city bylaws could this street-betting be made an offence. Bookmaking was rife on sports grounds. The movement for reform owed much of its initial force to the outcry in Auckland against the way the gas-light sports were carried on each week at Newmarket. These sports, so the Committee of the House of Re]>resentatives was informed, were carried on merely for the purpose of gambling. The bookmakers, it was understood, did not finance them or . provide the prizes, but according to a of Sir Joseph War;l in the House, they were an athletic institution which had one purpose only—that of gambling. Without the bookmaker the gas-light sports ceased, with only a few political tears at their demise. Hopes oI legislators Although it seems laughable in the light of experience, some of the legislators of that day believed or said they believed that the passing of this Act would limit bookmaking to the racecourses and thus remove temptation from the way of juveniles and corrupting influence from the athletic sports field. Sir Joseph Ward himself said: "I would emphasise the point that by a discontinuance of the practice of bookmakers carrying on their business in the cities and towns and by the shutting-up of street 'totes-' and betting and gambling houses, you are wiping bookmakers practically off the face of the earth."

The opponents of the bill were led by the Jate Sir (then Mr.) William Herries, who declared that racing clubs strongly objected to being compelled to admit bookmakers to their courses. The clause in question read: ''Every racing club which is authorised to use the totalisator, shall, from time to time, on the application of any person who is, in the opinion of the committee or other managing body of such club, a fit and proper person to be so licensed, grant a licence to such person to. enter on any racecourse used or occupied by such club and there to carry on business as a bookmaker." The fee was limited to £2O a day and there was a provision against the making of wagers after the starting time of the race. " Shall " or " May " There was protest that the word "shall" and not "may" was used in the clause. Sir (then Mr.) Thomas Wiiford, who generally supported the bill, said it was intended to exterminate "balancers, guessers, twicers, welchers, and snide bookmakers," who would not get on the racecourse with licences. Then he turned to the attitude of racing clubs and made a statement that is most interesting in view of the api parent trend of opinion to-day. "It is all twaddle," he said, "for the racing clubs to tell the committee of the House, or anyone else, that they are against the bookmakers on moral grounds. I have not been a member of a metropolitan racing club for years without knowing, as every member knows, that they keep the bookmakers off the courses because they want to conserve the money on the 'tote' to themselves. They want to get the return from the investment to give larger stakes and also to improve the appointments of the courses." The totalisator tax at that time was 10 per cent. In the same debate two utterances were made which are worth recalling. The late Sir William Herries said: "The more drastic you make a law, the easier, generally, it is for lawyers to find a way out of it." Lesser ol Two Evils The late Sir (then Mr.) William Fraser, who supported the totalisator monopoly against bookmaking as the lesser of two evils' said:—"You are going to have gambling. To suppose that is going to be stopped by any legislation is simply ridiculous. So long as one straw is longer than another, so long as one pebble is bigger than another, people will gamble." And later: "I am supporting the totalisator not because I desire to encourage gambling, but because I recognise that people will continue to amuse them-, selves by betting somehow. Your puritanical laws have never had any lasting effect; the reaction from them has always been worse than the preceding state of things." Mr. A. W. Rutherford declared the bill to be a bookmakers' bill from start to finish. He affirmed that there was on the Statute Book a law just as drastic as that proposed by which the "tote shop" could be closed and street-betting stopped. It was passed into law, however. The bookmakers appeared on the courses in considerable numbers, but illegal bookmaking continued. During a Christchurch carnival, at which 60 licensed 'bookmakers were doing business, the police apprehended 40 men who were "pirating." This system prevailed ? r three vears. The reasons why bootmaking was outlawed three years later will be discussed in a subsequent article.