The New Zealand Times FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1925. TIME THE FARCE WAS ENDED

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12323, 18 December 1925, Page 6

The New Zealand Times FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1925. TIME THE FARCE WAS ENDED

Our evening contemporary has been convicted arid fined a nomirial sum for a breach of the Gaming Act. The magistrate Kfeld that the “Post” had contravened the statute in regard to the publication both of dividend and starting price. On one statement published, no other decision was possible.

It was pleaded on behalf of the defence that the “Post” had pursued the policy which resulted in the prosecution in order to discover how far newspapers might go in referring to dividends., Ail we can say is that it was a brotherly act on the part of our content , porary. It certainly went to considerable trouble to ’effect its purpose.

That said; we hasten to add that it is high time the ban on the publication of dividends was terminated. .It'would never have been imposed but for the weakness of an Administration anxious to conciliate an importantly large section of voters. It was urged in support of the prohibition that gambling was on the increase and that the publication of starting-prices would intensify that trend. Rather prone to try to be all things to all men, a supine Government yielded to the demand. The absurdity of this particular piece of legislation is- apparent to all but the. wilfully blind. 'To begin with—the dividends are broadcast after every meeting without the assistance of the newspapers. The prices paid by horses in Dunedin, say, can be ascertained in Wellington or Auckland by those interested. Apart altogether from the bookmakers, go per cent, of racegoers return from the course and publish the dividends on all sides. ,It is admitted that the Press would give the information wider publicity. Even so, it cannot logically be argued that the result would be to encourage betting among, the rank and file. That considerable army of people who are fond of speculating on horse races will indulge their fancy whether dividends are published or not. That is indisputable, yet the farce is allowed to continue.

Nothing quite so nonsensical has been perpetrated since the Herdman anti-“shouting” measure. That was a law which was as impossible to enforce as it was unnecessary and undeserved. So ludicrous and unjust was it, that the most reputable citizens did not hesitate to disregard it. Making the publication of dividends by the papers an offence is in a similar category. It represents a censorship of an extremely objectionable nature: a censorship which is easily and regularly overcome.

The inhibition, and the power reposed in magistrates to suppress names of delinquents, are all part and parcel of a growing tendency to interfere with the liberty of the Press: a Press than which tnere is none cleaner or higher in its ideals. We suggest to the Minister-in-charge that the restriction under review should be removed as soon as he can find time to look into the question.