THAT GAMBLING BILL.

NZ Truth, Issue 128, 30 November 1907, Page 1

THAT GAMBLING BILL.

CONSIDERS EVERYBODY BUT THE PUBLIC.

When Sir Joseph Ward brought xlown his now famous, or infamous Gambling Bill it was, the general impression among the men on the' street that it would be numbered Jimong the slaughtered innocents. It| was well known that Sir Joe had had the life pestered out of him. by wowsers of all persuasions of relig" ious belief, imploring him to jump upon the two-upper with both feet, biff the street bettor m the eye, and effectually whack tKe totalisator on the head with a big stick. In fact, they wanted him to play hell generally with at least one of the people's most popular sources of amusement. Whether Sir Jospeh, being a Roman Catholic, and afraid that these wowsers would raise a sectarian shriek at the next., election and thereby lessen his power, .endeavored to placate them with this Bill, "Truth" is not prepared to say, but on the face of it it looks precious like it. The wowser push have been itching for a ldng time to get their snouts into the legislative chamber and leave^ (their mark upon some piece of legislature. They have long wxinted to suppress somebody or something so that they might go back to their bethels and say, "BehoTd what thy servant has done." Well, Sir Joseph has given them a plaything with a vengeance, and they don't seem too pleased with the new toy. Sir Joseph has not placated them worth a nutmeg, ami they will rat on him at the next election sure enough. But it is not from the parsons' stand-point that the Bill is to be reviewed m this article, but -from -the publio's. Strange to say the public seem to have been the last people thought of jn the framing and passing of this Bill. It was argued m the House,clause by clause, from the parsons 1 the bookmakers'- and the racing flubs 7 view-point, but itever once If.om the public's. To have heard members fighting m committee over this or that clause one would have, thought that parsons, bookmakers, and racing clubs were the only people worth legislating for. Only once was the public's interest m the matter referred to at all, and that was when >*■*• Wiltord objected to the clause prohibiting the publication of dividends or starting prices.

Regarding this same clause, it is one of the most irfonstrous things, ever . enacted m the history of the country. A machine is legalised for the purpose of receiving the public's . money and paying out the dividends, to the' 'winners, and yet it is illegal lor a newspaper to publish those dividend'- Likewise, bookmakers arc licensed to. make wagers and lay^ odds, upon the race-coucse l>ut the' outside public are not allowed to know what prices are laid. What good the framer of the Bill thought, .that this clause was going to do huaven only knows. It looks as if it ■were put m out of pure cussedness gust to annoy the populace. If the Bill is going to stop street betting and shop "tote" betting* ; as it undoubtedly will, then the publication of dividends cannot be of "any assist-? ance to the bookmaker or the punter, because the one cannot lay and the other cannot punt. - Therefore, this provision, from a morality point is useless .and absurd. The same thing refers to the clause prohibiting the publication of "tips." Not only straight out "tips," but even suggestions as to what might win. The sporting scribes will have to run to a lawyer with half their paragraphs to see. whether they can be deemed suggestions of winners or net. Legislation ot this sort can or;ly be classed as paltry, and were it not that it is a direct insult to the sporting public it would be beneath notice, What possible harm can the publication of any particular sporting writer's opinion as to what will win certain events do to either the punter or the anti-gamb-Jirig crank ? It is a sporting writer's business to study the performances of horses, theix private track work, their condition and their display at previous meetm£S— -meetings that others have not had a chance of attending, and it is therefore to him that the punter must look for his Snlormation. But the Bill forbids it. Why ? Apparently for no other reason than to annoy the race-going public and cause them as much incoavenience as possible. In fact the iwliole trend of the Bill is to placfttc the wowsers, give concessions to

the bookmakers and the racing clubs and damn the racing public.

The wowsers, .who want the earth, complain that the Bill legalises 'bookmakers. They say that this is adding bookmaker insult to totalisator injury. Of course, the wowser wants horse-racing stopped altogether. It has no pleasure for him, and he, therefore, thinks that it should not be allowed. He ? d stop theatres, dancing, card parties, or any other social enjoyment if he had his way. But to show the wowser, the creepy individual to. whom Sir Joseph and several members, of the Government :have given ready car what a narrow-minded. , absurd, and utterly undemocratic squeal they are raising let us compare for a- moment the relative positions of the bookmaker and the totalisatoiy and let us see if it is not the same old story— the public to pay the piper every time. The Bill says that racing clubs "shall" grant licenses to book-? makers if they are fit and proper persons, etc., and the maximum charge is to be £20 per day. Very well. A bookmaker of standing, a man who has a good record, and who is known to have money enough to pay his ' debts if he has a bad day. will ver~ easily hold £100 on each race. On the day that means £800. For the right of holding that amount of money he has to pay £20, or 2§ per cent. If the public put that amount of money through the "tote" the-" would have to pay £80 for the privilege,^ 10 per cent. Therefore, the wowsers who howl about the bookmakers are either absolutely ignorant of the subject, or they are blasted hypocrites ; otherwise they f wouldn't barrack for a concern that | cops 10 per cent, of the people's leash against a medium that charges only 2J per cent., or less, because if the bookmaker held twice the amount of money, .quoted, which he might easily\do, his fee 'could not be greater, and£ therefore, the percentage would be less. But, of course, a wowser is hot expected to understand the laws of racing, and, even if he did, he wouldn't try to legislate justly. So long, as he can pose as a public moralist and tell silly sentimental women and sickly, har-row-minded, af raid-to-deet-thy-God ;kind of meji, that he is working m the interest's of public, morality he> imagines he is doing his life's work, notwithstanding the fact that if he would only examine his handiworkhe would find that instead of : removing an evil he, is only increasing it. The wowser seems to think that "by closing the town offices of bookmakers he is going to bring the punter to church. He is highly mis^ taken, the punter 1 will get his bet, even if he has \to put it on with some low-down crook who defies the law and will welch him half the time. .

What is legislation, for ? To help a class or to help the general public ? The ideal legislation is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Does this Bill do this ?■• Decidedly not. It plays into the hands of the racing clubs, first, by driving all the bettors on to the course/ and secondly, l by allowing the clubs the right to charge bookmakers the sum of, £20 per day, for the right to bet, the highest sum charged anv where m Australassia. Before the bookrnaner can make any ,profit for himself he has to make £20 to pay for his right tq ' be there at all. The club gets the £20 and the people have to pay for it, because it is only natural that the bookmakers will shorten their prices according to the increased amount of their taxation. The bookmaker can work on a 5 per cent., profit and do well enough, that is, providing he is a man of standing and can command the betting, 2h per cent he, pays to the club, and 2£ per cent, is his own profit, out of which he has to pay a clerk, and his own and his clerk's fares and keep whilst travelling from one meeting to another, and vnrv expensive travelling it will mean too. But. possibly the" bulk of the money will be invested, on the "tote."' That means a 10 per cent, loss to the investors. Then there is train fare to the course, entrance fee and a race book, eating up tbe best part of' £l. Verily, betting is to be a costly pastime m the future. If these restrictions would cause the gambler to see the error of his ways and ■ *ye the pursuit pf

wealth, per. medium of horse flesh, up, "Truth" would m a great measure have much sympathy Bilk -•Bufyrivlbus experiences have taught, us. that they will not. The jPuiiter : Will purit as heretofore, only it will cost him more to do it. :Surely this will make the evil greater instead of less ! The only legislation that will lessen the gambling evil is the legislation that will make the social condition of the masses better, so that there will be no need for tjheir continual striving for wealth without' work. It is the unequal conditions under which the masses are struggling that creates the gambling spirit." The poor man desires to make a rise just the same as the land shark and the stockjobber does. They are all gamblers, the only difference being that the little man hurts nobody but himself; while, the big. man ruins thousands to accumulate his millions. .But the big man can .give princely gifts to the church, so the parson and the wowsers let him alone, t the little man, however, .is deserving of a special Act of. Parliament to make his lot just a little bit harder than it was before, because he has the audacity to do m a small way what some of the pillars Qf the church do m a big way. There is, a rottenness about wowser methods and wowser ideas the very smell of which makes honest men. sick. ' .