THE TOTALISATOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20362, 20 March 1928, Page 8

THE TOTALISATOR.

Br a small majority, the voting being on non-party lines, a private Bill providing for tlio introduction of the totalisator in connection with horse i-acing in Great Britain has passed its second reading in the House of Commons. The Government, while having undertaken in such an event to give facilities for the passage of the Bill, is, according to Mr Churchill, as much at sixes and sevens on this question as on the subject of the Prayer Book. It is not, of course, committed to the detailed provisions of the measure as introduced. The Bill has behind it the weight of the influence of the Jockey Club and tiie National Hunt Committee—the controlling bodies of the turf in England, but in view of the narrow margin by which it went through on the secona reading the chances of its being passed must certainly appear somewhat doubtful. The forces of conservatism may prevail against the introduction of an innovation the effect of which must be somewhat revolutionary so far as the racecourse system at Home is concerned. In an interesting contribution to the debate in the House ot Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer has disclaimed any great personal enthusiasm for the totalisator on the score of the contribution which it might be expected to bring to the national finances. What would be gained from the machine would be pretty well set off, he believes, by a reduction in the bookmakers’ business and its consequent decline as a source of State revenue. But Mr Churchill lias boon quite in a mood to demolish by the application of common sense most of the arguments adduced against the betting machine on moral grounds. The totalisator could hardly be such a horrible thing, he obser.vd, as it had been painted, in view of the fact that it had been in use for yeax-s in European couiiti'ies and in the dominions of the Empire without any apparent demoralisation of the populations concerned. It is rather amusing to road that the loudest protests against the proposed legislation came from the back benches of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, the ground of objection being the increase that would be brought about in betting facilities and I temptations- From that it might almost

bo imagined tba-t in England betting facilities and temptations were Jrept considerably and effectually in check at the present time. In answer to those who advance the doctrine of “ the unclean thing ” we have Mr Churchill's argument which must ho difficult to answer; “ There was more betting in England than in any other country in the world, and it was done under more discreditable, rowdy, and unsatisfactory conditions. . . . The contrast between the British and the French racecourses was a contrast between eighteenth century barbarism and rowdyism and the now civilisation.” When, as Sir H. E. Cautley, who presided over the inquiry respecting the hotting tax, observed, bookmakers trade even with school children in the Old Country, objection to the totalisator on the score of the increased temptations that would be offered to besting must appear rather shortsighted and unconvincing. Persons who wish to bet will do so by one means or another, and the view that the totalisator tends to control rather than extend the gambling evil is no doubt a sound one. So far as the attitude of the State towards betting is concerned it is shrewdly observed that if it is Aviso to discourage by taxatiou that which cannot he prevented, and if taxation is tiic remedy, or partial remedy, against betting, it should be applied as scientifically as. possible. “ Beyond all doubt,” urged the Spectator in a recent pronouncement on the subject, “ the. totalisator is the most scientific means of taxing betting yet invented. It gives the true odds; it does not cheat; it can be made to contribute to the support of racing; it may leave something over for charity; it collects a revenue for the State with the smallest possible expenditure upon administration. So by all means lot us have it.”