Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PASSAGE OF THE POOL BILL.

„ The fate of the legislative measure pro- ' hibiting betting on elections} running or trotting race?', by Paris, mutual, or auction , poqls, was decided at Albany, N. V., on 1 Tuesday evening, April 24. The bill - came up for its third and final reading in ■ the -Senate on that evening, it having < previously passed the Assembly by a vote c.«f 90 to 10, Mr Jacobs, of Brooklyn; - moved to recommit the bill, with instruc»tions to so amend it as to exempt all , incorporated racecourses from its operation. He said that the original bill did not include race tracks, but they were added to it during an excited debate in the Assembly. To pass the bill as it came from the Assembly would involve the destruction of all the great race tracks in the State, and a reduction of two-thirds in the value of racehorses. Senators Cole and Starbuck opposed the motion to . recommit, and Senator Morissey stated that do Senator had so great an interest in this bill as he had. He owned the larger part of a race track (the Saratoga) that cost $250,000, and he believed that $3,000,000 was invested in the race tracks Jof this State. If the bill passed, he " believed that it would destroy $10,000,000 4 in' the State of New York, and benefit to * that extent the States of New Jersey, . Ohio, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. The f public did not ask that pool-selling should ." be prohibited on the race tracks ; no . country in the world prohibited it there. He would not vote for the bill himself, and, as he was interested, he should ask to be excused from voting at all. He hoped Mr. Jacobs would withdraw his , motion. He believed that hereafter, when the public came to see the working of the proposed law, and the injustice it ■ produced, 'k fl y would come to the Legislature and ask for the removal of this

restriction from race tracks at least, if not for its unconditional repeal. After some discussion, Mr, Jacobs withdrew his motion to recommit, and the bill was Sawed, every Senator present except Mr .. lorriwev voting for it, the latter being excused by the rule as an interested party.

The vote was 21 to 0 in favour of the passage of the bill. On Friday, April 27, the bill went to the Governor, who Bigned it immediately, and it is now the law of the State.— New York -Clipper.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW18770804.2.75

Bibliographic details

Otago Witness, Issue 1340, 4 August 1877, Page 17

Word Count
412

PASSAGE OF THE POOL BILL. Otago Witness, Issue 1340, 4 August 1877, Page 17

PASSAGE OF THE POOL BILL. Otago Witness, Issue 1340, 4 August 1877, Page 17

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert