THE TOTALISATOR.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9802, 23 July 1903, Page 2

THE TOTALISATOR.

ITS RETENTION AFFIRMED. J (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. . The Bill introduced by Mr Ell for the abolition of the totalisutor quickly received the "happy despatch" last evening, and by so decisive a majority as to ensure the continuance of the machine s during the present Parliament. As I m- c dicated would be the case, the suppor- ! E ters of the machine "sat tight," and j j showed a desire to get to a vote as i , speedily as possible. * Mr Ell, m introducing the question, r said there was nothing to explain with {l regard to the Bill. It merely proposed to abolish the gambling machine, the totalisator. In the past the House had from time to time placed lnws on the statute book to suppress gambling. The various ] penalties provided for all sorts and conditions of offences, from the unlicensed art union to the Chinese game of fan tan, and the severe penalty provided for keep- ! ing a gaming house, showed the desire of the Legislature to minimise gambling m the Legislative Council. A Bill had been introduced to deal with the "tote" walking machine, and m other ways action had been taken, to suppress the evil, but instead of the machine having a minimising effect on gambling, as had been hoped, there were more Bookmakers today than when the totalisator was introduced. As the machine had failed m its object it ought to be wiped out of existence. In 1891-2 the totalisator amount handled was £506,078, and ten years later it put through £1,275,813, which was another proof that its use had increased gambling. He did know that nearly every member had made up his mind as to his vqte — (cries of "Hear, hear") — but he urged on them to weigh well the words of the Judges and the Magistrates as to the totalisator being the cause of an increase of the gambling habits of the people. As to the jockey clubs, it should be borne m mind that private detectives were employed to hound down men betting on the racecourse. This showed the selfisliness of the clubs. An hon. member: Are you m favor of the bookmaker? Mr Ell replied that ha had done his best to prevent a continuance of the walking totalisator. The City Councils of Napier, Christchurch, Wellington and Dunedin had legislated .against these men, whose numbers had increased since the totalisator came into existence. He moved the second reading of the Bill. Mr ' Rutherford said that' bad a measure been introduced for the purpose of abolishing the bookmaker, the greater evil, he would have supported it. Gambling was inherent to human nature, and could not be stopped by legislation. Bridge was the fashionable gamble m England nowadays. Even young girls had the fever to such an extent that they played day and night, and m some places m this colony where cards were unobtainable fly-100 was resorted to. For the edification of the House and Mr Ell's special advantage, Mr Rutherford explained the modus operandi of this sport. He had seen m various places where bicycle sports were held, and where there were no totalisators, betting from one shilling upwards. Bookmakers were the evil that ought to be coped with m the first instance. There seeming to be no disposition to debate the matter, Mi- Laurenson said he failed to understand a law which legalised the totalisator and levied a State tax of £ per cent, on the one hand and on the other compelled a burly policeman to stretch out his Hibernian hand and arrest a Chinaman for playing fan tan, or a larrikin who played "two up." During the last nine years the number of people engaged m gambling on the racecourse had increased m the proportion of three times to that of the population. Instead of discouraging gambling, the State by legalising the machine had encouraged it. He appealed to the House to give a vote m favor of the morality of the community by supporting Mr Ell's Bill. No one else showing an inclination to speak, Mr Ell replied, after which the House went to a division m a somewhat thin House, with the result that the second reading was' refused by 34 to 14, the Bill .being thus killed.