The Sun WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1920. HUMBUG OR INNOCENCE?

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2031, 18 August 1920, Page 8

The Sun WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1920. HUMBUG OR INNOCENCE?

It is no surprise to find the House of Representatives disagreeing 'with the chief of the Legislative Council's amendments to the Caming Bill. On such occasions the House usually stands upon 1 its dignity, its implication (which is mostly a pretence) being/that it possesses a monopoly of wisdom on practically every legislative matter. We admit that there was something more than injured dignity in the present instance. If the House were sincere in its endeavour to eliminate the bookmaker —and the Bill was the best it could do—well, it was entitled to differ from the Council on the hitter's amendments. But we are not sure of the necessary sincerity. We said at the time, and reiterate now, that with one exception, the Council's amendments were sound. The exception is the question of telegraphing bets to the tolalisator. Even were the majority of clubs favourable to the proposal—and it is understood they are not, owing to the extra trouble it would entail—we can see no real need for it. Nor dp we see how it could possibly assist to kill the bookmaker. As for the proposed limitation of winter programmes to seven events —there is little or nothing in the Minister's argument that the alteration would affect some clubs more than others. People who go betting will bet to their limit, whether the number of races be seven or eight. The Council's remaining amendment advocates the publication of dividends. We are quite unable to understand the objections raised in this connection. Every dividend on every race at practically every meeting is published by word of mouth. Why, then, prohibit publication in the newspapers? It is thoroughly inconsistent to allow the order of favouritism to be set out in the racing reports and at the same time bar the actual amounts received by investors. To suggest that the existing ban acts as a brake on the gambling spirit is to invite ridicule. The suggestion is the most obvious of fallacies. Yet a large number of reputedly intelligent members of Parliament talk and vote against the • removal of the absurd restriction. If their attitude is based on a genuine conviction, they are in sad need of further enlightenment. And if innocence is not the explanation, it can only be plain hypocrisy. Probably a combination of both has been operating. The shufflers, the unsophisticated, and the people who are agitating for more permits are all doing the racing pastime a disservice. We have a legalised gambling medium and men in competition with it. The Ciovcrnnicnt's competitors must go because there is no virtue in (hem. The worst of Ihcm aid and abet Turf scandals, while all of Ihcm allow helling on credit: a pernicious concession which has ruined many a mail, or at least prevented tradesmen from receiving their dues.

Again; it is not additional permits that are required, but a redistribution of those already enjoyed. The facilities for speculation are ample. To add to them would be to make racing too much of a business altogether. No country can afford that..