The Taranaki Herald. DAILY EVENING WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1920. ABOLISHING BOOKMAKERS.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 16796, 21 July 1920, Page 2

The Taranaki Herald. DAILY EVENING WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1920. ABOLISHING BOOKMAKERS.

The new Bill to deal drastically with bookmakers and those who bet with them has passed the second ‘reading in the House of Representatives and, unless amended in committee so as to defeat its object, is likely to come into force. It provides that the calling of bookmaker shall in future be. illegal, that a bookmaker found making bets shall be liable to a penalty of £SOO or two years’ imprisonment and that anyone betting with a bookmaker shall he liable to a penalty of £IOO or one month’s imprisonment. It is often said that men cannot be made moral by Act of Parliament and there is much truth in the statement, hut there is no doubt that the law can do much by removing opportunities for temptation. In England two hundred years ago gaming houses were common and anyone who wished to gamble found plenty of opportunities. At present in England and this Dominion the average man does not risk his money at the gaming table, because the opportunity is not offered as it used to be. The law can therefore undoubtedly check some ‘forms of gambling, though it may possibly be argued that it merely turns it into other channels. It will be' interesting to see whether the proposed legislation against the bookmaker will prove effective. No one can doubt thai: the people of the country would be better off without the constant temptation to speculation which is offered by the bookmaker at present. Nor can it be doubted that the less scrupulous of the fraternity are a serious menace to the purity of the turf. A "ood deal of their business .is done bv double betting and, after one of the two races involved in a double has taken place, they may find themselves likely to be involved in serious loss if a certain horse wins,the second race. A temptation therefore arises, which is not always resisted, to bribe the jockey concerned not to allow his horse to win. It is, however, unnecessary to labour the • evils arising from the existence of bookmakers, everyone is fully aware of them and few regrets will be felt if they have to find some less anti-social means of earning a livelihood. The real point of interest is whether the law will prove effective. The ordinary man feels no particular thrill of indignation when a bookmaker has a heavy fine imposed upon him, but it is very doubtful whether as a member of a jury he would bring in a verdict leading to a sentence of two years’ imprisonment on a bookmaker, vdiom he may know to be in his private capacity a very decent fellow. The law then is likely to be a dead letter if the question of the imprisonment of bookmakers ‘is left in the hands of juries. Whether bookmakers will care to take the risks entailed by a defiance of the law is another matter. If the profits are lai’ge enough there will cer.tainly be found many who will be willing to continue the business. Here, however, the. law punishing all who. bet with bookmakers comes in, for the risk entailed in betting will prevent many of those highly respected citizens who now provide the soundest part of tho bookmakers’ business from continuing in their present courses. It seems probable then that the new law, if passed without serious ameudmejit, •is likely to prove effective in putting the bookmaker out of business. If this is done, it will undoubtedly be a clear gain to the c/ommunity.

In the House recently Mr. Witty suggested that in. order to encourage the birth-rate the /State should defray maternity expenses in all cases. It is very doubtful whether money distributed in this manner, any more than the £5 maternity bonus paid in Australia, would do half the good that the same, or indeed a much .smaller sum or money, would -do if it were Spent In • a wiser way. At the present time the liberality of private persons, subsidised to'a small extent by the State, provides in many districts Plunket nurses whose business it is to educate mothers in the art of rearing children and in correcting errors for which ignorant advisers are often responsible. This is to a largo extent a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has been stolen. It would surely bo far better for the State to establish maternity homos in suitable localities where mothers might have the best attention and, especially in the case of their first children, secure competent instruction as to their management. This need not prevent .patients having their own doctors to attend them. There are at present some St. Helen’s Homes, but they, though tho charges are not high, are run on somewhat rough and ready lines, and many women prefer hotter conditions than are, provided there. Another desirable institution would bo a place somewhat on the lines of tho Kantane Homo wliere babies who wore not flourishing could be received either with* or without their mothers, for treatment. Tho whole campaign would bo with tho object of preventing rather than curing disease. Doctors aro called in when illness becomes apparent, but it would bo faxbetter for tho children if wise’treatment had prevented tho necessity of medical advico which, moreover, is of: ten not sought at au early enough st.-xgo. By methods of this sort tho State could do much better work than by merely doling out maternity bonuses.