DUKE OF ATHOLL’S RECKONING ON ART UNION CHALLENGED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 927, 23 November 1933, Page 10

DUKE OF ATHOLL’S RECKONING ON ART UNION CHALLENGED .

London “Truth” Asks Some Questions; Would Proceeds Pay Income Tax?

Fhe case of the Duke of Atholl who, after promoting a huge charity art union, which was stopped by the police, took the alternative course of over-printing the tickets as cancelled, and then selling them at the original price on the understanding that the proceeds should come to him for distribution among charities at his own discretion, has been charged by the police with a breach of the law, and judgment has been reserved. The case is one that has aroused tremendous interest in England, particularly as London “ T ruth ” made a case of it and bombarded the Duke from the beginning with a series of articles questioning the legality of his procedure, and raising questions as to the way in which he proposed to dispose of the money.

* 6 is no longer surprised as it was within the memory of many people,” said “ Truth ” on September 6, “ by the intrusion of one of our old nobility into trade and commerce, but it was nevertheless a distinctly uncommon spectacle to which Edinburgh was treated last week when the Duke ofr Atholl personally opened another of his chain of shops. It was uncommon on account of the nature of the wares he is offering for sale, and the other circumstances to which I have called attention in recent articles. Never before, indeed, has anybody at all, let alone a peer, had the assurance to invite the public to buy from him at 10s each scraps of paper in the shape of cancelled tickets for a sweepstake which the police squelched. I see from the local newspapers that the ceremony at Edinburgh was graced by the presence of Mr M’Lean, the Glasgow bookmaker, who is the Duke’s chief organiser in Scotland. It appears, however, that I was mistaken when I lately inferred from his designation that Mr M’Lean was the head of the business in that country, for the chair was taken by a member of the ducal retinue of yet higher rank, Mr Oswald Barclay, Director for Scotland.” Discussing the announcement that the Duke's scheme was intended “ to benefit peopje of moderate means throughout the whole country, so far as medical services and nursing were concerned, “ Truth ” asked whether any portion of the money was to be applied to the finances of a certain London clinic which, it claimed, was by no means catering for people of moderate means, and also how the money generally was to be apportioned. “ My collection of the Duke’s tickets is still being enlarged,” the writer said, in commenting on the unsolicited despatch of tickets to unknown persons. He added that this inevitably meant that some persons would be tempted to dispose of the tickets and pocket the proceeds—a fraud constantly practised in connection with sweepstakes in which tickets are similarly circulated. A week later the same journal, commenting on a reply by the Duke regarding the impossibility of making a definite or accurate statement regarding the expenses or money received, pointed out "that everything was being done in the most lavish way, and that, added to the rents of various offices and shops in London, Edinburgh, Glasgow and elewhere, the cost of posters, showcards, circularising campaigns and other advertising, salaries, fees and commissions of directors, chief organisers, official distributors, accredited agents and other members of the higher command—not to mention the wages of the -rank and file of the clerical staffs—must be swallowing up a goo& deal of money. Every sellet of a book of twelve of the ten-shilling tickets was allowed to retain

12s out of the £6. but more favourable terms were available to retailers of larger quantities of tickets. In this connection it was stated that nine million tickets were printed for the sweep which did not come off, and consequently there were plenty of tickets to scatter through the post. “It is a species of blind pool,” said “ Truth,” “ into which people are invited to pour money without any undertaking as to what is to be done with it.” In this connection the writer asked whether the Duke of Atholl would be liable for income tax and surtax on the net amount of tickets. The printed endorsement on the cancelled sweepstake tickets read:— The Duke of Atholl invites the public to buy this specimen ticket for ten shillings solely as a memento of a commendable effort to assist British charities and upon the basis that the proceeds of the sale shall be dispose J of in such manner as the Duke of Atholl shall, in his absolute and uncontrolled discretion, think fit. . . No person is authorised to make any representation or to offer any other consideration whatsoever in relation to the sale of this ticket. “ Everybody knows, of course,” the writer added, “ that the Duke is not doing this for personal gain, but if a man, whether a duke or someone less exalted, runs a business, the Board of Inland Revenue cannot concern itself with his motives or intentions. It was laid down long ago that if the profits can be applied at his pleasure tax is payable. He cannot avoid the liability by distributing the money either in donations to charities or in gifts to some of his customers or in any other way.” In an article headed “The Foolish Duke,” on October 4, “ Truth ” returned to the attack, pointing out that it was on other than anti-gambling grounds that his venture had been widely condemned, but asking whether a nobleman with responsible public duties should embark on an enterprise of such a nature that he had constantly to be on his guard against the perils of the law. At this stage it had been suggested by one of the Duke’s principal agents that if the Duke “ wished to buy back certain of these pieces of paper he l would be at liberty to do so and the price he would pay for them would be entirely immaterial so far as any question of legality was concerned,” but the ingenuousness of this idea was described as “ almost infantile.” In any case, it was pointed out that unless there was something in the nature of a draw affording all subscribers an equal chance in the distribution of anticipated rewards, the vast majority would certainly consider that they had been humbugged. On the other hand, if there was anything of the kind the Duke’s final reckoning would be with the law.