RACING BILL.

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160731, 18 August 1920, Page 4

RACING BILL.

CONFLICT OVER AMENDMENTS. (By Telegraph—Special to “Herald 1 ’). WELLINGTON, August 17. During the passage of the Gaming Amendment Bill through the Legislative Council, it was extended to double the former proportions by the addition of clauses defining a bookmaker as a person who offers to more than one person, while telegraphing bets to secretaries of racing clubs, and publication of dividends in the press was authorised. The Council also sought to limit racing events to seven on winter days. The last proposal was the only one which Sir W. H. Herries opposed. When the amendments came before the Lower House, he moved, on behalf of the Government, “That it be disagreed with,” explaining that entries were so numerous in some events that the race had to be divided, otherwise jockeys ran big risks in riding amidst heavy fields. Ho' was asked if he disagreed with the other amendments. His negative answer provoked strong protests from members, who in previous divisions on the same Bill, had formed part of a big majority against the extension of betting privileges. Their arguments took a familiar form, but a more interesting element arose when Mr McCohmbs moved an amendment “that the clauses dealing- with the telegraphing of bets and publication of dividends be - disagreed with,” resultant in a division placing the Premier in the unusual position of being amongst the minority, the ayes being 30, and noes, which included all Ministers present, being 24. Mr Speaker, possibly from force of habit, announced the division as if Ministerialists had won, but quickly corrected himself. .Although the House itself appeared to be in a remarkable tangle over the procedure, members seemed to be -wondering what had been disagreed with and what, was accepted. As this discussion occurred when the doors were locked for another division, Parliamentary rules demanded that the speakers should talk while they safe with hat on head. When the Premier essayed to raise a point of order, Sir W. H. Herries promptly covered his head with an order paper, but Mr .Massey discarded both coverings and his point of order eventually complicated the discussion on procedure and ended in the House agreeing to the Council’s amendment imposing a fine of £IOO or six months’ imprisonment for . betting with a bookmaker, _ the former qualification “not exceeding” having been deleted. It was also agreed to alter the definition of a bookmaker as one who in any manner holds himself out, or permits himself to be held out, as a person with whom wagers or bets may be made, or who offers a wager on any particular event or class of events with more than one person. These amendments were contested, but were carried on a division by 46 votes to 8, while the House disagreed with the proposals to allow telegraphic bets and publication of dividends and limitation of events.

Messrs Witty and McCombs and Sif W. H. Herries were appointed to conduct a conference with the Council’s representatives.