THE NEW GAMING LAW.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVI, Issue 925, 28 November 1907, Page 5

THE NEW GAMING LAW.

We oannot congratulate either the Premier or Parliament upon their Pyrrhic victory over the sporting section of the community, whose rights and freedom of action are very considerably curtailed under the operation of the new gaming law. The drastic Bill which passed both Houses or Parliament in 'the course of a few hours and received the Governor’s assent on Saturday was neither necessary nor expedient. It has its good points, no doubt —what Bill has not? — but it ’ contains anomalies which should never have found a place on the Statute Book, and would hardly have passed, had time for reflection been given to members and their constituents. But, like many another measure which has become law in this country, it ministers to the wishes of one section of the community only and almost entirely ignores the other. It is a compromise we are told, and, like all compromises, it favours the side which is most clamant and press ; ing in its demands for the abatement of real and imaginary evils. It attempts to confine betting to the racecourse, which is perhaps a good thing, but it will certainly lead to many illicit practices, and will bring the law into contempt. For in many respects the restrictions it places upon betting and upon the publication of results are unreasonable and altogether opposed to those principles which are supposed to animate a liberty-loving

people, isuch as New Zealanders are popularly supposed to be. On the one hand the law, as it now stands, declares that it is perfectly legal for men and women to bet upon the racecourse, and for the clubs to license bookmakers to lay the odds. It also further perpetuates the existence of the totalisator, but makes the publication of information concerning the doings of either bookmakers or totalisators an offence punishable by severe pains and penalties. Complete consistency was, perhaps hardly to be looked for in a measure prompted so largely by sentimental considerations, but even the semblance of logic vanishes when the section debarring newspapers from publishing any information concerning dividends paid on winning horses and of betting which has actually taken place on the racecourse, comes under review. In no other country in the world has such an illogical proposition been advanced that it is legally an offence to take public notice of actions which the law permits and validates. We can understand that sound and valid reasons may be advanced for the non-puNica-tion of antepost betting, but to say that the papers must not take notice of the sums paid out by the totalisator in the shape of dividends, and that tney must not even indicate the probable winner of a race, is not merely absurd, but actually puerile. So foolish and irrational a law demands amendment, more particularly when it allows papers published in Melbourne, Sydney, or elsewhere, to come in to New Zealand with the very news which the Dominion press is debarred from publishing.