A STRONG INDICTMENT.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVI, Issue 951, 28 May 1908, Page 5

A STRONG INDICTMENT.

The new Gaming Act allows racing clubs to license bookmakers at a fee not exceeding £2O a day. This has brought about a somewhat curious state of affairs, and furnishes one more instance of the truth of what we have contended all along, viz., that the Act is an exceedingly stupid one, framed by persons who were ignorant of the subject on which they were attempting to legislate, and carried by a body of men who voted without properly considering the provisions of the Bill. Probably it did not occur to these that a very great increase would be immediately made in the ranks of the bookmakers. Now we have not a word to say against the bona-fide bookmakers. Among them there are as good men as any to be found in the land, men who always carry out their obligations, and who, unlike some of their canting detractors, are always ready to put their hands in their pockets to help a friend, who may have met with misfortune. It is to quite another class of so-called bookmaker we must take exception. The racing clubs have discovered that the licensing fees from the bookmakers meant a source of much revenue, and the more men licensed the bigger the amount of cash received. Under these circumstances this would seem to putting a premium on the licensing of dishonest persons. The richerand more powerful clubs can afford to refuse licenses of the applicant to undesirables, but most of the smaller clubs cannot so afford to turn away cash, and therefore it comes about that many of the present day socalled bookmakers are a very long way from being a credit to the ranks and their presence must be keenly resented among the more reputable men.

In the “Dominion” appears a strong indictment against the present system. In an interview with an authority on the sport the latter stated that the Act has created a lot more bookmakers than has ever been the case before. Now that the State has given the bookmakers a calling a lot of “crooks” are making themselves respectable by becoming bookmakers. Some of them I have seen on the courses are convicted thieves and vagrants. The charge of vagrancy and having no visible means of support cannot now be sustained, as they have become bookmakers, and as such are quite the proper thing, and apparently are beyond the reach of the police. “The police used to be able to keep the raceocurse clear of the gentleman with crooked records, but now he is being allowed a good deal of rope, and people frequenting racecourses will, in consequence, have to be a little more careful than in the past. It was pointed out to one secretary of a racing club that the ‘bookmakers’ on the course included more than one convicted thief, but he said the club did not mind so long as they got the license fees; anyhow, it would sicken the public all the quicker of betting with bookmakers if all sorts were allowed to bet. “Of course, the better-class bookmaker who goes straight is ‘up against’ the undesirable, but he is entirely unable to help himself, and the result is that whatever ‘tone’ there was about the best of them was being lowered by the influx of undesirables.

“So it amounts to this, that whilst the Gaming Act has closed the decent bookmakers’ offices, it shields thieves and vagabonds from the law, and openly permits the public to run a far greater risk of being taken down’ than has ever been the case before.”

This is a strong charge, but it contains much truth. The remedy would appear to be in much closer supervision when issuing betting licenses and the formation of a Bookmakers’ Association, from whose membership the crooks would be rigidly shut out.