THE GAMING ACT AGAIN.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 1001, 13 May 1909, Page 5

THE GAMING ACT AGAIN.

ITS ABSURD RESTRICTIONS DEMONSTRATED. The Christchurch persecution illustrates very fairly the “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel ” business that was perpetrated by our sapient legislators when they passed the Gaining Act of 1908, and struck another and wholly unwarranted blow at the Press of this country. In pandering to the Pharasaical crowd, as the majority in Parliament did, no really good purpose was served; nor, as events have since proved, has the volume of betting been seriously diminished. On the contrary, the action of that majority has inspired, and justly so, a contempt for the law and its makers that is wholly bad in its effect. New Zealand politicians and purists never made a greater mistake then when they supposed that, by legislating against actions perfectly legitimate in themselves, they could dragoon the great body of the public into the belief that they were guilty of crime and misdemeanour in evading the provisions of such laws. The sporting tendency is born and bred in a very large section of the people, and when a man makes up his mind to bet (or a woman either, for that matter), he will always find the place and opportunity for doing so, and will not be deterred by the fear of a law which he regards as unnecessarily restrictive of his rights as a free-born citizen. The law is as unnecessary and as impertinent in a democracy as would be the revival of the Sumptuary laws of the Middle Ages. adding to the decalogue. One of the most absurd provisions of the law is that prohibiting newspapers published in the Dominion from publishing information in regard to dividends paid on investments on the totalisator. Parliament has legalised the “tote” and the bookmaker; has, indeed, passed its word that nether shall be molested In then- bettmg transactions. Then it says in effect to the Press—the watchdogs of the public ” —part of whose business it is to assist in the exposure of fraud and wrongdoing, and to safeguard the in-

terests of the public: “Although we anything about it, because Mrs. Grundy thinks it is very improper that anything should be said about betting in the newspapers. We do not find the Decalogue sufficient in these days of Prohibition and advanced women, and as we cannot stop people from betting, and we can stop you from talking about it, we are adding to the commandments, and we prohibit you, under various pains and penalties, from saying anything about it. If the betting public are swindled by the new race of spielers this law will certainly bring into existence—well, that is their look out; it doesn’t concern you.’’ Having thus “ gagged ” the Press, it sets the officers of the law to work to manufacture charges against well-conducted newspapers of the character of that brought against Mr. P. Selig, of the Christchurch “ Press,” and happily dismissed by the magistrate. THE CHRISTCHURCH CASE. In the Christchurch case the prosecution might be well described as a fishing one; the Crown contending that certain figures placed before the names of the various horses indicated the order of their backing in the race in which they were engaged. A certain significance is attached to the figures; of that there can be no question, and the prosecution contended that in the case cited, in which the winning horse was Armlet, against whose name was placed the figure 4, the “ 4 ” indicated that Armlet was the fourth favourite, etc. The defendant’s counsel is said to have admitted that this was so, and thereupon the prosecution alleged that defendant had broken the law by publishing information concerning the dividend paid. The section of the Act (31) under which the information was laid declares “(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, who prints, publishes, sells, or publicly exhibits any newspaper, or other document, which contains any advertisement or notification by or on behalf of any person, club or association, as to betting on any horse race to be run, whetner in or out of New Zealand, or as to investments on the totalisator in respect of such race, or which contains any information, advice, or suggestion as to the probable result of any such race,” and “(4) Every person commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds who prints, publishes, sells, or publicly exhibits any newspaper or document which contains any statement as to the dividend paid on investments on the totalisator, in respect of any horse race, whether run in New Zealand or elsewhere, or as to starting prices in respect of any such race, or any statement from which the amount of any such dividend or starting price might be calculated.” These are the only two clauses in the section which bear upon the alleged offence of which it was sought to prove Mr. Selig guilty, and it is evident that a good deal must be read into them before the charge could properly be sustained. NEW ZEALAND JOURNALS PENALISED. A subsequent clause in the same section allows newspapers printed and published outside of New Zealand containing information prohibited to the Dominion Press to circulate all through the country. To be logical and consistent the Act snould have established a public censor, after the Russian fashion, whose duty it would be to blot out from every newspaper entering the colony the betting information which our Legislature declares to be so injurious to the public morals. As the Act stands, there is nothing to prevent starting prices and other betting information being cabled across the seas to Australia, to journals like the “Referee,” which may print and publish them there, and send the papers across for sale in this country. And herein is found a justification of our statement that New Zealand legislators, the majority of them at least, strain at a gnat while swallowing the proverbial camel. It is about time that racing men in this country insisted on the amendment of the Gaming Act and the removal of +hm absurd restrictions by which Parliamentarians have hedged them

have legalised this, you mustn’t say around, and by which, in the characteristic fashion affected by our sham Liberals, they have also gagged the Press in the interests of Little Betheldom and the unco’ guid.