THE BOOKMAKERS AND THE RACING CLUBS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 1002, 20 May 1909, Page 5

THE BOOKMAKERS AND THE RACING CLUBS.

THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SPIELER? A pretty little controversy lias been started by Mr. S. Mays, of the Crown Prosecutor’s Office, who recently stated at Thames that “ the legalising of bookmakers has resulted m the introduction into the Dominion of a most undesirable class of ‘ spielers.’ ” The Hon. E. Mitchelson, chairman of the Auckland Racing Club, in supporting the statement, told a Press representative the other .lay that prior to the introduction of the present Act the club had taken steps io purify racing, and all objectionable characters were ejected by the police. Since rhe passing of the Act, however, the previous bad state of affairs had undoubtedly grown up again. Mr. Mitchelson’s attention was called to the provisions of the Gaming Act, which empower toe racing clubs to license “ fit and proper persons ” as bookmakers, and he was asked whether he did not think that gave the clubs discretionary power in ascertaining the characters of applicants before licensing them. He replied with another question—-how was it possible for racing clubs to differentiate between bookmakers? A number of bookmakers applied for licenses who were without the means to pay possible losses, and, even amongst the moneyed bookmakers. Mr. Mitchelson thinks there are some whose characters will not bear any closer investigation than those of the men who are unable to pay their losses. Legalising bookmakers had undoubtedly tended to bring an undesirable class of men on to the racecourses. Mr. Mitchelson added that although the Act did give the discretionary power referred to, the difficulty was to differentiate between the applicants. One solution would be the repeal of the present Act, and, personally, he would like to see it repealed. * * * * DR. FINDLAY’S VIEW. Mr. Mitchelson’s opinions and views •are certainly entitled to be treated with respect. But so also are those of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Dr. Findlay, who, commenting upon the statement made by Mr. Mays and endorsed by Mr. Mitchelson, and the fuither remarks of the latter gentleman, said (also to a press representative) that the legislation assumed that the racing clubs would exercise a wise and careful discretion in granting such licenses, and would grant them to no bookmaker of whose character and standing there was any real doubt. “ I know,” Dr. Findlay said, “ that some

clubs have, for the purpose of discrediting the legislation, granted licenses to any person calling himself a bookmaker who chooses to pay the license fee, thus making the bookmaker at once a source of profit and a source of discredit to the racecourse. It seems, at least in some cases, that tne bitterest critics of the legislation are those who have done their best to bring it into discredit. In my experience, if proper care and discretion is exercised by the racing clubs, and only such men are licensed as bookmakers as can be relied upon to meet their engagements and behave properly, the evils complained of would largely, if not wholly, disappear.” Dr. Findlay added that in his judgment the racing clubs owe a duty to the public who frequent their courses to license no bookmaker without making proper investigation as to his finances and character.

THE POWERS OF THE CLUBS.

Dr. Findlay’s view seems to us to be borne out by the Act itself. In drawing attention to the mandatory nature of section 35 of the Gaming Act, some time back we pointed out that the direction to the Racing Clubs authorised to use the totalisator to grant licenses to bookmakers is ruled by the proviso that, “in the opinion of the committee or other managing body of such club,” such bookmakers must be “ fit and proper ” persons to be so licensed. What really is lacking is the machinery required to enable the clubs to deal with such applications in the manner intended by the section referred to. While the extent of the license fee which may be charged is prescribed, the business apparently ends there, so far as the Act is concerned. The Racing Clubs, however, have power (within the limits of the Act) over the courses controlled by them. They can make the necessary by-laws for regulating the behaviour of the crowds frequenting the racecourse, and it should not be a very difficult matter for the Racing Conference to decide a joint plan of action, which would be successful in eliminating from the bookmaking fraternity licensed by the clubs the highly undesirable spieler class, which has aga'n made its appearance on the race courses of the Dominion. There are bookmakers and bookmakers —some very honest and honourable men, others again whose word and bond are as unreliable as it is possible for them to be. Ways and means of discriminating between them should be devisable, and it is satisfactory to have Mr. Mitchelson’s assurance that the subject is to have the attention of the Rac’ng Conference when it meets in July.