Bazaars and 'Gambling'

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXI, Issue 38, 17 September 1903, Page 1

Bazaars and ' Gambling'

When Sir Edward Fry was appointed to investigate the working of the Irish Land Acts, he opened the proceedings by advising the opposing lawyers ' so to present the case on either side as to generate the maximum of light and the minimum of heat.' The advice was wise and timely. The pity of it is that there are sundry contentious subjects to the discussion of which the disputants almost invariably bring an abnormal fund of unreason and an inexhaustible supply of high-voltage temper which, in debate, 1 Begins to rage and burn as Implacably as flame in furnace.'

Who, for instance, has ever read, heard, or heard of, a discussion on prohibition and gambling that was on both sides calm and temperate ? Both parties commonly lose or mislay their temper— that is, their good temper ; at least one party invariably does. That grandmotherly old scold, the Sydney ' Telegraph,' kept its bad temper well in evidence when it lately flew in editorial wrath at Archbishop Kelly for remarks made by him at "Redfern in favor of bazaars. The ' Telegraph ' quacked at his Grace like an angry duck and accused him, in the customary question-begging way, of favoring ' gambling. 1 Of course Archbishop Kelly did no such thing. And he made this clear in the course of a letter in the columns of the same paper. He laid down the principle : ' Scienti et volenti non fit injuria '— ' To him who advertently assents, no injury is done.' And he summed up his case in the following words :' We consider as commendable that means which, while lawful in itself, enables one to compass a desirable purpose ; if to the qualification of lawfulness we may join agreeableness and special efficiency, the means is more commendable ; and if we super-add advantageousness, in our spiritual and even temporal interests, the means in question must be regarded as something superlatively good. Now, as we have shown, the bazaar in question and all similar fairs intended to provide necessary funds for religious and charitable institutions, are invested with the conditions set forth, usefulness, enjoyment, efficiency, merit,' and prosperity. Therefore, these works, due supervision being supposed, claim the appreciation and the cordial support of the community.'

As to the art unions or lotteries which are permitted at bazaars : according to Catholic principles, they are in

themselves harmless and may be indulged in without sin so long as the chances are eqiual, the object good or at least indifferent, and the amount staked such as one may lawfully spend without injustice to himself, his family, his creditors, etc. The moment the dice are loaded in any way— that is, the moment the chances made uneven— or the object of the lottery bad, or an excessive amount of money— considering individual circumstances—is staked upon an issue, then the lottery becomes at once sinful. It is scarcely necessary to say that lotteries of this kind are not carried on at Catholic bazaars, nor, we believe, at bazaars got up for church or charitable purposes by members of any denomination. A man might squander his money till his family would touch starvation, or he might ' lay ' on the totalisator till his pockets were empty and his face blue, but the ' Telegraph ' would make no protest. It has, we presume, a ' gamble ' or lottery called a fireinsurance on its premises, plant, and stock, and is not ashamed ; and its proprietors are probably known in the great gambling saloon known as the Stock Exchange. And yet the ' Telegraph ' is not on fire. But it finds it in its heart to enter a Pharisaical protest against persons who, < invest ' an odd sixpence or shilling, not with a view to gain, but for sweet charity's sake. The trifling « speculation ' that is made in lottery tickets at our bazaars is practically never entered upon with the meie mercenary spirit of making a profit. It is invariably, or almost invariably, done because the purchaser desires to help the object in view or to oblige a friend. Of course even the most legitimate pursuit may be abused by excess. But such excess, is not likely to take place at any well-conducted bazaar. And, in any case, to reason against the legitimate use of a thing, because of its misuse by some, would lead— even in the case of such necessaries as food and clothing— to consequences worthy of the padded cell.

A few years ago a leading New Zealand daily published the following on the authority of * one who knows something of the ways of stock-jobbers ' : ' Some people have altogether erroneous views of what gambling is. But what is gambling in one way is not gambling in another. Let me explain : By staking with the broker one per cent, of the amount it is determined to nominally expend, the investor can give his orders. Thus £5 commands £500 of stock. Should the stock fall sufficiently to exhaust cover, the transaction is at an end ; the investor loses his cover, which goes into the pocket of the broker. If the stock rises in the market, the investor can claim the difference between its present value

and the price at which he bought, or nominally bought, for no stock changes hands. As palatial offices are occupied, it would appear that large numbers of speculators lose their money in this way. This system, when analysed, is- neither more nor less than betting upon the rise and fall of the market, the broker, being to all intents and purposes the bookmaker.' And yet our xntigambling leagues quietly swallow this camel and then strain mightily at the gnat of the sixpenny ' chance ' in a bazaar ticket. Consistency is a jewel, but theirs is clearly not a jewel of everyday wear.