The Gambling Bill

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 46, 14 November 1907, Page 9

The Gambling Bill

Balloonists, before making an ascent, let go numbeis of toy balloons, which, rising to the upper air, show' the course of the currents fhat Wow above. Coming" so late in the present session, the Gaming and Lotteries Act Amendment Bill may indeed indicate the lines. predetermined on for the next session ; or it may be a ' ballon d'essai ', a toy balloon sent up .to test the trend of the current of public feeling in regard to the evils of gambling and their remedy—so far as they may be remedied by legislation. Unfortunately, there will always endure 'the universal passion',-as Hume calls it—the avarice which desires to get rich qoiickly and easily, and

c Which makes, gamesters^ play with those Who have least wit, and most to lose '.

But — so far as one may judge from the expression of newspaper opinion — the, measure referred to seems to

have gauged with a fair general degree of accuracy the drift of educated opinion in, the Dominion. No measure of the kind that is likely to be ever introduced into our Legislature, with any prospects of passing, could meet with the unqualified approval of the two extreme parties interested. But for a compromise, the provisions regarding gaming-houses, betting, and race meetings, indicate that it is a serious effort to grapple with a crave and growine problem. \

They do some things "better in Prance. They have long had in that country a law which protects wives and children from the extravagances and eccentricities of gamblers, drunkards, and other such spendthrifts. In his book of confidences,. ' Among Ourselves', Max O'Rell tells how this legislation acts :—: — 'If a Frenchman—be he father, husband, or brothershows an inclination to squander a fortune which is one day destined to go to his children, his- wife, or his toothers and sisters, the latter ha>ve a right to call a family council to examine the case, report on. it, and obtain a restraint which prevents that man from having the sole and entire control of his fortune. . . The law makes no difference between the man who has simply inherited his fortune, or has personally earned it in his profession or business. . . If the family council have proved their case, the law appoints guardians or trustees, who pay the interest of the capital to the man in monthly instalments, or to his wife if he is not judged competent to handle the interest, and the capital remains absolutely protected from his extravagance. That man-is thus declared by French law " interdit " —that is " prevented " from doing* any more injury to his wife and children. Even nephews and nieces can call a family council and get a profligate uncle " interdit ".' It would probably be a matter of enormous practical difficulty to. make a law of this kind applicable to those who stand most in need of its beneficent protection—namely to- those who. have no fortune, but are dependent upon the earnings of a spendthrift housefather. But such provisions as those contained in the Gaming and Lotteries Act Amendment Bill would at least reduce somewhat the diameter of one of the channels' through which hard-won 'earnings are dissipated.