KEENLY DISAPPOINTED

Chronicle (Levin), 8 January 1948, Page 6

KEENLY DISAPPOINTED

Anglicans Say Gambling Will Belncreased ■WELLINGTON, Jan. 7. The' Royal Commission reeommendation of a scheme for oifeourse betting whereby the country "would be covered with a network of totalisator ■ offices, is oue that many members of the Church of England will view with utmost apprehension, said Dr. J. Nicol, secretary of the public and ; soeial affairs cQmmittee of the Church ■ of England, hu a statement on behalf of the eommittee. The Commission, he says, clearly hopes sueh a measure, coupled with the introduction of a doubles totalisator, would strike a blow at the bookmakers and deprive them of a substantial share of their illegal business. "We regard this optimistic hope as almost certain to prove; illnsory and feel that if legal facilities for betting are made ubiquitous, open apd accessible to young and old, the total volume of betting, lawful and nnlawful, will be greater than before," said Dr. Nicol. "A less opportune time could hardly be conceived than the present for suggesting tlie establishment of a chain of betting offices when the country is crying out for manpower, building.materials and office accommodation. 1 ' From the evidence before it and from the faet that the Clmroli of England has not specilically condemned. gambling as sinful, the Commission deduces that tlie church regards moderate gambling as permissible. Actually the matter lias not lieen considered by the church in a formal vvav and individual members differ in their opinions. Many regard gambling as wrong in all degrees and cireumstances. Few members would question the view that gambling in New Zealand has been earried far beyond tlie bounds of moderation. "There are valuable recommendations in the sections of the Commission 's report that deal with the conduct -of racing and trottiiig and with miscellaneous matters. We weleome tlie Commission 's disapproval of credit betting, its criticism of 'supine inactivity' on the part. of the Post and Telegraph Departinent in regard to bookmakers ' telephones, its strictures on racing administrators for coniplacency towards owners and trainers who bet illegally with bookmakers to keep totalisator odds from falling, its advocaey of iinproved amenilies on racecourses for the public and for joclceys, its refusal to advocate State lotteries or the deliberate fosteriug of gambling by the State, ,ai£d its recommeudhtion that., no .pei;niits be granted for dog racing. ' ' We cordiallv agree with its view that the Racing Conferenee needs no additional permits and are pleased that the reintroductiou of midweelc racing is not recommended except in speeial cireumstances. Tlie setting up of a Racing Advisory Board would seem to be in the public interest. We doubt the advisability of publishing and of broadcasting additional racing inforniation such' as dividends. lt seems to us that more publicity will breed more gambling. "But our source of keenest disappointment is simply the advocacy in the report of off-course hetting on the grand scale. The report suggests that betting offices might have a superficial resemblance to banking offices — we aremuch more impressed with their diffierences. That the scheme recommended in the report will outwit the hookmakers, we do not helieve. Apart from tMs highly controversial proposal, the report contains much that is of real value."