CRUSADE AGAINST GAMBLING

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 875, 22 July 1910, Page 6

CRUSADE AGAINST GAMBLING

DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT.

REMARKABLE SPEECH BY HON. J. A. MILLAR

THE BOOKMAKER DOOMED.

AMTI-TOTALISATOR PROPOSAL REJECTED.

I - There were very full galleries at the |. . House of Representatives yesterday afteri, noon, when the gaming resolutions ■ brought down by' tho Government came h up for consideratiou. Following was the text of the proposals:— "That in the opinion of this House ■ the provision in the Gaming Act, 1903, , relating to the licensing of : bookmakers-should,be, repealed." "That in the opinion of this House tie lise of the totalisator should be 5; prohibited by law." • ; "That in the opinion of this House - provision should be made by law for | . - the'reduction of the annual number ' of days of racing,' and also that tho it number of totalisator permits issued ; throughout the Dominion sho.uld be ; . reduced by one-half." ' Prior to tie general debate thero was ... a discussion as to how tho proposals should be discussed. The Prime Miniss- tor. proposed that the three resolutions : ohould be debated together,, after which . -separate divisions could be taken. Exception.to this course was taken by Mr. .-Massey, .Mr. Herries,.Mr. T. E. .Taylor, and others. . Upon being appealed to, the ■Speaker (tho Hon. A. li. Guinness) ruled that' if there, was only the one debate no amendment would bo allowable after the -. first division had been taken. It was also pointed out. by Mr. Guinness that it was competent for the House to divide any-motion which might bo considered ■ complicated. Sir Joseph Ward bubff/ quently agreed that the' motions slioiud be taken separately,'but he did so, : he Eaid, on the -inderstaiiding'that the matters were ke;-t separate in debate. j THE BOOKMAKER. J PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH. ' : EFFECTS. OF LICENSING. ' in moving the first resolution, viz., ''That in-the opinion of this House the | \ provision in the Gaming Act,. 1908, relating to the licensing of bookmakers should i be repealed," , i The Prime Minister, stated that he noi ticed that some psople who voted in fav- •' our of the legislation of,. 1907 now-seemed '■ only too ready to condemn it. When that legislation was brought , down there was. a consensus of opinion that street betting, ■ etc.,, should ba put down. He noticed, that \ on-one particular division Mr. Massey did .-, sot vote. Mr; Massey: I am prepared to go ; into tho lobby at any time. 1 i Resuming, Sir Joseph said that when the third reading of the Bill was moved ■ : Mr. Massey was among those who voted in favour of it. Tho whole idea of the ; debate -was that betting should .be con- . fined .to the racecourse. Subsequently - ■ some of tho racing-clubs who were op- \ posed to the legislation did: tbeir. best to v \ cast, odium'_pn the Government.- \ Mr; Herries : T have never heard it. , Sir Joseph: Well, I have been so in.- • •' formed. ... ' ,Mr. Herries: I think I know more ■ ■ about' the question than you do. : < ■ Continuing, Sir Joseph said that it was v only, after it was shown by legal opinions .. that they had to license bookmakers i that i som-s clubs did so. But it was found v that these clubs then boran to license bookmakers, indiscriminately. This • was : ■ done in some ■ instances for political • ■ purposes— Y Mr. Herdman: Give us instances? ', \ "Indiscriminate .Licensing."'. " f. : Sir Joseph went on to say that he ibid i, told those who favoured the totali-, . gator-only that if'that were allowed thero •: would soon be 'an .outcry-against such a monopoly. It had turned out that - even some of the bookmakers—the repute • able section—took exception to- indis- , criminate licensing .of-., bookmaker? •by ... clubs. From figures in his; possession it : - was clear that'since the licensing of the : bookmakers undesirable bookmakers to "the exteut of 75 per cent, more than- before had been registered. Those who had been active in bringing - about the prej'. . sent position were . those' who were - opI posed to the-legislation-all : along'; - Mr; Herries: Clubs' always ask '. the police as to the. character of bookmakers. . ; '■ ' . Sir Joseph: That is not, so, except in ( , the case of the Canterbury Jockey Club. Mr. .Massey,:' Auckland is,in the same. .. position. '■ ' - ■ Mr. Glover: No. Mr. Davey: Several trotting clubs in >'■-; Canterbury applied-to the police in the ' 1 matter. ■ > Permits and Racing Days. : • Sir Joseph said that the number of V-'.v- totalisator licenses issued and the numA ' ber-of racing days during the past 21. jears were as under:— J.■'" '.-.Totalisator Racing •Year." permits. days. • 18S9-90 187 1 211 • - 1890-1- 219. .' "278 ' > 3891-2 ....i 234- -, .300; 1892-3 210 307 15934 247; . 318 .., . , 1891-5 ............ 207. ,268 • 1895-6' - 170 256 - ' IKW-7 ....... 158 250 - ■ 189/-S 155 ' 268 : '' 1898-9 .v ;... 144 250 f ; . WOO 154 ■ 278 -. - JSIM-1 153; 278 -X ' : 2901-2 : ............ 165 : 309 "V -1902-3 148' 276 19034 • ....<. 151 282 1904-5 156 294. ■ ... 1905-6 158 - 288 . 1906-7 ;... 159 303 - 1907-8 152 " 292 : . . 1908-9 157 307 • 1909-10 ......' IG7' , 323 ... It wpulu be seeii that, if Sundays, were . left out there .was more than one race meeting for every day in tho year in this country. ; Mr. .Herries: -That includes, trotting as well ns. racing meetings.'- . Sir Joseph concludcd by 'stating that as a result of the cash credit system of letting, there had been nothing but finan- . i.cial ruin following in the wake of some young people. It was in every way desirable that No. 1 resolution should be . idopted. MR. MASSEY'S VIEWS. "A FISniNG EXCURSION." . jrr. Massey (Leader of the Opposition) said he had spoken on this matter sonie- , what exhaustively the other evening, and . he would not now make a long speech. -«***'-}Le, however, wished to' deny ' the Prime Minister's statement that tho licensing • of the bookmakers had been used for political purposes. He had never heard tho very slightest hint of it, and ho did not believe for one moment that such was Ihe case. Tho Prime Minister had endeavoured to place the. responsibility for what had taken place on the shoul- ' ■ dors ot tho racing clubs; but it must bo remembered that the latter were in ■-. a'very invidious position, for on taking legal advice they found that unless the police objected to a bookmaker's character they had to license him or run the : risk of.-an action'for libel or slander. . The racing clubs were not to blame. But why (ho asked) were those resolutions brought down? Why not a Bill? (Hear, 'hear.) Sir Joseph Ward: Because we-want to •get tho decision of the Houso upon it. f y (Laughter.)

I Mr. Massey: Exactly. It is tho old story, with the right honourable gentleman. As usual ho is on "a fishing excursion." The Ministry have no opinion of their own, or if they had they were afraid to express it. . (Laughter.) Tho Hon. R. M'Kenzie: -You are tied to a fixture in this case. Mr. Massey: The honourable gentleman is in a very tight corner if he only knew it. (Laughter.) Mr. Massey continued that he was suspicious of this new-found virtuo oq the part of Ministers.. In regard to a certain division m which Sir Joseph Ward said ho had not voted, Mr. Massey said he had found that he did vote. Sir Joseph Ward accepted Mr. Mnssey's statement. Mr. Massey added that were it not for the; fact that he was indisposed at tho time, the . bookmaker legislation would never.have gone oil. the Statute-book. As to the virtue on the Treasury benches he pointed out. that in 1907 every member of the Ministry then voted for the bookmaker. - The Hon. J. A'. Millar: Here's one, and I'll do it again. ■ Mr. Massey: The hon. gentleman is ono member of the -Ministry who . has. tho courage of his opinions, and I'll give him credit for it; Sometimes lie is wrong, but. he is not afraid to stick, to his opinion, but even that is a, virtue not possessed by his colleagues.,, , Mr.; Massey w-ent on to say that in 1907 every .nieinber of, the Ministry also voted for /die, totalisator, including even, the, subtly Minister for Education. Hoquot/ed the division lists for and against the totalisator and the bookmakers, and other divisions on the Gambling Ijill in Committee. There were 29' for the bookmaker aud 27 against—27 righteous men. (Laughter.) , "One of tho Ritjhteous." Sir Joseph-Ward: How did you vote? Mr. Massey: I voted in the right lobby. I was one .of the righteous men, and I might add that the hon. gentleman, was not with me. (Laughter.) Mr. Massey', added that a fatal mistake had been made in legalising the bookmaker' in 1907, and a . number of members had walked on that occasion into a trap. that had been cunningly prepared for them. Mr. Fisher:. Who prepared it? Mr. Massey: They are over thero • (on the, Government benches). Tho , result wtiis that the evils of 'gambling had greatly increased. He . quoted Sir George Clifford to show that the Act had been a failure. Of. the two evils, the bookmaker and the totalisator, the; latter was the lesser. The totalisator. could not bribe a jockey, nor drug a horse, and it'could not give credit. Hon. members: Oh, yes it can. Mr. Massey said the bookmaker legislation of 1907 had been the result of an unholy combination- of hawks andpigeons. It was the case of the old lady of Riga again. At the end of the ride the poor girl was inside and a smile on the face, of tho tiger. .Ever, since thatlegislation passed - there had been a smile on the faces of' tho'bookmakers and their friends. A BOOKMAKER'S LETTER. WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD, ' 1)0. At this stage the Prime Minister read a letter which he had received from "four of the leading bookmakers in tho Dominion." It was statjd in the course of t.he letter, that the statement that tho presence of bookmakers operating on the racccourso tended to increase the volumeof gambling was without foundation. As a result of the licensing of the bookmakers, continued the writers, money bad been, diverted from'the streets, to- the courses; it had changed illegal street betting to open honest betting on the raceoourses. If undesirable bookmakers had found their way on- to racecourses, it was not tho bookmakers who wero ro sponsible,; but the gracing clubs. Since the onhctment legalising the bookmakers had come into force, the clubs had shown marked hostility to /the bookmakers.. There had been instances of the licensing of . notorious "wclshers" and bad characters. The Government should make it compulsory for all clubs to make proper inquiries as : to the character of persons desiring to be licensed as bookmakers. The bookmakers in New Zealand, for honesty and fair dealing, would compare more thau favourably with those in any part of tlie world.. The letter, which also contained other matter which Sir Jqsepli said it was not necessary for him to read, was signed by Messrs. D. Ross, Scott, Bradshaw, and Martindale. ■ ABOUT "WELSHERS." Sir Wm. ' Steward (Waitaki)- '6aid that at a race meeting held within a few miles of Wellington not long ago,- thero wero four licensed bookmakers who had defaulted, one of,, them at four. meetings, during tho last three years. During tlie last. throe years eighteen ■ licensed bookmakers had defaulted . at Wanganui, -Woodville, Takapuua, Hawke's Bay, Dannevirke, Gisbornc, Masterton, ■ and Christchurch; -Of these eighteen, seven hud actually been imprisoned for assault, theft, or false pretences, and three more were well known to the police. "A MATTER OF EXPEDIENCY." Mr. Stallworthy (Kaipara) said ho had voted for tho'Bill containing the bookmaker clause as a matter of expediency, as, owing to the pressure' of time, it was represented to him that, if thatclause were not allowed to go,, tho whole Bill would be lost. Mr. James Allen: You fell into tho trap! Mr. .Stallworthy contended that the clause had largely removed betting from the streets. He drew a word picture of going along the Auckland streets and seeing tho "bookies" lined up and their pencils busy. One did not see that on tho streets now. (Cries of "Oh!") Though the gambling evil had not been entirely removed from the streets, it had laigely been swept on to the racecourso, and it was the aggregation of it there that had made, clergymen aghast. Mr. Stallworthy twitted Mr. Massey with saying he would "probably" vote against the totalisator. Was it not true lie had made up his mind? Mr. Stallworthy pointed out that Mr. .lustice Chapmau had joined the totalisator with the- bookmaker in his condemnation. PLAIN SPEAKINC BY MR. MILLAR. SUPPORTS THE BOOKMAKER. "BETTING WOULD GO ON FOR ALL TIME." The Hon. J. A. Millar said he supported the bookmaker in 1907, and would, for the same reason, do tho same thing that day. If a man made up his mind that betting was wrong, ho should voto to have it all wiped out. lie had been amused to hear what had really been suggested, namely, that a crime was not a crime uuless committed in a certain manner. Apparently some members wanted to have facilities for betting offered to men of leisure who could afford to travel round the country, whilst the working man who wanted to have a bet in his own town was to lw branded as a criminal. There could be no doubt but that clubs had indiscriminately licensed bookmakers. Clubs could easily

find out whether an applicant for a bookmaker's license was of reputable character if they so desired. Action of Racing Clubs. It was his firm opinion that racing clubs had laid themselves out deliberately to bring the law into disrepute. Only the other day an instance had come under his notice where a club had licensed a nuui who they were warned had been a defaulter. Mr. Ecrrios: Where was that? Mr. Millar: At Ciisborne. Resuming, Mr. Millar said that ho could also give instances at Wanganui, Blenheim, and. Eketahunn, whero bookmakers were licensed without duo inquiry having been made. Those who wanted the totalisator only wanted a monopoly—to benefit whom? There wero about fivo stables in this country which got . from ,£BOOO to .610,000 yearly in stakes. Last year, ,&1,834,000 was put through the machine —for whom? He had a great respect for Sir George Clifford, but his opinions were not worth much, becausc ho was an interested. party. Then, again, clubs wero increasing their stakes—and for whom? For the large breeders, tho men with the big stables. Big Stables or Best Horses? Mr. Herries: The owners with the best horses.. Mr. Taylor: How are we to avoid making a monopoly? Mr. Millar: By doing away with the totalisator. Mr. Millar stated that the amount put through the machine in 1891-92 was £500,000, whilst the year before last it had increased to £1,834,000'. Everybody knew that' betting went on outside tlie racecourse. The House might do away with tho bookmaker, but it" would not remedy matters—it would' be like an ostrich putting its head in tho sand and thinking that it could not then be seen. Betting would go on for all time, and stops should be taken to see that New Zealand-did not breed a nation of hypocrites. as was the position which arose under the sly grog-selling. Mr. Massey: That is what;you are now doing. , Mr. Millar: Under the Act the bookmaker was forced to follow his calling on the racecourse. Mr. Massey: Ton know better than that. Reform from Within. Mr. Millar said that two years ago Sir George Clifford had stated that if the bookmakers were prepared to remedy matters .from within tho-Racing Conference would deal with them. Subsequently, the bookmakers went to work and formed a Tattersall's • Club, and asked that iio person should bo licensed except its ■ members. . Sir. Herries: That would be a monopoly. Tilr. Millar continued tlmt if betting was right it should be legalised like underwriting, for there was nothing l different in principle between them. What did a.man get. in Teturn for his premium if his ship arrived safe at port? It was tho same with the bettor: what did he get if his horse lost? Would Bet as Long as he Lived. Ho was not opposed to betting, for ho had betted all his life, and would bet as long as he lived. If they could only make a nation righteous by Act of Parliament it was a poor look-out for tho country. ■ Mr. Massey: Are yon- in favour of a referendum ? Mr. Millar: No, I'm not; Ifs tho sheet anchor of the shuffler and the. man who has not tho moral courage to' express his own opinions. (Laughter.) Resuming, Mr.. Millar said J:hat ho intended to support'the bookmaker, because if gambling was a vico tho more . they kept it in the public view the better chanco they had to keep it under control; whereas the more they drove it into secret and dark places the worse it would become. lie would support tho bookmaker and vote against tho totalisator if the former was put out: REMARKS BY MR. HERRIES. DIFFICULTIES OF RACING CLUBS. .• Mr. W. H. Herries (Tauranga) said he hid consistently opposed the Bill v of 1907, because he-foresaw'- what had happened. He maintained that only one or two men had been in favour of the bookmaker clause, and chey could' not have blocked tho Bill as was suggested. Mr. Herries twitted the Prime Minister with having taken high moral ground and at the same time reading communications from bookmakers, which showed they know who were their friends. As far as he was concerned, he was a friend of the racing clubs. The clubs were getlingmore revenue than before 1907, because the fees from the bookmakers more than mado up for the loss on the machine. Despite that tho clubs-wanted -the bookmaker removed. Tho bookmaker exorcised a harmful effect on racing. He denied that the clubs had tried to discredit the Act by licens-, ing bad characters. The city clubs had consulted tho police, but had gained no benefit, and had been unable to find out the necessary information about . tho bookmaker. Moreover, the bookmaker could bet without a license. Clubs and Bookmakers. The club he was connected with had re- ; fused a- man a license. He had betted without it, and been prosecuted and acquitted by 31 r. Cutten.' In view of tho cost of actions. from wrongly turning persons, off courses, the clubs could not afford to take ■ the risk. Tho Canterbury Club had lost thousands in fighting such an. action, and. as. many of the courses were public reserves the difficulty was increased. Even on freehold courses the risk was .considerable. He' could assure the House that the clubs had mado as careful an inquiry into the antecedents of bookmakers as thoy could, bnt they, wers always faced with, this risk, and inniauy cases the police, could only say -they suspcclcd a man, but had nothing definite against him. - Tho Hon. D. Buddo held that it was tho duty of tho Government to make the path .of wickedness hard and the path of virtue easy. He deplored the increase of racing. It had been greatly overdone.. BOOKMAKER WAS PRACTICALLY DEFUNCT. M. HERDMAN'S VIEWS. Mr. Herdman (Wellington North) remarked that he had been unable to tell what Mr. Buddo thought of the bookmaker and the, totalisator. : . Mr. Buddo: Look at the official records. Mr. Herdman: They show that twice you voted for tho abolition of the bookmaker, and oucft to keep him alive. Mr. Buddo: It is a quibble. Mr. Herdman said that when the legislation was passed in 1907 the bookmaker was practically defunct. What happened was that ho had to come to the Government, and. asked it to keep him alive. Gambling could not be-stamped out by legislation, and the Legislature bhoiild endeavour {o control it. He was satisfied that the method of gambling by the means of bookmakers was bad,, whilst tha't by the totalisator was - perfectly clean and fair. In bringing down these resolutions instead of a Bill the Government were adopting the sheet anchor of the shuffler. If - this system were to be adopted in regard to every question upon which there was a doubt tho House would get into a very degenerate condition. The Government were placed on tho benches to give the House ideas, to provide a policy. OTHER SPEECHES. MANY INTERESTING OPINIONS. Mr. Hogan (Wanganui) said ho was not against properly-regulated betting, bccausc ho thought that restricted gambling was not immoral. Ho would vote to limit gambling for tho reason that he thought its present' forms wero injuring tho' community. He would voto against tho bookmaker, and for tho totalisator, which would restrict gambling to a largo extent to tho racecourses. He would vote for the reduction of race meetings by about one-sixth. ' Mr. Pcarce (Patea) thought that tho Bill of 1907 was a disgrace to any Government-. It ought to have been entitled "An Act to Legaliso Black-legs and Spielers." Bookmakers in his district canvassed for bets at little stock sales, and were to be found in every billiard saloon ir. the town. He quoted a statement by the Hon. James Carroll at tho opening of Tattorsall's Club that it was no worso to take odds on a horse raco than to take | odds in the matter of fire iusurance.. A I man who took that .view should stand as

a guide in this matter! Ho would support the continuance of tho totalisator becausc he thought that that would help to wipe out the bookmaker. If the totalisator were abolished at tho present juncture all tho gambling would be thrown upon the illicit bookmaker. A provision should be put in the Act to prevent totalisator butting without the cash. The totalisator did not tout for bets among the youth of the Dominion. "Monstrous Proposal." Mr. Hanan (Invercargill) considered it was a monstrous proposal to make gambling in one form legal and moral, and in another form illegal and wrong. He regretted that the debate had contained so much party wrangling. He did not believe that betting was so rife in all its forms as beforo the Bill of 1907. Tho bookmaker produced nothing and added nothing to the prosperity of tho community as a whole. ■ He would do what he could to suppress the bookmaker, and he hoped that tho day was not for off when tho public would sec tho folly of betting. Mr. Glover (Auckland Central) asserted that the racing clubs had done all they could to license disreputable persons as bookmakers. There werebookmakers and bookmakers, commercial men and commercial men, and he had been a bookmaker himself. He thought that a judge had no right to make such aspersions as Mr. Justice Chapman had made on the Legislature of this country. The totalisator was tho greatest incentive to gambling 'in the Empire. He would be prepared to root out both evils together. Mr. Hardy (Selivyn) said he did not believe in the bookmaker. A detective had shown him lately on a small country racecourse men who had been frequently in gaol, and others- who should bo in gaol, plying their occupation under the recent Act. lie would vote against the bookmaker and for the totalisator. The late Mr. George G. Stead had stated that the totalisator had cleaned up racing in Canterbury. Other men who were clean sports and betted very little if at all said the same thing. If the members of the House, could not decide for themselves what was rielit they should not shift tho responsibility on to their constituents. Those who reqnired a referendum were poor "molly-coddles." Owners Should Pay for Their Own Sport. Mr. Alright (Wellington South) was equally opposed "to bookmaker and totalisator.' There was no real comparison between gambling and insurance, which had a beneficial motive and was based on actuarial investigations. To say with a curtain .Minister that, tho twoj things were the samo was to use a most mischievous argument, which could only be injurious to the. young people of- tho country, who looked to Ministers for an example. He' concluded from the debate that horse-rnciriji in New Zealand depended for. ,'ts' very existence on betting. He did not. see why this should be. .Race-horse-owners who were fond of the sport should.'be" willing to pay for it themselves, and they should not look to the totalisator for revenue. There was far too much racing in this country. Mr. Malcolm (Clntha) said that a policy. of despair had never achieved anything. Supposing ■ that gambling could not bo abolished, that was no reason why an attempt should not be made to control it. Gambling was not a universal characteristic. Ho believed that onlv half the people of New Zealand gambled; and that' tho other half had been educated np to it. If there was strict enforcement of the law. it wonld bo impossible for the bookmaker to make a success of his calline. H« dissented from the findings of Mr. Millar, but there was 110 speeeh which he admired more,; for he stood by what he thought. Sir Joseph Ward: Hear, hear. Amendment Ruled Out of Order. Mr. T. E. Taylor (Christchurch North) said he believed that there was the same percentage of spielers among the higher branches as among the lower branches of horse racing. Th-3 feeling of tile House was against the bookmaker, but the totalisator would escape—but- only for a year or two. He wished to moVe an amendment that tho following addition be mailo to the motion:—"And that the question of repealing the legislation permitting tho nsc of the totalisator be referred to a direct vote of the people ivithin six months from- this date." The clubs had undoubtedly endeavoured to bring bookmaking into disrep.ute. When Mr. Millar came to speak on gambling his sense of proportion deserted hinu Mr. Fisher (Wellington Central) seconded the amendment. The Speaker ruled the amendment out ■of order on the ground that it proposed to deal with a proposal in the second resolution, and secondly, if it wero carried, the second resolution could not bo put. ( " Mr.' Fisher, speaking on the motion, said that he favoured tho whole of the resolutions. . Doubtless many persons of bad repute had been licensed as bookmakers. It was ridiculous to say that clnbs granted licenses because they were afraid-of being sued for slander. Ho did not believe that it was-possible to obliterate gambling so it must be controlled. Prior to tho legislation of 1907 it was understood that metropolitan clubs would only license bookmakers who were recognised by Tattersall's Club, and that country clubs would only license bookmakers who were reoognised by metropolitan clubs. The only solution of the evil was to reduce tho number of days of racing. If the bookmakers were kept off the racecourses they would' still bet in tho streets. Bookmakers from Australia. . Mr.. Fraser (Wakatipu) said that if the licensed bookmakers were dono 'away with two-thirds of them would return whence they came. It was well known .that numbers of so-called bookmakers had come here from Australia, and as they had no other calling they would fall into the hands of the police if they continued to remain. Mr. Poole (Auckland West) claimed that the Bill- of 1907 was an honest attempt to deal with tho problem at that time, but the bookmaker had proved unworthy of the confidence reposed in him. He had outlawed himself, and now he must bo killed. If. they, were going to succumb to the intimidation of the bookmakers, as was suggested by Mr. Millar, the sooner tho Legislature was closed up the better. He thought it should be made a penal offencc to carry on. the business of a bookiliaker. Mr. M'LaTen (Wellington East) emphasised the evil effects of gambling among tho young and the working classes. Ho would' always vote for withdrawing every form of legal sanction of gambling. He admired the way in which Mr. Millar had stood by his guns, but he thought that he was at the wrong end of the gun. Mr. Anderson (Mataura) urged that the bookmaker should be legalised out of existence, and that drastic penalties should be provided against the continuance of his calling. •THE PRIME MINISTER REPLIES. A PROPHECY. The Prime Minister said that the demand for a Government Bill instead of the resolutions was pure ' fudge. The question was not a party one in any sense. _ Mr. Pearce. (Patea): Will you bring down resolutions on the land question? Sir Joseph: There is no reason why we should not bring, down resolutions 011 the laud question if we like. (Mr. T. E. Taylor: It was done by the lato Premier. The Primo Minister road from the report of an Inspector of Police whicli stated that 70 per cent, of tho present licensed bookmakers were men of a more or less shady past, some of whom had graduated as pick-pockets, confidence men, thrco-card-trick men, and racecourse "guessers," and bad acquired the capital with which they started, by dishonest means. This matter was hot brought forward out of sentiment; restrictive legislation was absolutely necessary. The Primo Minister went 011 to refer to a deputation which waited upon him prior to the introduction of the legislation in 1907. Mr. [ Massey: It. did not ask for the licensing of the bookmaker. Sir Joseph: I never said that it did. Mr. Allen: Yon looked after tho bookmaker. Sir Joseph: I have never been in favour of the bookmaker. Resuming. Sir Joseph Ward said that tho endeavour to limit betting to tho racecourses was largely experimental, and depended for success on the cooperatiou of the racing clubs,, who had bees ablo to make a. fouui'o of it. They,

all knew that the bookmaker had to go, and he thought rightly, and ho believed that it would not be long before tho totalisator would go also. If that proved so tho racing clubs would have dono a great deal to bring about the position. THE FIRST DIVISION. 69 TO 4 AGAINST THE BOOKMAKER. THE DIVISION LIST. When the motion was first put, a number of "ayes" were given, and one "no" (given by Mr. Wilford), and a division was called for by the Hon. J. A. Millar. On tho motion being put after the doors had been, locked, it appeared as if the motion would be carried without a division, but Mr. Glover rose and asked for a division. The result of the division was that the motion was carried by 69 votes to 4. Tho division list is as follows:— For tho Motion (69). Allen Macdonald Anderson M'Kenzie, R. Arnold Mackenzie. T. Bollard M'Laren Buchanan Malcolm Buddo Mander Buick Massey Buxton Newman Clark Ngata Craigie Nosworthy Davey Okey Dillon Parata Dive Pearce Duncan, Hon. T. Phillippa Duncan, J. Poland EU Poole Field Rangihiroa Fisher Reed Forbes Rhodes Foivlds Ross Fraser Russell Graham Scott Greenslade Seddon Guthrio Sidey Hall Smith Hanan - Stallworthy Hardy Steward Herdman Taylor, E. fL. Herries Taylor, T. E. Hine Thomson, J. C. Hogg Thomson, G. M. Jennings Ward Lang Witty - Laurenson Wright I.uko Against the Motion (4). Carroll" Millar Glover Wilford. THE TOTALISATOR. PROPOSED PROHIBITION. HOUSE FAVOURS ITS RETENTION. In moving tfye socond resolution, viz.:— "That in tho opinion of this House tho use of the totalisator should be prohibited by law," The Primo ]\linister stated that the increase which had occurred in totalisator investments showed that some restriction was absolutely necessary. It was never thought that racing would run riot as it had done. In recent times both women, and young people had developed a taste for investment on tho totalisator. He for one did not see why there should not be a reversion to the conditions which existed prior to the advent of the totalisator. It was' beyond all question that there was far too much _ racing going on in.New .Zealand, The time was now ripe when the country should step in, as many people had got sick of tho existing slate of aifairs. Appeal-for Referendum Lost. Mr. T. E. Taylor (Christchurch' North) moved an amendment to the eli'cet that a referendum should be taken on the question on tho date of the next election as to whether the totalisator should be prohibited by law. His object in moving his amendment was that ho felt snro the House would not pass the motion. If the people got the chaneo they would abolish tho totalisator. Mr. Glover (Auckland Central), who seconded the amendment, declared that racing should...not be confined. . solely to metropolitan clubs. He felt sure that if tho bookmaker went the totalisator would also go sdoner or later. If gambling wero an evil ho was prepared to vote out both the bookmaker and the totalisator. Mr. Luke (Wellington Suburbs) thought that a majority of the members wero opposed to the totalisator, and in view of tho position he felt it would, be best fot tho amendment to be withdrawn. Mr. Ell (Christchnich South) also ap. pealed to Mr. Taylor to withdraw his amendment, so that a straight-out vote might bp taken. Tho amendment was then rejected on the voices. Mr. Jennings (Taumarunni) said that ho had often been amazed at the way in which the totalisator had attracted •women and young people. He would not like to see tho country clubs placed under the thumb of the metropolitan clubs. THE SECOND DIVISION. • Upon a division, the motion was lost by 40 voten to 32, tho division list being t.s under:— 1 For the motion (32). Allen Mackenzie, Hon..T; Arnold M'Lareh Buddo Malcolm Buxton Millar Clark , Ngata Craigio' Poole Ell Rangihiroa Fisher Sidey I Fowlds Stallworthy I Glover' Steward Graham Taylor, E. H. Hall Taylor, T. E. Hanan Thomson, G. M. Hogg Thomson, J. C. Luke Ward M'Kenzie,Hon. R. Wright Against the motion (40). Anierson Jennings Bollard Lang Buchanan Lawry Buick Macdonald Carroll MasseyColvin ' Newman Davey Nosworthy Dillon Okey t Dive Parata Duncan, J. Pearce Duncan, T. Phillippa Field Poland Forbes Rhodes Fraser Ross Greenslade Russell Guthrio Scott Hardy Seddon Herdman Smith Herries • Wilford Hine , Witty RACING DAYS. MOTION FOR REDUCTION. The Prime Minister then moved the third motion as follows:— " "That in the opinion of this House provision should be made by law for the reduction of the annual number of days of racing, and also that the number of totalisator permits issued throughout the Dominion should be reduced by one-half." He explained that "days of racing" meant days on .which the totalisator was used. Ho would be glad if tho House would carry the motion, as ho thought it would he the proper tiling to do. Mr. Davey (Christchurch East) suggested that' the Primo Minister should alter his motion so as to reduco days of racing, but not permits. He did not wish to wipe out one-day country meetings.. He thought that one-sixth should be inserted in place of one-half. There were at present 303 days' tficing in the year under totalisator permits. If a. further reduction was desired afterwards it could be mado by subsequent legislation. After some discussion Mr. Davey moved as an amendment: "That provision shall bo mado by law for a reduction of the annual number of days of racing by onesixth." Mr. Witty (Eiccarton) seconded the amendment. A reduction of one-half was going too far altogether. It would practically destroy.racing, and have a serious effect,on tho country. The Amendment Opposed. Sir Joseph Ward said he could not agree to the amendment. He wished to take tho opinion of I ho House on the motion as it itood, Au adjustment could

1)0 made between the metropolitan and country clubs, and he agreed that the country clubs should l>e considered. The adjustment could be provided for in the Bill to Iw brought down. Mr. Herries said that the Fiime Minister's motion would affect the country clubs more than the metropolitan clubs, but under the amendment it could easily bo arranged to distribute tho suffering fairly. If the Prime Minister's motion was carried, they might as well abolish racing, because it would be impossible for metropolitan clubs to fulfil their engagements in icgard (0 classic fix'tures and the country clubs would also bo affected. If only one permit was given to a city club all its events would have to be got off at one Racing on a large scale at all events would be rendered impossible. There were two thousand racehorses in training, each representing an expenditure of say X2OO, and in view of tho other expenditure of tho clubs he urged that racehorso owners had a right to bo considered. Hon. R. M'Kenzie's Views, The Hon. R. M'Kenzie said that metropolitan clubs and the Racing Conference were the eurse of racing in this country; Totalisator permits should be issued on a population basis. Mr. Herries: Then the towns would get them all. _ Mr. M'Kenzie: I know what I'm talking about. If racing was to be continued in the scandalous manner that had prevailed for years past the public would wipe it out in one act. Mr. Russell (Avon) suggested that all the House should do that night was to affirm whether the numbers should be reduced or not, leaving the proportion to be decided when the Bill was before the House. The Prime Minister said he thought this was a sound suggestion. He recognised the difficulty of laying down a hard and fast rule at that juncture. Mr. Davey said that he thought it would be very unfair to cut down permits when twenty-two clubs had only one racing day in the year". Mr. Bollard (Eden) held that no reduction of the days of racing should be made without duo notice to the clubs, some of whom had mortgages on their properties. THE DEBATE ADJOURNED. At this stage, 1 a.m., the Prime Minister suggested that the debate should bo adjourned. He said that if this were done ho would see that the motion was brought down again. Replying to Mr. Anderson, the Prime Minister said that he could not say when the debate would be resumed; if it wero possible, it would. come on this afternoon, but he ■ could not. promise. The debate, was then adjourned, and the House rose.