The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1910. THE GAMING BILL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 959, 28 October 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1910. THE GAMING BILL.

During, the next day or two the House of representatives will have an opportunity of expressing its views on tho Gaming Bill introduced by tho Government to give effect to tho decision arrived at by members oarlier in the present session. The Bill is now before a Select Committee, which has been examining witnesses and generally giving its attention to the proposals outlined in the measure. We do not profess to know the views hold by the Committee; nor arc we aware of the nature of the evidence given before it. We do know, however, that so far as the abolition of tho bookmaker is concerned, the Bill as introduced is a sham and a delusion. This fact is clovorly concealed, but under tho Bill the bookmaker can safely ply his calling everywhere save in the public streets and at race meetings where the totalisator is used. Clause 2. of the measure makes street betting an offence; Clause 3 repeals Section 34 of the Act of 1907,-which legalised bookmaking by permitting bookmakers to operate at all race meetings on payment of a fee; Clause 4 calls on racing clubs authorised to) use the totalisator to prevent bookmakers .plying their calling at their race meetings., There are, however, scores of race meetings at which the totalisator is not used, and at these meetings the bookmaker can continue to lay the odds if the Bill passes into law in its present form. Now, the House of Representatives, acting undoubtedly in accordance with public opinion, on July ,21 very emphatically pronounced its decision that the bookmaker must. go. The motion on the subject was carried by 69 votes to 4. Yet in the face of that decision tho Government has brought down a Bill which will enable the bookmaker to continue in business, on J a- less extensive scale certainly than he has been , privileged to enjoy since tko Act. of 1907, but sufficient to permit him to carry on. that part of his business which is really the most.objectionable part of his calling. We refer to betting away from the racecourses.. ' ,;■ '■■■■■

More real. harm is i done by '.■.tins' form of gambling on horse-racing than by the gambling which goes , on , at the racecourses. The great bulk of the public can only go to'the races to gamble three or fourj or at the:most half-a-dozen, times a year.; % and if betting on horse-racing were confined to the racecourse there would be a corresponding'restriction imposed on such people which could not bo easily'. overcome. But with the bookmaker plying his calling in the towns every day of the week j laying the odds days before the meetings are held, and right up. to the hour ,of each race; holding out temptation in the. .foriii of .longpriced "doubles,",and taking bets ; of from five shillings upwards,: the , incitement to, and the opportunities' for, gambling are increased a hundredfold. "We do not for a moment think that gambling can be stopped by: Act of Parliament, but we do think that the evils of the bookmaker can be re'moved by enacting that bookmakirig shall be deemed an illegal occupation, and-by prodding substantial penalties ;■ and insisting on the strict enforcement of the law. If the Government, is really sincere in its professed desire to minimise the gambling evil by putting an end •to: the : operations of the bookmakers, it can do so in a manner which.will' carry conviction to everyone.; It can reinstate the clause which appeared ih the draft of the Gaming Bill as published in The Dominion some weeks ago. This clause specifically provided that the business of bookmaking shall be deemed an unlawful calling, and every person who pursued it, was made liable to a fine of £100, or in default'of payment three months' imprisonment. Also, it was provided that every person knowingly betting with a bookmaker made, himself liable to a fine of £50. Wo quite recognise that in Messes., Millar and Carroll . those who woul d abolish . the bookmaker have very l strong and determined opponents. It has already.been demonstrated by the altered form' of the clauses of the Bill relating to bookmakers that-. they have dominated Cabinet. • Will , the'y : also dominate the House of Representatives, which' by 69 votes to' 4 decided that the bookmaker must go?