BETTING AND BOOKMAKERS

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 102, 27 October 1933, Page 6

BETTING AND BOOKMAKERS

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Whilst giving to your correspondent the Rev. J. R. Blanchard full credit for sincerity of purpose in opposing this Bill, one feels obliged to ask whether your correspondent' would adopt his present t role of "bookmakers' friend" if lie were"in a full sense a man of the *orld with a personal knoiyledge of the actual conditions that obtain today. Is youf previous correspondent aware: — Firstly, that the reason co many people go wrong is that "credit betting" with bookmakers puts them out of their depth before they realise it? ■ . Secondly, that there are something in the vicinity of 700 bookmakers, bookmakers' agents, touts, and runners operating in Wellington City and suburbs alone? Thirdly, that bets may be laid by telephone direct or through hundreds of barmen, 'tobacconists, confectioners, newsagents, dairymen, and various shopkeepers acting as agents on commission. Fourthly, that bookmakers have their recognised public resorte for the purpose of plying their calling? Fifthly, that bookmakers' agents make regular calk on shops and offices—;yee, Government offices^ too—for the purpose of dropping doubles charts and securing business? . Sixthly, that clients are given unlimited credit and that, recognising these bets as debts of honour, because the same are irrecoverable at law, the client, almost invariably discharges his obligations to the bookmaker 'before he pays his grocer's bill and the like? Seventhly, that thousands who patronise bookmakers' only do so because they have no other means of laying bets or of ascertaining dividends which are publicly displayed to thousands of people on racecourses? As one with an inside acquaintance with the racing game in all its ramifications, I proffer the opinion that bookmaking under present conditions is the direct cause of sending more young people astray than any other factor in our social lite. I.have seen the evil of the present condition of things manifest itself in dozens of different forms both on and off racecourses, the only redeeming feature of the business being that both bookmakers and clients invariably, meet their obligations to one another as debts of honour, through frequently at the expense of tradesmen. Your previous correspondent stressed the fact that the Bill would give greater facilities for betting. I doubt it. No more complete facilities could be given than exist today, and my firm opinion is that if those who have a natural reluctance to break the law—and there are many such—resort to using the Post Office, the .remainder will be insufficient to maintain anything like the present number of bookmakers, agents, and touts, in business. Betting on credit will cease amongst the many who as law-abiding citizens prefer to use lawful means of betting, and whilst some will still resort tc credit betting, there will be an insufficient number to maintain the present army.of bookmakers, hence one Post Office will take the place of many bookmakers, agents, and touts, and thus the facilities will necessarily become legs than they are today. It is so much easier to telephone a bookmaker or his agent—particularly if you haven't the ready! cash—than it is to attend at the Post Office and present the. money for a money order telegram. Li thfe correspondent aware that agehte of bookmakers ply outside of racecourses where they also await telegraphic and telephonic instructions from their principals to invest a sufficient sum on the totalisator to protect their principal against paying out on a "double" the first leg of which has already "landed." The bookmakers now are the only ones; privileged to use the Post Office for this purpose. It happens, believe me, arid yet your previous correspondent, unconsciously, 'of course, sponsors the perpetuation of these evils rather than attempt to regulate and control ■ a gambling instinct that is inherent in everyone in some form or another and which it is just as hopeless to endeavour to suppress as it is to hold back the tide. Mr. Healy is as true a sportsman in every sense of the word as it is possible to find in the community, and he is the last person that anyone who knows him would expect to find championing an evil cause. You will find among his opponents of this measure those who have openly advocated the licensing of bookmakers. The very fact that the bookmakers are opposed to the Bill ia in itself the strongest argument in its favour. Yet we find sincere churchmen, obviously in complete ignorance'of the existing conditions, ranging themselves alongside the bookmakers and sponsoring the lattcrs' cause. Betting or gambling as it is termed will continue despite the churches. Then let the churches face facts and join with the sportsmen who control racing in the Dominion in their present endeavour to make it as clean as possible.—l am, etc., HORSE-OWNER.