The Evening Star TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1876.

Evening Star, Issue 4095, 11 April 1876, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1876.

There is in society a class of customs held to be innocent by most, yet partaking of the character of that which is forbidden; and because of their questionable guilt winked at by even the most straight-laced Puritan.

The evils of gambling are every year becom j ing more apparent in the variety of forma by which the wide-a-wake ones contrive to worm money out of the pockets of the gullible. Sometimes one scheme is adopted—sometimes another ; sometimes it is a Slausible mining claim having no other founation than in the schemer’s imagination; and when this is worked out, a dazzling prospect is held out of the certain success of some racing favorite. So stale are most of these tricks that it might have been imagined none could have been »duped by them; yet the knowing ones are well aware that every year raises up a fresh crop of gulls, who think themselves so much wiser than their fathers, that although the old ones could not play [ with fire without being burnt they can do so with impunity. In vain has law attempted to suppress gambling. That it has not succeeded has mainly been owing to the inconsistency apparent in our statute laws I against the vice. Very amusing chapters J might be written on those inconsistencies

j wmch, however, have frequently led to very I sad results ; and because the law has sancI tioned on one hand what it has condemned j on the other, no healthy public opinion has I been fostered or created on the subject. A writer in the year 1838 remarked I In England gaming wa« very early the subject of penal enactments, but as a proof how futile nil j legislative measures hitherto made have been, wo I need only mention, and we do so wi bout fear of

contradiction, that there are more of those infamous places of resort, appropriately denominated “ hells,” in London than in any other city in the world.

This' is scarcely surprising, for although gaming was created an offence by statute and various laws were enacted for its suppression in the reigns of Charles 11., Anne, George 11., George IV., William IV., and our present Queen, very little heed until latterly, was given to the law by the higher classes of society; and by the statute of Anne, c. 13, “the palace where the Sovereign is residing for the time being is exempted from its provisions.” Although in this Colony we are not likely to be contaminated by this" wickedness of gambling in high places, there is unluckily too much of the leaven among us. Chance is a godi dess not courted for mere amusement. With many, indeed, the excitement of a hand at whist or a game at cribbage is quite sufficient without the drawback from its innocence of a money stake in it, and we are glad to think tins healthy feeling is gaining ground in society; but many find no pleasure in either a game of skill I or of chance without a prospect of profit by it. This mercenary spirit is carried into every amusement. The Wellington ‘Post,’ in an article commenting upon a charge of embezzlement by a young man, remarks - I It is notorious that a number of young men here I with very modest salaries dress and live in a style I entirely incommensurate with their means. If a I young fellow holding the position of a junior clerk, j honestly pays his landlady, and provides himself with decent dress, he cannot have verymnch money I left to spend in gambling, devil’s pool, the theatre, I and brandy and water. Yet it is the fact, nevcrtlieI less, that not a few of these youths indulge in these I things without much restraint, and to an extent I which thei small incomes will not stand. In the I end these young people must inevitably come to grief.

The editor might very fairly have added to the list constituting “ a fast young man ” pool, et id genus omne, are lawful or rather legalised games; so were lotteries once, ulu-tas Governments license the one class to public revenue. The 9 111. declared all lotteries to be nuisances. George 11. repeated the verdict, and legislated for the suppression of “little goes.” Yet the English Government, from the time of Queen the year 1826, did not scruple to pock6t a revenue of. from £250,000 to £300,000 annually from State lotteries. Since that time the only lotteries allowed are “ Art Unions,” the regulations of which to be legal are very striusrent. “Give an inch and he’ll take an ell” is an old proverb, and is abundantly illustrated by the varied applications of the Art Union principle. That it has done much to foster art cannot be doubted ; but people are very apt to say, if lotion tw are allowed for one purpose why not for another ? Mr Harris, in effect, said, “If lotteries are tolerated by religious people at bazaars, why should they be objected to at a horse race ?” The difference of purpose might be fairly urged, as well as the fact that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred those who subscribe to lotteries at a bazaar go there for the very purpose of contributing the money they invest, and would, in all probability, have given it irrespective of any return for it. There is, therefore, no analogy between a “ sweep ” and a raffle at a bazaar. The sweep is purely selfish, and does not even forward the interest of racing; the other is properly a contribution for a public purpose. The advisability of the practice may be questioned, if it is accented, as countenancing a positive evil, but regarded per se, it may be pronounced harmless. Strictly and literally, the Bench was right, although we should like to have seen the moral distinction clearly expressed. We agree with the Bench that it is desirable the law should be made clear on the subject; and if it be possible, so amended as to do away with all anomalies. We thank the Bench for the caution to “newspaper pro prietors and others.” We are not Bkely to bring ourselves into the unpleasant predicament of appearing before their Worships for advertising foreign lotteries; but lest they should commit themselves by dealing with informations they have no business with, we would recommend a glance at the limitations. The 6tk and 7th, William 4th, c 66, inflict a penalty for advertising any “foreign or other lottery,” recoverable in Westminster, Dublin, or Edinburgh, and the Bth and 9 th, Victoria, c 74, enact that any such action or forfeiture or penalty must be instituted by the law officers of the Crown in England, Scotland, or Ireland,