The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, NOV 30, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1946, 30 November 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, NOV 30, 1906.

The ballot held yesterday for a section of Crown laud at Motu has caused a good deal of local discussion, and many veiled references have been made to multiplicity of applications in the interests of one of a group, and other comments were not calculated to convince one that somo of the individual applicants really intended to fulfil the conditions of the Land Act 'or 1892. Upon the list-'"".‘"applications nearly and profession was re' *esented ; but as the law stands mere was nothing to disqualify anyone except those who already hold Crown leases to put in an application, whatever the intentions of the applicant may have been if successful in drawing che prize ; but if is is a fact, as alleged, that groups of applications were put in in the interests of one of a group, there is something to complain about, although the present system of balloting permits it to bo done, for the person in whose interests more than one application 13 lodged thus secures an unfair advantage oyer those who have to rely upon iho chances of drawing a single marblo out of tho box. If any such arrangement is discovered on the part of a successful applicaut after the ballot he may not become a licensee under the Act ; but the penal clauses of the Act are so loosely worded that they afford a hundred methods of escape, and the difficulty of discovering any private prior arrangements is . so great that it may safely bo said that while the law forbids prior arrangements the system permits them. We have no knowledge, beyond more street rumor which is not always reliable, that any such thing happened in connection with yesterday’s ballot, but if it did the law and the system under which the ballot was taken are equally responsible for tho occurrence. There are very strong inducements offered to people, whether they bG bona fide intending settlors upon the land or not, to enmloy every means of 'securing -a prize in tho ballot box when.offered, and probably not one in fifty of those who try to secure one have any idea that they are committing an act that In's much chan. > of depriving them of legal pci session should they su r ceed in “ drawing a section.” Hundreds have done it and < caped, so why should not hundreds of ethers be induced to run the infirm 1 risk when suciot] means a big rewr d ? Tii9 tirog is a pure gamble, end as such cells for thG exorcise of no more morality than any other gamble. But am t from tho morality of the system there is something radically wrong in offering prize j

in tlio filiapo of portions of tho public OHtttto by elm llling marblcn inn boxff those prizou wore in bard cash tho li»v would prohibit it abaolutoly, and tho poisons caught doing it would liavo to sol vo tho Crown within prison walls most probably. For tho sako of respectability fclio law dubs this thing a ‘‘ballot” and allows it, while tlio law condemns a radio and makes it a punishable) olfonoo, yot tliifl “ ballot ” with a prize attached to it is a rcllle, and a radio is a ballot in the same sense. There is no earthly or ethical (lilforonco except that tho ouo is punishable by lino or imprisomnont and tho other is not. Seeing that this unholy system of gambling for the public estate is sanctioned by law and practised by tlio Government of tho country ea a fair and legitimate moans of disposing of tho Crown lands oi tho colony, what roasou can bo urged against disposing of othor commodities, even bank notes, in a similar way ? Cun it bo that the ersenco of tho sin lioo in tho nature of tho articlo raided ! If that is not tlio contention wo can had no other, and if that is tho eonteiir.iou we see no reason why Tattorsall’s sweeps should be longor allowed to drain this colony of its surplus cash, and tho Government allow'd run a big sweep shop under the cgis of. tho Lanes Dopo t cmeut, for tlio one is ri luora'-ly legitimate rs tlio other. It is iooti active to note y’so 1 hat the lease > hold system of i -nure s ttie fostermo'hor of tins b ! g gau ding system, which was e-.vi thou lit f in fl >o ii(i.ys when the C ewi f n 1 of vie fee Maipio of ire ?n i : , and is siraiily tho on'' 1 " i ion o uu , -tempt to aer.oct some plan f t rho ibsposal oi

and on lease. Other met? >ds nave been tried bud ivied V" g.vo sauafao--cion, imGl at Jw it C advocates of leasehold wore foi 3t 1 1 1 tv / the gambling expedient ra‘he fit i let the lot ishold system go, t; 1 go wo have this piece of legal'-. .1 degeneracy rivottf 1 on to our laws and coated over with on ok otic pieco of public conscience to bide its '• uo character. Howconsiotont.it would bo then for the State wl’He dior.’gerding tho ethical law itself to punish anyono, who may txy t) got behind the other law brsf l upon ethical iUogehty, in search of one in the piiz-'s that are offered. Tho logical outcome of the busincs is that ii the State sanctions gambling it must slso permit the acknowledged e ;(li cs of gambling to be practised in connection with it.