The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, NOV. 4. 1907. NATIONAL HYPOCRISY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2228, 4 November 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, NOV. 4. 1907. NATIONAL HYPOCRISY.

We should l>e sorry for tlie people of New Zetland if tho new antiigainbling Bill tlrat lias just- been circulated in Parliament really represented tlie national feeling in tlie Dominion on the great problem of gambling. As a people wo aro unfortunately addicted to this v.ico to an abnormal extent, but even admitting this moral defect there is surely no excuse for adding to our shame by exhibitions of the crudest hypocrisy. In the past we have hounded tho unfortunate Chinaman ’from his sole recreation of fian-tan while our own people have been gambling aw.av thousands of pounds nightly at poker and similar games; we have chased the private bookmaker from one street corner to another, and raided any business premises he may have had the temerity to use, whilst- we lnve as a State enticed all classes of the community to engage in gambling on tho totaLisator. Surely inconsistency can scarcely go further, yet Sir Joseph Ward in his new Bill is endeavoring to •achieve tlie impossible. According to -the summary published by our Wellington correspondent, every ■game of chance will be considered as unlawful, and it is evident that a game of euchre or crib at “a shilling a corner’- in a social club room will render the participants liable to the severe penalties provided for, though strangely enough chartered clubs —where as is well known tho heaviest gambling with curds is carried on —are to bo exempt. A man -may still hot oil a racecourse, hut if he wishes to “back Ills fancy” in a bicycle race or football contest, a modest wager of ha If-a-crown may .involve him in a fine of £2O. Neither n icing tins nor betting news arc to be published in newspapers, and hotting telegrams aro not to bo permitted to travel over -the wires to racecourses. These last provisions considered by themselves might be taken as indicating an honest desire on tho part of the Government to discourage gambling on horse-races, but taken in conjunction with surrounding circumstances they can only be looked upon as the rankest kind of sham. A Government which derives hundreds of thousands of pounds by the legalisation of tlie totalizator, and which, through tho perpetuation of this huge gambling machine, is manufacturing gamblers as fast as our young men can grow to manhood, is simply inviting ridicule by adopting preventive measures of the kind indicated. If fe'ir Joseph Ward is really sincere in his efforts to reduce gambling, lot him bring in a Bill to abolish the totali.-sa-tor. If this were done lie could then follow with hi-S proposals for the prohibition of the publication of racing ..tips and betting news, and they would in all probability become exceedingly effective. If the proposed Bill becomes law. and if by any rare elianee it should also be enforced, tlie result would be to confine gambling on horse-racing to the own so where tlie racing takes place. | To an extent this may be a good move,-but if the Government considers it has a mandate from itho people to deal with the gambling evil, then it' is only trifling with the ijiier-tion when it produces a Billwhich will merely curtail the business of private bookmakers whilst- tho ■gienfes’t gambling medium of all. the totnlisator, is left alone. !

THE CONFISCATION OE TE ARAL No one who has the welfaro of the Dominion at heart will object to a policy of cutting up big estates which arc suitable for close settlement, so that they may constitute homes for a larger number of people, but where land is compulsorily acquired by the Government it should he a matter of the greatest public concern that the former owner must bo adequately, if not generously eomx>ei]sated for being forcibly dispossessed of his property. . This certainly has not been done in the case of the To Arai estate, for tlio owner, Mr. Randal Johnson, lias been compelled to accept- just over £IOO,OOO for a property that was estimated by competent and independent witnesses to be worth nearer over £130,000. The Government cannot fairly bo blamed in tho matter, for it gave every facility for tho hearing of evidence from both sides ns to the value of tho property, and sent up t-liq Chief Justice to adjudicate with two others as an Assessment Court." Unfortunately, there was not unanimity on the Court, and Sir Robert Stout, utilising liis supremo power as Chairman, apparently chose to disregard the expert evidence tendered by tho claimant s witnesses, and fixed upon tho lowest range of values brought forward as being pit icfci rally correct. Allien such gentlemen as Messrs. Bright, Wyllie, and ICells, who know the conditions of Poverty Bay as thoroughly as it is humanly possible for them to be known, who are personally conversant with every aero in the To Aral estate, and whose commercial knowledge, particularly in regard to values of kind and stock, is quite exceptional, find their estimates deliberately ignored, apparently for the solo reason that they aro not actually engaged in sheepfarming, they must surely feel that a good deal of their time lias been wasted. This, however, is the only assumption that can bo come to from the Chief Jlustico’s own eta tern ewfr, that ho took the value for ifooeii as fixed by- tho only witness called for tho claimant engaged in sheep farming. This may have been considered a high compliment to Mr. Straehan, but we soai-cely think tbnt even he considers the implied distinction was entirely warranted. A point which cropped up during tho hearing related to the present prico of wool, and Sir Robert interrupted a witness to remark that if people imagined the present high, prices were going to be maintained they were making a great mistake. To an extent the remark may have been justified, for ,no one can prophesy in this direction, but it is only right to mention that all tho probabilities aro in favor of wool maintaining its present v,aliio for some years to come. It is just possible that Sir Robert permitted his views on tlio future prospects of the world’s markets to affect his judgment, and if so ho was in that respect entirely unwarranted. It was certainly apparent during tho hearing that Sir Robert’s knowledge on pastoral matters is by no means profound, and while it is scarcely reasonable to expect- the Judge of a Supreme Court to be also a sheep expert, it should be possible for him to select the evidence of the most competent and reliable witnesses. .In this connection it was, to say the least, regretfublo that the witnesses for tho claimant should have been entirely disregarded, whilst those for tlio Crown —though •their evidence was considerably shaken under cross-examination —should have been unreservedly accepted. Tho result is to add yet another argument to those who are constantly decrying whvt they term tho “Socialistic land policy'’ of New Zealand. In the past, when tackled by outsiders with what they called the injustice of taking a man’s private property from him, we have been accustomed to reply, “But the State pays him a fair compenmtion,” but with a few cases like that of the Te Arai estate we shall no longer be ablo to make that defence. However, it is an ill wind that blows no one any good, and now that the case is concluded it ipay be considered fortunate that the new settlers who enter into possession should bo enabled to secure their respective holdings at distinctly low price's.