WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 August 1920, Page 3

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

THE COUNCIL OF ACTION

A LABOUR PROTEST

(Our Special Correspondent)

WELLINGTON, August 2a. , The Official Labour Party’s endorse- 1 1 merit of the policy of the Council >f , ! Action, set up by the extremists of the | * Labour Party at Home, has drawn a , I protest from Mr W. A. Yeiteh, Mr S. , G. Smith, and also Mr E. , Kellett, which is likely to have far- , reaching •results in New Zealand even , if it does not exercise any restraining , influence upon militant Labour in the Old Country. The three Independent ( i Labour members of the House of liepre- j ! sentatives have addressed a. cablegram j jto Mr W. Adamson the chairman of ! the recent United Labour Conference in London, pointing out that the members of the House, Mr 11. K. Holland and his colleagues who have endorsed the policy of the Council of Action represent only a minority of the unions and are in no way qualified or authorised to speak on behalf of the workers of the . Dominion. j LABOUR REPRESENTATION. ! Presumably the protest of the Inde- ' pendent Labour members of the House will be given the same publicity at Home ns the Council of Action lias been careful to give the message of the Official Labour Party but, whether ' this is so or not, the incident will bring ! into strong relieF the great gulf that | lies between the constitutional and the I revolutionary representatives of Labour. I Of course Mr Veitcli and bis associates ! Hire quite jus titled in claiming that ' they, not Mr Holland and his colleagues, 1 represent the political sentiment and ! aspirations of the great majority of the workers, but the fact has not been hammered home as persistently as it ought to have been. Now, however, the public has brief -epitomes of the aims and attitudes of constitutional and revolutionary Labour side by side and it - : rnay weigh their merits for itself. . I THE GAMING BILL. I As was generally anticipated, the ’ Legislative Council, under the tactful guidance of sir" Francis Bell, did not upon the amendments to the ' j Gaming Bill to which the House of Representatives had taken exception. Quite 1 probably, provision for telegraphing investments to the totalisntor would have made the extinction of the bookmaker more secure and obviously no great P harm could have been done by the printing of the amounts of dividends al--1 ready published on the racecourse, but Sir Francis did not wish to run the risk of conferences with the House and c-nsi-S ] y persuaded the other members of the G Council to accept bis view. His own 3 amendment enlarging the definition of “bookmaker” was accepted by “thp _ other place,” and if honestly adminise tered will do much to reduce the volume n of promiscuous gambling. THE BOOKMAKERS’ ATTITUDE'.

The bookmakers frankly admit that the Bill is much more drastic than they expected it to be and that its provisions seem to put an end to the most luciative part of their business. They do not admit, however, that the public lias demanded legislation of this description or that the attempt to confine betting to the totalisaor is going to reduce the volume of gambling. One of tlioir 1 number, holds strongly indeed, that there will be more gambling rather than less and that means will bo found for

transmitting money to the totolisator which will provide pickings for people not nearly so scrupulous as the better class of bookmakers have proved themselves to be. As far as oan be gathered from the members of the “profession” themselves there will 1)0 no attempt to kick against the pricks. They will accept the inevitable.