BOOKMAKERS.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 October 1924, Page 1

BOOKMAKERS.

ONE IN THE HOUSE. AVELLINGTON, Oct. 7. There was a flutter in the dovecots of Parliament during the discussion on tbo second reading of the Gaming Act ■Amendment Bill to-day, when Air Potter, Roskill, reinforced a vigorous attack on the measure by announcing that even members of Parliament bail their bookmakers in the House itself. In opening up the question of licensing bookmakers, Air Potter declared the House would agree to this course if 75 per cent, expressed themselves as they bet, but the trouble was that many members did not vote ns they betted. AYliat could not lie prohibited must lie controlled. Ho was thoroughly convinced the Government had tried the prohibition of bookmakers with the result that instead of curtailing bookmakers it lmd created hundreds more. It had driven them underground. They were to he found in every class of the community. In the police, the Justice Department, among members of Parliament, racehorse owners, trainers, and wherever there was a congregation of twenty or more men; even in the House of Parliament there was a bookmaker. Afembors: AA’liere?

Mr Potter: There is no need to mention a name when you already know the person. Several members: AA’o do not know him. Air Potter: Tf members do not know him perhaps they have someone outside with whom they have sly bets. Tn hotels, clubs, factories and any other place you can name there are bookmakers “working under the lap.” Tbo best way to prohibit tlio bookmaker, lie continued, was to license him. The licensed bookmakers would then act as detectives in fidning men who were unlicensed. Ho declared that in the Racing Conference the men most bitterly opposed lo bookmakers were the greatest betters with bookmakers. It was only reasonable that a punter was not going to put £SO on the totalisator when lie knew every pound put on afterwards would reduce bis dividend, whereas lie got a fixed price from a bookmaker end it did not matter whether £20,000 was taken up by the bookmakers afterwards. The bookmaker never sought bis clients. The clients sought him. “RETTING IS NOT OAAIBUNG.” Air Lysnar declared the true British instinct was for a man to back his opinion. Betting was a British virtue, not gambling. AA'hen betting _ was abused it became gambling, but simple betting was not gambling. Mr Langstone: This is a Gaming Bilk AH* Tsitt said lie would treasure AH’ Lysnar’s statement in bis memory. He onlv wished be could boar an exposition on the subject as to learn where betting ended anil gambling began. Ropyling to Afr Potter’s remarks lie said tbo member for Roskill bad insinuated that those most vigorously opposed to all the evils associated with gambling were secretly going ill tor transactions with bookmakers, and bad oven hinted that one member of the House was a bookmaker. Air Isitt sincerely hoped nobody would suspect him of being that person. (Laughter). Air Potter, in the course of a personal explanation, said that in liis icferenco to there being a bookmaker in the House lie did not wish it to be understood that he referred to a member of the House, hut that there was a bookmaker iu Parliament building.