GAMIING LAWS

Hokitika Guardian, 16 September 1933, Page 6

GAMIING LAWS

“ILLOGICAL’ MEASURES -* LOTTERIES AND ART UNIONS AUCKLAND, September 14. .... “The Gambling Laws of our. Empire’’ was the title of an interesting address by Professor E. M. Algie, professor of law at. the Auckland University College. '. v ' Professor Algie said it would be difficult' to, discover any other department of- r British legislation so obviously Illogical and- so rich in inconsistencies. The rides and -regulations 'adopted in ti e various ’ Dominions diffeikd in material respects from those which applied in the-. '-Mother Country, and the ideas- prevalent in one Dominion differed as greatly from those accepted jn another. Yet, while - all the States were loud in their official condemnation negleotjed'the opportunity of filling the State revenue chests from the proceeds of tliis- deep-rooted human passion.

CALLING OF BOOKMAKERS

In New Zealand, a, bookmaker could be treated as a criminal and 1111 outcast, yet. in, another, part of the Empire the.- same bookmaker might advertise.lnstalling, in. the. pages, of the most, respectable.newspapers, A. betting tele-r gi-api was. something which our. postal: (authorities, would refuse to handle, but. elsewhere.it; might be dealt with as, if it werefeiw,years ago ■ the. totalisator u’as 'ii finachini which; according to our Judge, could s 'be taken by the police and; destroyed, To-day its use was legalised by special statutory provision, and the State, which frowned on gambling, had no qualms in the matter of- extracting, for revenue purposes,- a goodly portion of the totajisa tor- investments.

Sweepstakes were banned by the 'Gaming Act, yet “little ones’’ on racecourses, were definitely authorised by the law. In some parts of the Empire lotteries were permitted by law and. were openly and properly conducted. ■ Tin New Zealand, however, they were forbidden under heavy penalties, but [might be conducted by special I! ur_ jposes if a Cabinet Minister would give (his permission. It had recently been (discovered' that the goodness of Minji stern in this respect knew, ho bounds j—and so there seemed to have, been Regular lotteries for-some three of four {years. l “AFFRONT TO COMMON SENSE’"

{ “It is a.curipus affront to our comjmon sense when we realise tlnlt we do (wrong if . we send our shillings abroau jfco those who are running' sweepstakes (in New South Wales, Tasmania, India janj Southern Ireland,’’ continued Pro. f.e sgor Algie, “and. yet we m|3y lawjfully. sink as maiiy shillings as we like jink Al;e phrchr.se of -lottery tickets in bur own country.

| “And in, the midst, of-this welter of illogicality aqd inconsistency the ele” anent.of hypoercy is not far to seek iWq loathe the word, ‘lottery*’ it- is too (accurate, it offends our: delicate sus-

ceptibilities, so we employ the wholly inaccurate tcnn , ‘ar.t unipn.’ The. ugly word ‘lottery:? only., becomes tolerable when we can put the helpFul word ■‘State’ in front of it. ‘Sweepstake’ is an impossible word outside of-India or Southern Ireland; instead we use the (more euphonious term ‘consultation,’ A bet with anyone, even including a bookmaker, is .a ‘debt of honour’; the same thing with a totalisator is an ‘investment;’ Truly we arc a,.strange (people, and it may well be that our attitude- toward. gambling would evoke fstronge- feelings in the mind of the impartial critic whq hailed from a land where a spade is still a spade.”