PROTEST FROM PULPIT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5456, 2 August 1929, Page 3

PROTEST FROM PULPIT.

AMENDMENT OF GAMING ACT. “REJECTION URGED.” Preaching in St. John’s Church, Wellington, the Rev. J. R. Blanchard mentioned that during the week a Bill would be introduced in Parliament to amend the Gaming Act- of 1908. The suggested amendments proposed to permit the telegraphing of investments to the racecourse and the publication of dividends in the 'Press; The Bill would come before the House at a phenomenally early period in the life of a new Government, by reason of pressure from the racing authorities of the Dominion. The racing clubs wanted these amendments because their revenue ' would profit thereby ; they looked at the matter solely from a business point of view. But there was another and a higher point' of view. Morals Before Money. “All citizens who put morals before money,” said Mi' Blanchard, “have a duty to instruct their representatives in Parliament 'to reject the Bill;” That gambling ' was one of the gravest of public evils was a fact 'that admitted ’of no'argument, he continued, t It was therefore the. duty of responsible legislatures to curb; it; as much as possible; rther tha'n to encourage .it. In all places where the telegraph office had been used for transmitting betting investments, 1 the ’ spirit and ’ practice of gambling had been extended ; while - it,' also’ led to such evils as'(a)' postal officials falsi-' fying thp record of the houf at which a betting telegram had been handed in so as to enable the sender to back a horse Which had already Won; (b) office boyS; and girls, entrusted with the dispatch of their employers’ betting telegrams, being tempted tomake a bet on their own behalf. “The legislators of to-day will be -iv’ng the Dominion a grave moral injury,'* continued Mr Blanchard, “if they consent to an amendment to the Gaming Act which will undoubtedly open the door for such evils.”’ Publications of Dividends. ... In regard to the publication of dividends, he said that it was beyond question that such would lead to-an increase in betting investments, and consequently to an increase of the evils which always followed. “The legislators of to.-day will be false to their trust,” said the preacher, “if they write into the Statute Books of the Dominion a measure which has proved itself deeply injurious in other lands, and the prohibition of which is strongly advocated by the best opinion in thosd lands.” In extenuation of the Bill, it has been urged that its measures would discourage the bookmaker. That assurance had been given when the totalisator had been introduced, but was not realised, for subsequent legislation l had to be, introduced to declare the,,, bookmaker, illegal. Very little reliance could therefore be placed on the same assurance in the present case. , “It is making a burlesque of politics,” said Mr Blanchard, “to ask the legislature to, deal with the , bookmaker by widening the possibilities of evil in another direction. It would be much more to the point if fresh legislation were introduced making the penalties against the bookmaker more severe, and extending them, without fear or favour, to his clients as well.”