Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1906. NO VISIBLE MEANS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3700, 16 August 1906, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1906. NO VISIBLE MEANS.

The Chief Justice cf New Zealand is very much averse to gambling. But the Chief Justice has already 1 made law to administer and he cannot send a man to gaol because, in his opinion he has been guilty of a moral wrong. He can only punish a person who, in his opinion has been guilty of a breach of law. Hence His Honour reversed the decision of a Magistrate the other day. The Magistrate had held that a man who had kept a common gaming-house and who allegedly by this means had possession of sixty pounds, had insufficient lawful means of support! It was proved that the gambler did no work. It seems to be clear that such a person is merely a drone, that he is as much good to the country as the Syhinx, but it also seems that the possession of sixty pounds supposedly made by gambling, seeing he did no work is ‘ lawful ’ means of support, Anyhow His Honour had no machinery to convict the man. The man is therefore apparently at liberty to go on doing no work and to be found at any time with sixty pounds he did not earn. He can be arrested for keeping a gaming-house, but there is no law to compel persons found in a gam-ing-house to give evidence against themselves.

The Chief Justice asserts that there should be such a law. If the defendant in this appeal case was guilty of keeping a gaminghouse and if he was in possession of money earned solely at the gambling business it seems to the ordinary lay mind that he was guilty of an offence. But the charge 1 no lawful \ isible means of support ’ had to be proved and apparently by His Honour’s reversal of the lower court’s decision the man who did not work an.l had not apparently worked for the last six months might have made the sixty pounds by breaking stones or ploughing or anything else—which is absurd. It seems to us

that the law distinctly permits a man to play unlawful games, the proceeds of which are ‘ lawful visible means of support.’ It is all yery strange and confusing to the man without the ‘judicial mind.’

It does not seem to be quite clear whether the bookmaker’s calling is a ‘ lawful ’ one, but it is quite clear that the big racing clubs Relieve it is a morally unlawful one since they prohibit him following his calling—or bawling —on their courses. While, however, he is not permitted to yell the odds he is permitted to have a place in town where his clients on the courses may get in almost instant touch with him per telegraph which the Government graciously permits the clubs to have on the courses. While this is permitted, and is therefore deemed ‘unlawful’ it seems strange that the bookmakers should now behaving their telephones cut off. It seems to be a recognition that making bets per electricity is ‘unlawful.’ There is no news yet that the Government will make the racecourse telegraph office unlawful. ,

But the man who is considered to be a drone- and an encumbrance because he runs a gaming-house may also morally—but not ‘ legally ’ —be considered a drone and an encumbrance because he runs a bookmaker’s shop in a town cellar. It has yet to be discovered by the private person not learned in the law that the proceeds of cellar betting are ‘ lawful visible means of support ’ or that city bookmakers acquire rows of houses and smart buggies and horses by ‘ lawful’ means. And yet apparently it is so. The only stock-in-trade necessary for a successful bookmaker is. a face of brass, lungs and bag of leather, ‘ savey ’ enough to lay in such a way that he can’t lose on a day’s business, and a loathing of work. Any person who loathes work should be set to stone-cracking in the' presence of the man with the gun. It dees not matter whether he is in possession of “ lawfully ” stolen gold from his clients in the cellar or whether he has ‘ ‘ lawfully ” robbed his fellow man with the fellow-man’s consent.

Hu and the State gambling machine are chiefly responsible for the frightful epidemic of business peculations that have occurred lately. Sometimes the gambler has a run of luck. He feels that the world is smiling at him. Then he loses. So does' the boss’s cash-till. It is ‘ lawful ’ for the bookmaker to take the monev from tire gambler, but it is ‘ unlawful ’ for the gambler to take the money from the boss’s till. Win; ? The moral sin of either is of equal magnitude except that the gamb'w w a nark. - to the bookmaker’s peculation. If gam ! - ling is an evil 1- hat wants wiphw

out it should be wined out with, a borse -broom and not. with a toothbrush, If it represents a dragon in the path of progress the dragon wants hitting with a club and not a feather duster. If a gambler or a man who fattens at the expense of the gambler or the gambler’s boss does nothing else but bet, the monev he has should be deemed to be ‘ unlawful ’ nteans of support.

Ti-tk State is not going to clean the Augean stable with a penny squirt. A hose with a ten-inch nozzle is required. You might as well put a liver-pill in the boiler of a steam engine to heal a burst plate as quibble with the gambling evil —if it is an evil —in the way the New Zealand law does. There is not the least doubt that gambling has a big hold on the people of New Zealand and _ that the absurd method of dealing with it is a tacit acknowledgment that nothing can be done to make it lose its grip. A few silly little raids by the police, a discovery, when the raids are over and the raided before the courts, either that the juries won’t convict the gamblers, or that there is a hole as big as the Manawatu Gorge in the Act —these things are not going to purify the country. In the meantime the bookie who a few years ago was an eight shillings a day man, is the landlord of decent working men. 'We don’t sav it is wrong. We only ask vou ‘ IS IT WRONG ?’