THE GAMING ACT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXII, Issue 9018, 4 December 1907, Page 2

THE GAMING ACT.

BOOKMAKERS' TROUBLES. Press Association. Wellington, Decombor 3. About 20 bookmakers waited oil the Attorney-General to-day to complain about the manner in which the new Gaming Act had been administered by the Feilding Racing Olub last week"; and to ask that the law should bs carried out' in the spirit intended by the Legislature. Mr Scott (Wellington) said the deputation represented the bockmakers of Now Zealand, who wished to protest against the manner in which the Feilding Jockey Olub had violated Clause 35 of the Act. They asked the Attorney-General to issue a mandate to the racing clubs compelling them to administer the Act in the spirit of fairness intended by the Legislature. They protested against the charge, of £2O per day each for a bookmaker and clerk. It was reported that the Woodyille Club intended to follow the load, and would charge £2O per clay for a clerk as well as £2O per day for a bookmaker. The Feilding Club refused to recognise bookmakers' clerks, in fact. Furthor, tho deputation wished to protest against that portion of the Feilding course set apart for bookmakers (near the latrines), which was Oft. by 30ft. and roped in. The Attorney-General said he was strongly of opinion that betting should be confined to some proper part of the course. Tho whole thing, however, would become a farco if unreasonable stipulations were made, and tho clubs insisted on compliance with such stipulations. Mr Scott said that bookmakers, when they refused to pay what was a £4O license, were excluded from the. Feilding courso as civilians. Dr. Findlay: You had better stick to] your characters as bookmakers, and fight it out on those lines, not as civilians, Mr Scott said tho bookmakers did not want to bet on the lawn or grandstand. They did object to being roped in in an enclosure. Thev suggested that tho rules of tho A.J'O. or the V.R.0., or tho English rules, should bo advocated. Bookmakers were trying to carry out the provisions of the new Act. Dr. Findlay: Well, I want to have a word to say on that point. I want to know whether you, as leading bookmaker of the colony, are going to, on your part, carry out tho intention of the Act? Mr Scott: Wo aro.

Dr. Find lay: Yon will havo | noticed that statements havo been rnado iu tho newspapors that that is not so. : Mr Scott remarked that new men '' sprang upi'' and tho ! leading bookmakers could not bo saddled with the responsibility of their actions. Dr. Findlay: You say you have shut down? You are obeying the Law? Mr Scott: Absolutely. Mr Baruett (Christchurch) made a suggestion that the fee for bookmakers to carry on their calling on racecourses should bo oh the basis of 1 por cent on the stakes offered. In Wellington this would mean a fee of £2O per day. and £lO at Foilding, and from £o to £lO at smaller meetings. , ,_ Dr. Findlay: You represent tho South Island? Can you give me an assurance that yon are trying to carrv out the Act, and that 'you are observing its provisions? Mr Baruett: There was au article iu last night's Evening Post which undoubtedly referred " tq ourselves. We opened a b'oofc on the Auckland Cop a-. V xvailway Handicap before the ,'u.'j' passed and had a liability of perhaps £IO.OO ( ;ither way, We thought we would have to close down, We took legal advice, .and found that t-herd was nothing in the law to prevent us making our antepost book, and that we could do business as usual. We ouly kept an i office for the purpose of entering up our business, 'not* to nut. Dr. Findlay: Of course. Wo will deal with that matter independently. Mr Baruett: We are quite prepared to observe the law.'

In the course of his reply, Dr. Findlay stated that bookmakers had no right to expect ai[y one would get any indulgence from the Government. The duty of the Government would not permit any favour being shown any agoucy for gambling. That ho wished to mako clear. It was the plain duty of the Government fo see that the Act, whether for or against bookmakers, was being genuinely carried out. He was not going to deal with quibbling interpretations of the law, nor with suggested evasions. The plain intention of the Act was to confine betting on horse racing to the racecourses, so tout ihG calling of bookmakers would be limited to a specific area. There was nothing in the law to compel a racing club (which owns its own course) to grant licenses to bookmakers at all. The obligation was oh those clubs which held permits to use tho totalisatbr. The basis and .-justification of clause 35 of the new Act'was tliis, that if a club came to the Government and obtained a license to gamble by means of the totalisator, then the State had a right to impose such conditions an it sa,w fit. For the future, one condition of the right to use the totalisator would bo cbmpliano3 by the club with clause 35 of tho Act of 1907. 'lf a cjub refused to carry out section 35, then,,under the authority conferred on him as Minister in charge, a license to such clubs to use totalisators would not be granted.

Ho pointed out that section -iti.pf the Gaming Act oi' lgSl gave the Colonial Secretary butire discretion in the issue or cancellation oi licenses to nso the totalisator. While lie recognised that if the law was stringently enforced —and stringently enforced it would be —the operations of reputable kookinakers \yould be more confined ■•' than ever before, it was tlio Government's right to protect a bookmaker in the exercise of such provisions as was entitled to protect him against unreasonable restrictions and the whittling away of such rights as he possessed to a mere shadow or delusion. Speaking entirely for himself, he considered it wn,s the dvity of the Government to exercise thp discretion given it under clause 4(! of the Act of 1881 to say whether a totalisator license should bo issued or not in "certain cases where clubs wero wilfully refusing to carry out the spirit of section.3s of the'Act of 1907. He desired to make it perfectly clear that he was not condemning the action of any racing club since the Act came into force. He would ascertain whether the conduct of the two clubs referred to (Feilding and Wbodville) was reasonable or iibt, but he could not make any definite announcement on the question without hearing the authorities of the clubs and making full inquiry. He had received information that several poople connected with racing clubs were trying to induce the clubs to mako section 35 a dead letter. Ho repeated that

■if after full inquiry lie found that any club was acting in the manner indicated, then, subject to the approval of his colleagues, he would Uvjt hesitate to do his duty and rescind the''permit to use phe tojialisafcor. Iu regard to" bookmakers 'themselves, they had the benefit of plausc 3o in their own hands. The purpose of the section was to put bookmakers (on the courso) in no better ami no worse position than the totalisaor, so that there would be fair competition between each. Re urged the members of the deputation to meet the racing authorities [ and arrange" a working basis. A fee to bookmakers up to £2O was entirely }]} tl)e discretion of the clubs. He repeated at length that clubs had no right to impose" exacting conditions, but they had a right to make reasonable conditions to secure that the operations'of bookmakers would not become a nuisance. • The conduct of bookmakers was being watched very closely. Attempts at evasion by pluljs, if bookmakers themselves did not observe the law', would nop induce much sympathy on the part of the public. There was no use criticising the clubs if the bookmakers did not observe the law. There was, perhaps, a chance to lift the bookrnakiug business to a plane it had not occupied in New Zealand before, now that they had statutory right to carry on their calling. 113 concluded by saying that if clubs did not carry out the spirit of "the Act he would advise his colleagues"to exercise the corrective he' referred to'.;..

I Speaking to a reporter, the Hon. j Geo. Fowlds said:—"The Act msrksa tremendous advanco on any pre - ! vious legislation. A groat deal h»s been made of the compulsory licensing of bookmakers by the Racing | Club, but tlie fact of the matter is that it is very, improbable that the measure could have been passed at ail this year unless some concession had been made to those who objected to tho clubs having a monopoly of the betting by means of tho ' tote.' If betting is to foe' prohibited outside of a course and permitted on the courso, it is quite as rational to per-

mifc it to be done there by bookmakers as by'means of the'tote.' The restriction of betting to the racecourses should go a long way to ■ wards minimising the betting evil. I tliiuk tho auti-gambiing peoplo recognise that the Government has gone quite as far as the House and the coun.try will permit it to go at present."