Gambling—And Life

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 748, 22 August 1929, Page 6

Gambling—And Life

CHALLENGE DEBATE Racing and Betting WHERE DOES MONEY GO? rJE merits of gambling in general, and betting on horseraces in particular, were discussed in a challenge debate in Scots Hall last evening between the Rev. Lawson Marsh and Mr. C. E. Major. The hall was packed, and the crowd, whose sympathies seemed slightly to favour Mr. Marsh, derived evident enjoyment from the arguments and personal sallies of the speakers.

'J'HE debate was arranged as the I result of a newspaper controversy ! following statements made by Sir Edwin Mitchelson at the Auckland Racing Club’s meeting about telegraphic bets, published dividends and other proposed gaming amendments. The chairman. Sir George Fowlds, explained that the debate had been arranged as the result of a challenge issued by the Rev. Lawson Marsh to Sir Edwin Mitchelson, but as Sir Edwin was physically unable to accept, the challenge had been taken up by Mr. C. E. Major. The conditions were that each speaker occupy first, 30 minutes; then each follow with speeches lasting 15 minutes; Mr. Marsh to be given five minutes for his final reply. Mr. Marsh said at the outset that when he had read reports of the remarks of Sir Edwin Mitchelson at the annual meeting of the Auckland Racing Club, he, as a member of the Christian Church, had determined to reply in equally strong terms. He was not there to mince, words, and as he had come from a part of the Old Country where people were in the habit of saying what they meant, he would make no discrimination that evening. So far as the attitude of Mr. Major was concerned, there appeared to be a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” flavour with his support of totalisator gambling on the one hand and his support of bookmaking on the other. BUSINESS SPECULATORS It had been said by Mr. Major that all life was a gamble. “I am not going to call Mr. Major a liar,” Mr. Marsh went on, "but I will say that this statement is a black lie that has been white-washed, which is worse than simply a white lie. “If life were run on the principle of the penny-in-the-slot machine there would be no principle at all, but the fact that there was uncertainty in life did not necessarily make it a gamble. A gambler aimed to gain something for nothing without giving any equivalent service. (Applause.) But he wished to discriminate between the Stock Exchange operator and the gambler. A Voice: It is time you got to the point. Another Voice: There is a policeman here. Put him out! The First Voice: This is a public meeting. Mr. Marsh w.ent on to quote from Sir Ernest Benn’s ’’Confessions of a Capitalist” on the subject of business speculators, who, he claimed, regulated the markets and avoided the necessity of the public having to suffer the inconvenience of fluctuations. He quoted also from the Betting Commission of the House of Commons on the same subject, all of which went to show that forward buying was not gambling, but merely trade, based upon a knowledge of the markets, acquired through keen study and observation. It kept equal the elements of supply and demand, and played an essential part in carrying on industry. That distinguished the gambler from the Stock Exchange operator. Sir Edwin Mitchelson had said that gambling was inherent in human nature, and the man who did not make a bet seemed to be accepted as an eccentric. "In such case,” said Mr. Marsh, "I confess to being a mental defective.” England’s gambling figures were variously estimated from £200,000,000 to £500,000,000 annually, while the numbers of working men and even boys who gambled on racehorses had opened the eyes of the Gambling Commission, before which evidence was given that the efficiency of the British workman was reduced by 20 per cent., and that it would pay the employers to pay a dfrect 10 per cent, on their ordinary expenditure if they could suppress gambling among their men. How much would the tradesmen of Auckland benefit if the money spent ia gambling in a week were diverted into their pockets? (Applause). When money comes in at the door, sport goes out of the window,” he added. GAMBLE OF LIFE Mr. Major claimed that all statements made by his opponent could be answered completely, dissociating himself from Rationalism and from “The Truth Seeker,” with which he was officially connected. Mr. Major attacked Dr. J. J. North, whom he accused of distortion of the truth, and of "silly impertinences without warrant.” So far as bookmakers were concerned, he merely wished to see a bookmaker, the same as anyone else, get fair play until he was convicted, which had been more than the two rev. gentlemen had done. He claimed that life was, in effect, a gamble. "Why,” he said, “Mr. Marsh might have been born a negro —but he wasn’t—(loud laughter) and so with the rich and the poor.” Mr. Major described Sir Ernest Benn in rather uncomplimentary terms. "I am full of commiseration for my opponent for his simplicity,” he said “He is here to do good; and so am I but through a different channel.” Gambling had been a development of man's intellectuality, and had held sway only since man had become semicivilised. If, however, gambling were an evil, it was an amazing thing that Christianity in its 2,000 years of existence had failed to do anything to stem it. "My opponent has said that money invested in gambling runs like water,” he went on. “Now, where does it run. . . .?” A Voice: At Ellerslie, of course! Money invested in gambling, Mr. Major continued, was not wasted, but was simply transferred from one pocket to the other. If everybodv won, nobody would complain. Mr. Major: I mean, the money does not go up in smoke, but ultimately

finds its way into the tradesmen’s pockets GOOD PICKING “So far as the working man is concerned the bulk of the working mc» are the best pickers of winning horses, and win more than the owners themselves.” (Cries of amused dissent.) The explanation of this was that relatively the working man did more betting on the machine than the owner, on account of his numerical predominance. Mr. Major reminded Mr. Marsh of the keen patronage of racing by his Majesty the King, and hotly defended racing and sport generally, claiming that interest in sport affected people in different ways. How, he asked, could anyone separate gambling, speculation and enterprise? If there were no enterprise, there would be no progress: no progress—and desolation would follow. Speculation was merely called "investment,” while investments on the totalisator were unequivocally classed as gambling. There was no solicitation by the totalisator and there was no fraud attached to the machine. People were not compelled—nor even asked —to bet when they attended the races—they might admire the grounds and enjoy their cup of tea. Many members of the Auckland Racing Club attended the meeting for the pure sport, and never indulged in a bet. In his reply Mr. Marsh said money did not go up in smoke when invested in racing, but it went down in drink! At this stage there were cries from the gallery of "Cut out the heroics!” and “Don’t cramp that right shoulder!” Mr. Marsh said to make chance the arbiter of conduct was to subvert the moral standard of life. If gambling were wrong only when one could not afford It. the issue simply was that It was right to win and wrong to lose. Mr. Major, in his short reply, said the tragedies of indiscretion would go on to the end of time, and were not preventable among people who lacked mental poise. The request of Sir George Hunter’s Gaming Bill was quite a reasonable one-—telegraphed bets and published dividends —and would be of benefit to the whole community, as all money passing through the totalisator was circulated among the people for legitimate purposes. He deprecated as much as his opponent betting among children. (Applansc.) But when a bet was made someone must win. In clpsing Mr. Marsh made it clear that the object of the racing fraternity in opposing the bookmaker was not the same as the motive which induced the Church to take a similar stand. To say horse-racing was desirable to improve horse-flesh was absurd. It was not necessary to have cock-fights to improve poultry, nor bull-fights to improve the quality of beef. “If you believe in chance,” he ended, “you cannot believe in God.” The chairman was accorded a vote of thanks.