ILLEGAL BETTING

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 865, 8 January 1930, Page 1

ILLEGAL BETTING

Should Bookmakers Be Legalised ? law brought into contempt Opinions on Gilbertian Situation SHOI LD hookmn vers be legalised and thus end the present Gilbertian state of affairs that is tending to bring the law into contempt, or should the Post and Telegraph Department assist the police in this illegal business by denying to bookmakers the facilities of the public service ’ These questions were addressed by The Sun today to representative members of the community. Replies received from a magistrate, minister of religion, lawyer, postal official, an economist and a bookmaker are given below.

Prompting the inquiry was the following letter lo the editor from an Auckland resident: Sir. — It was news to a. good many people to learn from a letter in your columns that the starting-point cf the recent trouble in the Auckland telegraph oftic® was a debt owing to a bookmaker. 1 am not concerned wit 1 the rights nnd wrongs of the internal trouble in th® post office, but it is baffling to Imagine why, after a magisterial inquiry in which the name of the bookmaker concerned must have been brought up. the bookmaker should escape while his victims suffer punishment. There is need of some drastic revision of our outlook toward the bookmaker. If he is a social parasite, nome more energetic campaign than the periodic police round-ups is wanted. Imprisonment ir all cases, and not a graduated of fines, is demanded. On the other hand, if the bookmaker is considered to be merely a minor evil, why should his trade not be legalised at once, and this awful political humbug ended once and for all ? SILVKR BETTOR. A MAGISTRATE’S VIEW "I certainly do not believe that the activities of bookmakers 3hould be legalised.” declared a magistrate. 4, Yet. on the other hand, the gambling spirit is inherent in the human race. The majority of the betting public leads such a mechanical life ih»t its members could ill-afford to lose the refuge from monotony which an occasional bet gives them. My suggestion is that bettors should be allowed to telegraph their bets to the totlßsator. It there were agents of racing clubs in each town, tho scheme could be run in conjunction with the telegraph office and should present no great difficulties. I would set a limit of, say £l, on the amount that could be telegraphed. Of course, if this system were used t y all bettors, it would mean that there could be no more betting on doubles; but 1 am lot sure that the majority of the public is particularly keen on doubles snyway.” It was th© magistrate ;* opinion -fiat the activities of bookmakers could never b© ©hacked by tile imposition of gaol terms;. “A bool.maker comes before me*’' he added. “He pleads guilty to the offence and the facts are clear. There is nothing to do but fine him.” “By keeping the bookmaker illegal great gain accrues to the country.” This is the opinion of the J J. North. “In England/* said M '. North, “we can see the influence of the bookmaker upon all forms of sport, but by keeping betting in this country confined to the racecourse we keep it away from football, dirt-track racing, dog racing, and all other forms of sport.” He thought :it absurd that the Post and Telegraph Department should give the bookmakers the assistance they did. It was recognised that the department afforded them with all facilities to carry on this illegal business. Although it may be regarded by some as utopian, he thought that Sir Joseph Ward’s proposals to keep betting to the racecourses as far as posaible was a sound idea.

“The position of the postal officials in the present case is a tragic one,” said Mr. North. It should also be remembered at the present time that if the Hunter Bill, which sought to permit telegraphic betting, went through, cases such as that which has arisen at the Auckland Post Office *ould become more frequent. There would be tremendous teruptation put in the way of telegraph clerks to use information that passed through their hands, particularly on the part of telegraphic officials :in the country centres where the racing connections were so strong. The present case, he considered. raised this point very acutely. SAYS THE BOOKMAKER . . . A prominent Auckland bookmaker, *ho naturally desires to remain anonymous, stated the case from the bookmakers' point of view. Betting °n racehorses, he said, was an inherent trait in the British race, am: a « long as horses were matched against each other, whether on a city racecourse or in a paddock in the backblocks, there would always be betting. It was almost universally recognised that legislation would never stamp it out. The totalisator with its regulation bets did not cater adequately for the bulk of the community, and there were many who could not well afford r ° give up a day’s work to attend tbe races. The bookmaker also catered for the man of modest means w bo, through the bookmaker, could Set a double for five shillings which •bight return him £3O. proiably the °uly opportunity in his life of handling that amount in a lump sum. Also there were many who preferred the Personal element contained in bethug with a bookmaker. He thought the best way out of the present unsatisfactory state of affairs would be: to register.the bookmakers as is don© in Victoria. Bookmakers could be supplied through the hovernmenr with registered betting •lip©, each franked with a Governstamp. By this means the

bookmakers would pay a tax and by meaus of the butts could also be properly assessed for income-tax. Bookmakers would then be under -proper supervision and.before a licence was Issued they could be compelled to shew proof of a credit balance at the bank adequate to cover their operations, or else deposit a certain sum as a fidelity bond. The bookmaker also advanced the contention that with the legalisation of bookmakers there would not be the same necessity for owners running their horses “dead.” There was no use in attempting to deny the fact that many owners, relying on a satisfactory dividend to repay them lor their months of preparation, did not run their horses to win when, at the last , minute, the machine showed that their, horses would pay a small price. But with a bookmaker an owner could get his price some time before the meeting came off. It did not matter then what Information leaked out, or what the starting price of the horse was. He would have arranged his own betting on advantageous terms, and he could with confidence set about the business of winning the race if he possibly could. For all concerned, he considered the sport would be cleaner and much more satisfactory if bookmakers came under the provision of Government regulation. ECONOMIST’S OPINION “From the standpoint of economics, very little can be said for gambling,” was the comment of Professor H. BelShaw, Professor in Economics at the Auckland University College. “I do not think that legalisation of bookmaking would lessen gambling; in fact, people now in fear of court penalties would be encouraged to make books, and it is reasonable to assume that their agents would increase in number.” Professor Belsliaw pointed out he was not concerned so much with the economic principle of employing the totalisator or the legalisation f> bookmakers in the placing of bets. The question of gambling today was one of regulation. In this public opinion was important. There was no doubt that a large section of the population of New Zealand followed gambling very closely and bookmalcing, in spite of the law, was carried on extensively. Quite apart from moral questions in gambling. bookmaking, made legal, would tend to encourage gambling by reason of the IncresMal facilities. Legalisation, simply by the process of removing the risk which, at the moment, deterred many would-be bettors. bookmakers and assistants, would open an easy path for gambling. Professor Belshaw also had comment on psychological aspects in gambling. The risk of losing money and the prospects of gaining it gave certain kinds of people a certain pleasure. The economic question was involved when it was remembered that a sum won in gambling necessarily meant a loss on the part of another person. Such a thing as a craze for gambling actually existed among some people; in England, for instance, people, apart from betting on horse racing, had opportunities in gambling on football results, and in entering for competitions with money prizes.

An interesting argument against changing the present restrictions on the activities of bookmakers was advanced by an official of the post office. Referring to the surveillance on telegraphed bets carried out under the rules of the department, he said: “GOOD STAFF WORK” “We could devise a thousand new laws to prevent bookmaking operations. Within 24 hours, the bookmakers would have made new arrangements for getting past the system of supervision.” The official was definitely of the view that there was co-operation ■ among many bookmakers, and. in this : opinion, he was supported by another official. One reason for the popularity of laying bets with bookmakers, he said. ! was that they were prepared to ac- ; cept small bets. The frequency of | these small bets could quite easily absorb heavy sums of money on an important race day. With the totalisator the ordinary betting limitations were 10s and £l. For the ordinary speculator, several totalisator bets represented a considerable sum, and there was undoubtedly not the same inducement among many people to venture amounts on t.otalisators when small wagers could be made W ith bookmakers. Ou this account, he thought legalisation would increase betting in smaller lots, but he could not see that more telegraph restric- j turns would hinder the bookmakers ] who managed to contract business through public sources. Codes could be used effectively in making bets over the telegraph The official praised the general in-; tegrity of the employees of the Post and Telegraph Department. Th^ ,e l was no doubt that the men had con- ; siderable temptation in lhe k 7°i V ledge of racing news sen. by telegraph, but be did not know of auyj

instances, until the recent Auckland dismissals, where there had been breaches of the department’s rules. In his opinion, postal employees did not take any extraordinary view of gambling. He referred to the attitude of the employees dismissed after the recent departmental inquiry and considered that the men were now adopting a somewhat antagonistic attitude which was not likely to assist them in the event of a reconsideration of the dismissals. There was talk of Supreme Court action by the men. “If bookmaking and the sale of liquor were only reasonably restricted we would have very few offenders,” said a prominent barrister and solicitor. “Betting or drinking will not be reasonably allayed by legislation. “I think,” he concluded, “that wise control would obtain the desired effect where ineffective prohibitioual legislature tended only to bring the law into contempt.”