THE GAMBLING QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 90, 25 July 1910, Page 3

THE GAMBLING QUESTION.

THH DISCUSS iON IX ,PAI!UAMExfj\ i HON. MILLAR'S ALLEGATIONS. During the discussion on the tote on ■Friday, the Premier stated that the increase which had occurred in totalisator investments showed that some restriction was absolutely necessary. It was never thought that racing would run riot as St had done. In recent time 'both women and young people had developed a tas/te for investment on the totalisator. He for one did not see why there should riot be a reversion to the conditions whiph existed prior to the advent of the totalisator. It was beyond all question tlikt there was far too much racing going on in New Zealand. The time was now ripe when the country should step in, ias many people had got sick of the existing state of affairs. . ; , 5 The Hon. Millar stated it,was his firmopinion that racing clubs haft laid themselves out deliberately to bring the law into disrepute. Only .the .other day an instance had come under big notice where a club had licensed a'manji'ho they were warned had been a defaulter. '' Mr. Herries: Where .was.'tljiat,? Mr. Millar: At .', } ■ Resuming, Mr. Millaf ,sai.d' that he could also give instances .at'Wanganui, Blenheim and EketahunJC \yhere bookmakers were licensed, enquiry having been niadpv who wanted the totalisator, pnly fj . wanted a monopoly—to benefit,wjjom '.]. Tjhere.were about five stablest & country, which got from £BOOO to, £M/>TO yearly in stakes. Last yea^-£LB34 ( f),oo;;,vyas put through the \vh,on; ? He had great respect for .Sir .Uecpge Clifford, but his opinions \v;ere' i: much, because he was an, interested party. Then, again, clubs wer,e SlOTeasjng their stakes—and for whqiuS . EoV-*he large breeders, the men with the big stables. <■

■Mr. Herries: Thewnrers with the best horses.

Mr. Taylor: How are we to avoid making a monopoly? •Mr. Millar: By doing away with the totalisator.

Mr. Millar stated-'that'; the amount put through the machine in 1891-92 was £500,000, whilst the year before last it had increased to £1,834,000. Everybody knew that 'betting went on. outside the racecourse. The House ,might do away with the bookmaker,-jpuj; it would not remedy matters—it would •be like an ostrich putting its head in the sand and thinking that it could not then be seen. Betting' would go on for all time, and steps should be taken to 'see that Xew Zealand did not breed a nation of hypocrites, as was the position which arose under the sly grog-selling, Mr. Massey: That is what you are now doing. Mr. Millar: Under the Act tre < bookmaker was forced to follow.his calling on the racecourse.

Mr. Massey: You know better than ;hat.

Mr. Millar said that two years ago Sir George Clifford had stated that if the bookmakers were prepared to remedy matters from within the Racing Conference would deal with them. Subsequently the bookmakers went to work and formed a Tattersall's Club, and asked that no person should be licensed except its members. Mr. Herries: That would be a monopolv. Mr.'Millar continued that if Ivttins were right it should be lesilised like "n- j derwriting, for there was nothing different in principle between them. What did a man get in return for his premium if his ship arrived safe at port? It was the same with the bettor: what did he get if his horse lost? He was not opposed to 'betting, for lie had betted all his life, and would bet as long as he lived. If thev enn!' only make a nation righteous by Ac- of Parliament it was a poor look-out for the country. Mr. Massey: Are you in favor of a referendum ?

Mr. Millar: No, I'm not. It's the sheet anchor of the shuffler and the man who j has not the moral courage to express his own opinions. (Laughter). Resuming, Mr. Millar said that he intended to support the bookmaker, because if gambling were a vice the fivre they kept it in the public view the better'chance they had to keep it under control; whereas' the' more they drove it into secret and dark places the worse it would become. (He would support the •bookmaker and vote against the totalisator if the former were put out.

FROM THE RACING CLUBS' SIDE. WHAT SIR GEORGE CLIFFORD SAYS. "I hear it said occasionally, 'if you expel the bookmaker and revert to the conditions antecedent to the Gaming Act, the totalisator also may go the same way.' There is, however, no logical sequence in this. The totalisator does not pit man against man—often the honest against the dishonest; it does not cajole into heavier investment than the careful hcJidav maker has foreseen; it deters the reckless from excessive speculation which would defeat itself by diminished dividends, and its profits are a reasonable and voluntary subscription to a healthful, open-air recreation by those who participate in it. Tlie distinction is manifest to us who know, and must be equally so to any unprejudiced enquirer." This emphatic opinion was expressed at the Racing Conference the other day (says the Wellington Post) by the president (Sir George Clifford). "I have," he said, ••consistently expressed what I believed to be the adverse opinion of the Conference regarding the statutory enforcement upon us of the licensed bookmaker. If time permitted, I should like to reiterate the objection with which von are all familiar—the upsetting of the safeguards which we had laboriously built up br rears of improving regulation the lessening of confidence in trainers and jockevs, the temptation held out to unscrupulous owners, the contrast beitween the clean ready-money specula--1 tion of the' totalisator. and the entanglliiv credit svstem of the bookmaker, the restriction of the totalisator to the racecourse. :nid the all-pervading and multifarious temptations of the bookmakers. All these and many other arguments nave not 'vet prevailed to relieve us of •m imposition which we were powerless to resist. It has been alleged that we have not purified our satutory visitors |,v selection: and the answer is. first—that, selection was practical}- impossible, nml secondh—that, compelled to accept their presence, we have looked to them to pur«e their own ranks, and in words we have previously used, -for their credH and our comfort to take measures for the effective exclusion of such black sheep as conspicuously discredit them. ' No self-respecting body of men. added <s"ir George Clifford, would disregard such ii challenge to remove a standing reproach to their calling. One valid objection to the Gamin" Act was that the bookmaker must inevitably find htvoi in the eyes of many clubs, in consequence of his large contributions to their funds. •«T admit the contributions,'' said the speaker, "hut I trust that clubs will not allow a fleeting advantage of the financia' or'cr to outweigh the fundamental

condition of continued success, the eon- | fidence of the public in the integrity 01 the racing clubs, and of the great majority of horse-owners, trainers and jockeys. We were once in that happy position. It is being lost through no act of our own. Let us regain it." After sufficient experience of the Garuina Act of 11108 he affirmed with confidence that it had wholly failed in its ostensible purposes. It had benefited only one class—the bookmaker—whose influence had, under the policy of the Conference, been rendered insignificant, and whose operations have, under the wing, or tmo statute, been restored almost to the maleficent proportions of the pre-totalis-ator days. The Act was, we were told, aimed at the suppression of betting outside racecourses, and everyone knows that it has, as was inevitable, served to extend the bookmaker's circle of clients. Throusli the official rights accorded to him, it has brought him into contact with many trainers, jockeys and stable men, who* previously held such intercourse derogatory, and it has lessened the previous unwillingness of owners to be known as parties to transactions. Tt had renewed the possibilities and suspicions of malpractices which had long been extinct on our courses, and it would in time debar the men who raced solely for love of the sport from participation in it. Was it too much to ask that an experiment condemned by such a representative body as this Conference and responsible for such disastrous consequences, should be discontinued?