THE GAMING BILL

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 189, 19 November 1910, Page 8

THE GAMING BILL

"X SEVERE STRICTURES. At the conclusion of the debate on the Gaming Bill in the Upper House, the Attorney-General, in reply, said it would be something savoring of cant to attempt to deny that the two outstanding evils threatening the demoralisation of New Zealand to-day were drink and gambling—(Hear, hear)—and that the chief cause of gambling was horse racing. • It was his belief that the time would come when the people at large would make their voices heard on this mazier in no uncertain way. This Bill was but a step towards the goal, and one ' day the evil would assuredly be eradicated root and branch . (Hear, hear.) I He had only one term to apply to the

arguments brouglit forward by the apologists for the racing clubs. The section of the law dealing with bookmakers had been administered by the clubs most abominably. (Hear, hear.) They had ended, as they bad begun, in hypocrisy. The intent of the law was expressed in jyords so plain that any man could see | Whi.' l t was meant, and it was merely ■: with words to use it as the [ Hubs i. I,ad done - The duhs said it forced fem to license bookmakers, but he held in SO per k ccnt - °f cases they could have refused llcen ses liad tlle y wished to do so. i4t the Vft, " v first the clu hs' attitude was one of (lelhx ° rate .obstruction. The next scene "fti thk misera Me business" was tStft any fjfaio uar . < J , who p® l to offer a' club £2O even y came out Of gaol the night be. f ° r , e > c ™ ld S et a license with ease. Wrtx way to deal with the thing? X 0» f J n 01, ,i ei ' at ® from start v ' o^] K V^ tents 0f tlle dk C llbs ,' larf managed to bring . ® f '£ s0 doin « Key had als. bought discredit upon themselves Before_ ti.6 .Clubs now asked for further considerate their so-called sport tliey should have sdeii to it that H.„ • , . *K„ 1„... J...,a.. . 11111

they carried out ,|le ,aw deling with it. As for the propose',' 1 commission, the Government was not to £ iv e ft or | anybody else the right to 'urease ftn evil which they were seeking to He did not think that the amending made' jn the Bill by the House were iV all respects wise, and he intended to > ask the Council to change some of the provisions jnserted there. The Hon. J, Rigg said that, personally lie was unable to see where the "sport* in horse-racing came in. He thought it 4 poor form of sport. He did not like

to see a good horse doing its best, handicapped with a heavy weight, and then see liim Hogged and gored with spurs, and driven until his heart was nearly broken. Was this sport? lie asked, lie thought it could be better described as cruelty to animals. There was one thing that could be. said in favor of horse-racing. It provided a safety-valve necessary in a country like this. If it were not for racing, the criminal class would be increased enormously. The people who were too dishonest to work lived on this game. They followed it all over the country, ami when times were slack they went to gaol for a period. We would have more eases of garrotting, more burglaries, and crimes of this description than many people imagined if we had no horse-racing. After this—the adjournment! The amendments made in the Gambling Bill by the Legislative Council arc such (says the Wellington correspondent of the Chronicle) as may make it very probable that the Bill will be killed. For instance, the Council has struck out. the proviso inserted in the House instructing the Commissioners to give preference in the issue of totalisator permits to one-day (country) clubs. Then, again, the Council, by a majority of one, virtually altered another proviso that limited the number of races to be run in any one day to seven. The Bill originally provided for eight races. Mr. Samuel was now instrumental in having eight races re-inserted in the Bill. A considerable amount of discussion took place on the question as to whether betting in a building was Illegal. Dr. Findlav explained that there was nothing in our present law at the present time to make betting in a private office or in a private room illegal, so long as such room or offices did not become a resort, for betting. He also explained that the Bill was not a mea- ; sure abolishing the calling l of the bookmaker. All it sought to do was to pre- ' vent the bookmaker plying his trade in i a public place or quasi public place. . That was as far as they could go at present.