Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-04-08
RACE TRACK MORALS
What Was saids;;Yestsrday to the
Senate District Committee.
OPPOSITION 10 ME PENDING BILL
Representatives Of Jockey Clubs Ex-
plain Its'''.Provisions.
THE NEW YORK Jaw

T 81 e N W soY DIRK u A w
In the hearing before the Senate District
committee yesterday afternoon on the rae
ing commission bill, Rev. Mr.. Crafts. in op-
position to the bill, made the first speech.
He stated that It had been expected that a
delegation would attend from the Wcman's
Christian Temperance Union, but that suff1-
cient notice had not been given. He also
referred the committee to the protest Of
the Young Mems Christian Association of
the District recently filed with the House
committee. Mr.. Crafts said that he repre-
scented, in an unofficial sense, the governor
of Virginia, with whom he spent consider
able time in the morning. He declared that
Governor O'Ferrall was greatly interested
in the movement to prevent gambling In
the District. and had expressed the hope
that the amendments to the bill proposed
by the ministers would be adopted.
Mr. Crafts then stated that the object Of
the protesting ministers and others inter-
ested with them was that there should he
stricken from the bill all reference to bets.
stakes, wagers, and other forms of gam
bling.
The whole ISSUE he said, was whether the
perambulating bookmaker, copied by the
New York lawmakers. with other evils.
from the English system of gambling.
should be Permitted by this bill He de-
clared that the laws could not be made too
strict, and said that the ministers were
willing to have them made as strict as pos
sible in the direction Of eliminating all
The friends of the bill, he asserted, had
endeavored to make it appear that he was
representing De Lacey and other New York
racing men. and he challenged Mr.. Auer-
bach, on behalf Of the racing interests Of
the District, to produce any proof of his
connection with the racing interests of New
York, or any other interest that was not
antagonistic to all forms Of gambling. He
challenged any one to claim and prove that
the New York system does not relax the
laws against gambling. The friends Of the
bill. he said, assert that this measure will
preserve the existing law. and If they are
sincere they Should agree to strike gu: all
reference to stakes, lets, etc.
The history of race-track legislation, Mr..
Crafts went on, shows that all propositions
garded with suspicion, and he asked the
committee to strike out the three closing
sections of the bill
MIR. Crafts circulated among the commit
tee copies of The Star of q recent issue
containing Mr.. Birneys statement of the
law Of 1883, as outlined by the decision of
the Court of Appeals. and he declared that
1t was exceedingly dangerous to substitute
for the definition Of bookmaking given by
the courts in that decision the loose defni-
ton proposed by the pending bill which, he
pointed out, permitted the perambulatfng
book'naker. such as the New York law now
that the law of 1871 prohibiting bookmak-
ing within the mile limit was waste paper
as far as it related to the prohibition OF
gambling in the District.
MIR. Comstock's Address.
Mr.. Anthony Comstoek, for the National
Society for the Suppression of Vice, next
addressed the committee. He said he had
followed the doings of THE race track gam
blers in and around New York for seventeen
years, and was quite familiar with their
methods in endeavering TO avoid the laws
and to break down public morals. He as
serted that the ninth section of the bill per
nlstted any common gambler 20 do business
as bookmaker, and iintimated that the
measure, as drawn, was unconstitutional.
He gave the suggestion that it might be
tested later on this point, if it should be-
come law.
Mr.. Charles Lyman, representing the
Washington presbytery. took the ground
with any proposed new legislation was to
show that 1t was needed. Was there any
public benefit to be derived therefrom was
pertinent question. and the burden Of
PROOF was on the advocates of the bill to
show that there was an existing necessity
for its enactment. The advocates of the
pending bill had not shown this fact, and he
did not believe they could demonstrate 1t
people of the District, Mr. Lyman said con-
s1dered the present law as thoroughly ade-
quate and there was no need of its change
For the Jockey Club.
Mr.. Sam'l Maddox. attorney for the Wash
ington Jockey Club. opened for the friends
OF the measure. He agreed that the subject
OF the public morals ought to meet the care
1ul consideration of the committee. The bill
was intended to restrict gambling. Mr..
Maddox read it section by section, and ex-
planned its provisions. When he reached
that provision where reference is made to
the word stake" Mr.. Mcmillan asked Mr.
Maddox If that could not be cut off, as there
had been serious objection to it by Mr.
Crafts and others.
Mr.. S. S. Rowland president of the Wash
ington Jockey Club explained that a stake
was a purse made up for futurity race
when the colts were foaled; that was the
understood meaning of the word by racing
1t would not be understood, and would cause
useless confusion.
Private Betting.
Mr.. Pritchard asked If there was any OBJ
lection to a penalty against private betting.
Mr.. Maddox replied that private betting
could not be reached by any law, and such a
law was, therefore, useless. He called at
tention to the fact that all race courses
must be licensed by the Commissioners who
had them completely under their control
For that reason there could be no bad rae
ing. The eighth section, he declared, did
rot prohibit all betting except such as was
allowed by the act, but it prohibited all rae
ing except such as was allowed by the act,
and this removed the objection made by Mr..
Crafts.
The ninth section, he said, explained in
the most specific way what bookmaking
was. as it is not explained in any existing
law, and it was, he declared, an improve
ment on the present law. He said he was
willing to have the bill amended in several
particulars, the most important of which
was one that provides penalty of one
year and a fine of not to exceed 500 for
conviction Of gambling. under the act. Mr..
Maddox showed the committee how they
did not prohibit betting