Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-04-02
RACE TRACK BETTING
The Opposition to tho Pending Bartlett
Bill
The bureau of reforms and Local
Pastors EnIisted-District Attorney
IA
BirEey's Views OF The Measure.

f.;
The opponents Of the Bartlett racing bill
are carrying on an active campaign against
it. They claim that It will open the way
for a resumption of race7track betting in
the District.
Senator Mcmillan was yesterday after
noon waited upon ny committee Of the
Methodist Ministers Association of this
city. Including Rev. Wilbur f. Crafts of
the bureau of reforms, Rev. w. H. Chap
man and Rev. Z. w. Baldwin, who request
ed that hearing should be given to them
and to other opponents of the bill. Senator
Mcmillan said that the committee had al
ready reported the bill favorably, and it
had been placed on the calendar, so that
he could not well arrange for a hearing
Mr. Crafts asserted that the bill had been
reported too early, and that the COMMITTEES
did not fully understand it's effect Mr.
Mcmillan questioned him on this point and
Mr.. Crafts asserted that Senators Gallinger
and Proctor had told him that they did not
understand the effect Of it,
Mr.. Mcmillan said that he would rot
have approved the bill If he were not sure
tfat 1t prevented bookmakiEg, pool selling,
and gambling in every form Mr.. Crafts
assured the Senator that the experience of
the New York people, where similar law
has teen in effect for year, is that gam
RING does go on under it. Mr.. Mcmillan
called attention to the fact that the district
attorney, Mr.. Birney, had approved of the
law, but Mr.. Crafts declared that Mr.. Bir-
hey had modified his first view and now
holds that the bill would permit betting
within the mile limit.
Senator Mcmillan said that If a meeting
OIL the committee should be held tomorrow,
which is Good Friday, he would call the
matter up and explain the situation, and
perhaps arrange for the appointment Of a
subcommittee to hear the opponents of the
measure.
Action at the metropolitan Church.
The Bartlett bill, which provides for the
appointment of d racing commission was
considered at a meeting held last night
at the Metropolitan NJ. E. Church. After
discussion resolutions were adopted recit-
ing that bookmaking at races vas promo
tive of dishonesty, poverty and immor-
atty, and authorizing Rev. Dr. Hugh
Johnston. pastor of the church, to petition
both houses Of Congress to reject the Bart
lett bill or amend it, SO that bookmakers
and other professional gamblers will find
1t impossible to shield their business under
its provisions.
The resolutions also petitioned Congress to
pass the interstate gambling law, by which
the denICraliZing race gambling in Virginia
across the river, may be wholly suppress
ed.
The pastor was also requested to ap-
point 4 delegation to represent the church
and It's protest at the hearing on the Bart
lett bill, to he held Friday morning by the
House District committee.
District Attorney Birncy's Views.
District Attorney Birney, who as prose-
cutting officer of the government insti-
tuted ard pressed the proceedings that
drove the bookmakers and race track gam
Dlcrs out of the District, was asked hy Mr..
S. T. Thomas attorney for the District,
for his views the measure known as
the Bartlett b:ll. Mr.. .Birney wrote let
ter to Mr.. Thomas, which has been referred
to in The Star. In this letter he stated that
there are in force In the District at pres
ent two principal laws, intended to sup
press the vice of gambling. One, the act
of January 81. 1883. provides for the pun
ishment of any person VINO shall be
Keeper of place for gambling, who
shall set up or keep any kind of gambling
table or gambling device. The second
statute is that of 1891, which makes it I'M
lawful to bet gamble or make bets or
Georgetown. and within one mile of the
boundary of either. Mr.. Birney states that
outside of the limit Of one mile the statutes
do not prohibit in terms bookmaking or
rool selling. but cites that the Court of
Appeals has held in the case of the United
States against Miller that person who
establishes place outside of the mile
limit, at which pools are sold or books are
be held accordingly. Mr.. Birney says:
Section of the proposed Bartlett act
will not. in my opinion, change existing
law. upon this subject.
The proviso to that section prohibits the
occupation of any room. shed, booth or
place for the purpose of betting 'bookmak-
ing or wagering, and provides that certain
acts in such places not now in terms pun
fshabe shall be deemed to be bookmaking
or the use of gambling devices. This sec
ton will permit betting by persons who are
not in occupation of any room shed, booth
or place for that purpose. But 1 am in
cllned to the opinion that such persons could
not now be successfully prosecuted, and
that their action would not support an in
dictment.
I'm this opinion am Influenced in part by
recent decisions of the English courts, to
the effect that, under statutes providing
against the keeping of place for betting
or gambling, no offense is committed by per-
sons who, having no particular place, such
with other persons, thereby affirming the
Well-knoWn rule in criminal law that
statutes imposing penalties are not to be
extended beyond their terms"
He suggests that section of the bill
should be amended by provision for spe-
cific penalty by way of imprisonment or
fine, as follows: and upon conviction there
OF shall pay fine of not less than 500 nor
more than $1,000, and be imprisoned not less
than five days, nor more than ninety days.
at the discretion of the court.
Mr.. Birney says he is informed that the bill
Is substantially the same as statute now
in force in New York, and under which
racing has been conducted for nearly or
quite year. He is also informed that it
has been found to operate well; that it has
greatly lessened' the vice of gambling at
race tracks, and that the betting which
may yet be done under it's provisions, has
not become a nuisance. If this is the case
and since uniformity of statutes upon this
as upon other subjects, is extremely to be
desired. 1t seems to him that it is a strong
argument in favor of the passage of this
bill without amendment, save in the par
ticular he has mentioned. He thinks well
of all of the other provisions, since they
seem to carefully guard against disorder,
and leave discretion in the Commissioners
to grant or refuse a license in any case
Mr.. Birney subsequently modified his
statements as to the effect of section g. In
supplementary letter to Mr.. Thomas he
said:
MY attention is called to an Oversight. in
my letter of this ate,fouGbing Senate bill
1866 In that part of fnny letter in which
l say that proposed acttWill not in my opin-
ion. change existing law upon the subject,
1 mean to be understood that it will not
change existing law without the mile limit
from the cities of Washington and George
town. 1t will, however, change existing
law within that limit so far as to permit
betting on any race course within that limit.
such betting being now prohibited by the act