Evening star., 1896-03-23
BETTING IN THE DISTRICT
What District Attorney Bi1nsy Says About
the Bartlett Bill.
He Likes 1t Pretty Well All Except
the Last Paragraph, which He
Thinks UnneceasaFy.

so 1ar as l am aware, remarked Dis
trict Attorney Birney to a Star reporter to-
day, there Is Aothing in existing laws
which prevents the making Of private bets
on borse racing In the District-that Is,
beyond one mile of the limits of Washing
however, the act Of Congress of 1891 pro-
hibits betting, private or public, on horse
races, boat races, base ball games, ETC."
But" explained Mr.. Birney, "in no Sec
tion Of the District, within or beyond the
one-n,ile limit. is public betting Of any kind
permissible. Nor can aIy one, gambler or
private citizen, engage in anything anywhere
In theDistrict in any scheme which amounts
to an jnducement or enticement of another
person to bet with him. For that, under
the decision Of the Court of Appeals in
act OF 1883, which prohibits the setting of
gaming table, gaming table being de-
fined by the fourth section of that act as
any game, device or contrfvance, at which
money or any other thing shall be bet or
wagered.' So while see nothing in exist
ing laws to prevent strictly private bet
ting. yet, If any one, anywhere, by any
means induces or entices another to bet,
and that, too, whether he does or does not
make memorandum of the bet or in any
other way records it, directly or Indirectly,
he Is guilty of setting up gaming table,
and Is liable to term of Imprisonment in
the penitentiary."
MIR. Bartlett's Bill.
Mr.. Birney so expressed himself while
discussing a bill introduced in the House
of Representatives last month by Mr.. Bart
lett Of New York. The bill is entitled "a
bill for the incorporation of associations
for the improvement of the breed Of
horses. and to regulate the same, and to
establish a racing commission. The last
section of the bill is as follows.
Sec 9. That any person who, upon any
race course authorized by or entitled to the
benefits of this act, shall make, or directly
or indirectly shall record, upon sheets or
in books, bets or wagerS on the result of
any trial or contest of speed power of
endurance of horses taking place upon
such race course shall forfeit the value Of
any money or property received or held by
him as a result of such wager, to be re-
covered in a civil acton by the person or
persons from whom such money or prop
erty is received.
This penalty is exclusive of all other
penalties or puniShments prescribed by
law for the acts above specified: Provided,
however, That the occupation of any room
shed, booth or place for the purpose of
making registry or record of bets; the ex-
en- lnging, delivering or transferring therein
of a record. registry, memorandum, token,
paper or document of any kind whatever,
as evidence of any such bet wager; or
the subscribing by name. initials Or other
dunn in the possession of any other person
of a bet or wager, intended to be retained
by such other person, or any other person.
as evidence of such bet or wager shall be
deemed to be bookmaking the use of
gambling devices. and punishable as book
making or the use of gambling devices is
now punished"
Objection to the Last Paragraph.
Il like the dill pretty well'' said Mr.
BirDey, with the exception of the last
paragraph, which prescribes penalty for
bcckmaking which, I very much fear, may
result in some form of gambling not ex-
sctly covered by that provision of the pro-
posed law. AS the laws now stand, fail
to see any necessity whatever for such
provision. 1t is, however, contradictory,
and nay cause no little trouble. Therefore
l would suggest that the provision in ques-
tion be stricken out. We have by the de-
cision of the Court of'Appeals in the Miller
case, the offense of bookmaking and all
that sufficiently defined and guarded
against by the act of 1883, as construed by
that court.
Il cannot quite understand why the sec
ton in question is desired. I do not mean
to intimate that the provision is a device
to eyade existing law, for, in fact think
1t may have been intended for just the op-
posite purpose, but 1 do fear that unless
1t Is stricken out contrary effect may be
given 1t. II the Section be stricken out, l
think the bill would then be unohjection-
able. Therefore, 1 can but oppose 1t as it
now Stands. AS 1 have stated, l can see
no necessity for such a provision. Strictly
not now prohibited, and, Furthermore, 1 do
not believe that strictly private wagers
were ever Intended or attempted to be pro-
hibited.'