The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1897-10-26
HOWARD PACKERS RECORD.

want them"
This is from the Burlington Gazette, and
he editor is either ignorant of the facts or
Is misrepresenting There were three bills
in the legislature of 1898 on the subject of
race-track gambling. They were all in
troduced February 20, 1898, and were
2es, 300 and 3oI. Their titles
respectively were: "An act concerning the
maintaining of race courses in this state
and to provide for the licensing and regu-
lating of the same" ''An Act to provide
that betting and the practice and betting,
commonly known as bookmaking, upon
horse races within the enclosed grounds of
any incorporate association or body in
this state, or the keeping of a place or
places within such grounds to which per-
sons may resort for such betting, shall
not constitute any misdemeanor or Grim
inal offence when such association or in
corporated body is not indictable for the
carrying on of said races therein; and
Supplement to an act entitled An act
for the punishment of crimes F" (Revis-
ion).
Bill 2oo provided that the board of chos-
en- freeholders of any county, township
committee, etc., having charge of any
municipality where race course was sit
uate, should have the power to license
such place for period not exceeding five
years.
Bill 900 provided that the practice, ha-
bitual or otherwise, OF betting upon horse
races, commonly known as bookmaking,
or the keeping of a place where persons
might resort to for such betting, should
not constitute disorderly house, and the
persons engaged in that business should
not be indictable, provided it was done in
side the exterior enclosure of the fair
ground or race course of some society, and
that the betting be carried on only on the
days of racing of such society and upon
the races within such enclosure.
Bill 3oI provided that if persons should,
in an indictable manner, keep such a
place or do such betting, they should be
deemed guilty of misdemeanor and be
fined $40, but should not be held guilty of
maintaining disorderly house, maintain
ing nuisance, or of any other criminal
offence whatever.
These are the three bills, and Howard
Packer voted for each of them. If any
one doubts this, let him look at the min
utes of the House, for FEBRUARY ri, 1898,
pages 322, 324 and 325.
So much for the vote. Now let's look
into the matter little further. That the
frst-not the only-bill that Packer voted
for, put the licensing power in the hands
of the Freeholders, is true, but when it is
remembered that these Boards in counties
where race-tracks hourished most, were
controlled by the men interested in the
business, it is plain to be seen how much
"1ocal option" there was in the measures.
Let us take Packers record all the way
through. When these bills were intro
duced, resolution was offered that 'the
committee on municipal corporations be
and they are hereby directed to give a
public hearing in the Assembly chamber,
on Assembly bills No. 2eo, 800 and. 3oI,
fixing the date week later. Mr.. Packer
voted 'no" on this resolution. Yet we
are told that he will, if elected, serve the
people. Why did he decline to hear the
voice of the people on those bills ? Was
he afraid that his constituents and the peo-
pie at large would demand him to vote
differently than he had already decided
to? If he refused to hear the people then,
is there anything to show that he will do
otherwise now? We have nothing but his
promise against his record of 1898.
When the bills were reported, Mr.. Stu
der offered minority report, and Mr.. Lane
again offered a resolution that they be
committed to the House as committee of
the whole for public hearing, and once
more Packer voted mo" 1.-THE people
be" seemed to be his motto
In due time the bills reached second
reading and were the subject of amend
ment. Mr.. Lane offered provision to
2oo that ''none of the powers conferred
by this act be exercised by Boards of Free
holders, unless all of the members were
elected subsequent to the passage of this
act" Packers vote was mo-"
Then Mr.. Lane tried another move and
offered to amend 299, by compelling each
race-track to pay five per cent. of its re-
ceipts to the county in which it was stu
ate, and once more Mr.. Packers melodi-
Gus voice, always in behalf of the dear
people, called mo" and aided the major
ity to defeat the amendment.
Mr.. Lane was not through with the bill
yet. He thought there should be a
penalty for continuing racing after the IL
cense expired, SO he provided for heavy
penalty. Once more, in behalf of the peo-
pie, Packer voted mo-"
No. 2oo went to the engrossing depart
ment and 800 was taken up. The first mo-
ton was to strike out the clause which
provided that the bill take effect imme-
diately.
Packer voted mo" and that was all the
chance he had to vote on that bill then.
When No. 3oI came up, the first amend
ment was that the act should not apply to
races held in certain months. This would
have cut into Gloucester and Gutenberg
Packer voted mo"
The bills all came up for third reading
and final passage, and Packer had a
chance to change his voting and this
time when the question was asked whether
these bill should pass the House, he, in
the interest of the people, of course, voted
Eyes"
Now, there were some times when
Packer did not vote mo-" and the won
der is that his friends have not cited them.
1t will be remembered that Gov. Werts
vetoed the bills, and on FEBRUARY % return
ed them to the House. The minutes show
that Packer was absent. Uncharitable
persons might suggest that perhaps he had
heard from the people and thought best
to keep away and dodge the vote. But
nobody will believe this. The man of
such Independent, fearless spirit, who ire
fused to be controlled by the caucus more
han once" would not mind little thing
like that. At any rate he did not vote to
pass the bills over the Governors veto,
nor is it recorded that he voted against
'uch proceeding
On February II Mr.. Lane introduced
hree bills to repeal the obnoxious meas