New-York tribune., 1901-03-31

! Hamburg first and foremost derive the larger
part of their municipal funds from municipal
lotteries authorized by the government. In the
same way worthy people who would think
themselves defiled if they touched card other
wise than with pair of tongs organize raftes-
that is, lotteries-for the purpose of raising
money for some church enterprise or charity.
HOW ENGLAND'S KING DEFINES 1T.
King Edward. ii the writer has
given the most sensible and broad minded defini-
tion of gambling He describes gambling as a
form of intempcrance. The word intemperance
does not merely abuse of liquor. The
excessive use of anything constitutes intemper
ance. and it is intemperance in cards and in
temperance in betting that constitute gam
bling That is what King Edward meant in
his memorable letter to the late Archbishop of
Canterbury. when he described himself hav
ing horror OF gambling. He is fond of a game
of cards, hut he lOathes gambling. That is to
say. he likes to play for the sake of the pastime
which the game affords. the stakes being. of
course proportionatc To the means of the play
ers. There is no doubt h enjoyed mis- game
quite as mach when Tlaying for five shilling
points at Hughenden Manor with Lord Beaeons-
field. who was a poor man, and with Berna.
Osborne and Lord r. wton. when playing for
twenty guinea points with such men Baron
Hirsch, Reuben Sasson and Ferdinand Roth
schild
People who allow themselves "a be led either
10y the excitement of the game by false pride
and srohhishness to stake more than they can
AFFORD TO Iose are undoubtedly guilty OF gam
bling. The moment card play is resorted L. for
the sake of the winnings and instead Of
pastime and contest of skill is used as a sor
did method Of heecing acquantances ana
friends. then il becomes gambling
CONCERNING HOUSEKEEPING
1t il the same with horseraciug. The late
Marquis Of Hastings. for instance who had
stakcI every cent of his fortune upon his horse
Lady Elizabeth winning the Derby q: l>'s,
was i gambler. The late Baron Iirsch could
bet al any time larger amount than Lord
Hastings wasered upon ore "r another Of his
n"!seS. but nobody ever dreamed Of setting him
down gambler, the difference being that he
could afford t. lose. whereas Lord Hastings
could not. Many Of the oN n4rs OF great racing
stables in England and the Continent of
Europe rakc Il point Of never betting, not from
any question Of principle. hut for the purpose Of
giving additional force their strict prohibi-
ton # betting on the part of their employees.
E,ttinE is Illegal in England il is mere. but
" hat the law had in view in Great Britain was
the abuse # a:d intempe rance in betting. The
legislation WAS aimed at those people who H. the
hope Of becoming rich quickly stake far more
than they afford on horse. of the points of
which they are in nine cases out of ten pro-
fJundly ignorant The law never meant TO
prevent the owner os horse his friends
from making wagers well within their means
It's arriving first at the post. 1t is the diff
Guilty Of distinguishing hetween the bets of those
who afford to wager and those who cannot
afford it that has contributed t. make the ap
pliciiton of the statutes against betting almost
i'm pract bic. All attempts in that direction
have resuIted in popular outcry against alleged
discrimination in favor of the rich at the ex-
penso of the poor. and in demand that al
should he regarded equal in the eyes of the
law. 1t is difficult To deal with the subject by
means Of legislation. and when laws are de
viscd to enforce them with common sense and
without injustice EH-ATTACHE.
UiPSFJILES UOCkEES' QUEER LANGUAGE