Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-02-21
Law AGAINST RACING
Anti-Gambling Bill Before the
Virginia Legislature.
OF INTEREST TO DISTRICT
Sweeping Provisions Against Public
Betting on the Ponies.
FRAMED AS AN AMENDMENT
Hearing to Be Given Friends and OPP
ponents Of Measure by SEN
ate Committee.


Lewis II. Machen of Alexandria CITY was
drawn by Commonwealth Attorney CrandaI
Mackey of Alexandria county.
Should the measure become a law 1t is
regarded as certain that 1t would effectual-
ly prevent any public betting in Virginia
upon morse racing, either in that state or
elsewhere. On the other hand It's defeat
1T Is said, would mean a notable victory
for the promoters and devotees of the race
track gambling in the state. The mere
fact of the existence of the bill. it is stated
is accepted by the gambling classes as
hopeful augury for their interests they
holding that 1t means nothing less than a
confession that the present laws are made
quate in one way or another for the COM
plete suppression of pool selling and horse
racing.
Sporting Fraternity Interested.
The local sporting fraternity Is deeply
interested in the effort for more rigid legis-
lation on that line. as the probability for the
re-estabiishment Of pool rooms at ST.
Asaph and elsewhere in Alexandria county
seems to depend largely upon the issue
The result, as matter OF course is of
great interest to those in Washington who
are opposed to having gambling establish
ments located near the capital city yet far
enough away to be outside of the local
jurisdiction.
The bill is framed as an amendment to
the anti-pool selling act of the Legislature.
to correct the defect in the original measure
by extending It's scope so that the betting
on horse races will be definitely prohibited
Another important feature of the proposed
diction to the circuit and corporation courts
with the magisteriai courts
Title Defective.
The act of February 1896 was suf4f-
GENTLY broad and sweeping in it's provisions
against pool selling and race track gamb-
ling, but because of defective title 1t fell
short of accomplishing the purposes for
which Ii was intended. The court of APP
peals of the state. in the case of Lacy
against Palmer. decided that. owing to is
insufficient title, 1t was effective only as 10
pool selling. AS few of the so-called pool
rooms. it Is stated, indulge in pool selling
the act lost most of its intended usefulness.
The proposed amendment is in the main
section identical with the original act ex-
cept that the caption Is made broad enough
to clearly indicate the purpose of the bill.
The principal provis' IN OF the proposed
act is that 1t shall be unlawful for any
person or persons, corporation or corpora
tons, by any ways. means or devices, TO
make any bet or wager. or receive. or re-
cord, or register. or forward or purport or
pretend to forward any money. thing
consideration Of value to be bet or wag
cred upon the result OF any trial Of speed
or power of endurance or skill of animals
or beasts which is to take place beyond
the limits of the commonwealth"
1t Is further provided in the same sec
ton that II shall be unlawful for any per-
son 'by any means ways or devices, to
aid, assist or abet in the making of any
bet or wager, the receiving, recording
registering forwarding or purporting or
pretending to forward any money. thing
or consideration of value to be bet or
wagered upon the result of any trial of
speed or power of endurance or skill OF
animals or beasts which is to take place
hn Inn ha
or to aid or assist or abet in any manner
or in any way in any of the acts forbidden
by this act.
Penalty Clause.
An additional paragraph provides PEN
atty of fine of not less than 500 or more
than $500. and Imprisonment of not less
than thirty or more than ninety days for
each offense. 1t is further provided that
the act shall be construed as remedial. and
as above stated, that the corporation ana
circuit courts shall have concurrent jurfs-
diction with the magisterfai courts.
The fight for effective and comprehensive
legislation against race track gambling has
been going on in Virginia for many years,
and the contests In the courts under the
laws already enacted have been increas-
ingly severe in the recent past. This has
been notably the case in respect to Alexan
dria county. For years alleged pool rooms
and race track betting establishments flour
ished in the county. persistent cam
paign was inaugurated some two years ago
by Commonwealth Attorney Mackey or
that county, with the result that after
long fight he succeeded in closing all OF the
places which had been doing open business
up to that time. The proprietors of the al
legged pool room at st. Asaph. through their
attorneys, finally came into court and reg
istered promise that they would never
again attempt to conduct the business com
planned of at ST. Asaph. This promise was
accepted by Judge Nicol and Mr. Mackey
and the proceedings were abandoned
The legislation in Virginia against betting
general assembly. approved February -.
1892. This statute was designed to destroy
betting on races whether occurring within
or beyond the limits of the state But In
the case of Lascalette the court of appeals
construed the statute applying only TO
bets actually made in the state. After that
decision the general assembly undertook 10
remedy the defect in very broad ana
sweeping act approved March g. 1854
This, however, was SO drawn as to except
from its operations grounds owned or con-
trolled by agricultural associations and
driving clubs heretofore chartered
New Statutes Enacted.
The legislature early in 1895 proceeded to
carry out the original plan of 1892, which
had been defeated by the construction given
in the Lascelette case. The new statues
were enacted and approved February 20.
1895, one OF which is the act with the defec-
tive title now sought to be amended. This act.
It is said, would have reached commits
sion transaction had its title been less re-
stricted. The associated enactment does
not reach a commission transaction unless
the money is received to be forwarded to
a race track outside the state.
This somewhat indefinite and complicated
legislative status has afforded much ground
for legal conflict. 1t has been commended
that there is no law in Virginia to pre-
vent the registering of wagers on horse
races taking place outside of the state.
would apply, as one is defective and the
other reaches only to cases in which there
is transmission of money to race tracks
outside the state. AS to the statute of 1898.
on the other that 1t would apply. The weight
OF reliable legal opinion, however, seems
to be that this act. which is extensive in
its prohibitive scope, Is sufzlcient to pre-