Evening capital and Maryland gazette. (Annapolis, Md.) 1910-1922, 1922-02-27
A PARTNERSHIP THAT SHOULD
Re DISSOLVED

Unlike the prohibition enforce
mcnt act, the provisions Of which
have given rise 10 serious ques-
tion as 10 being drastic and un-
reasonable, - resulting in opposi-
ton by many on that ground
rather than on the main issue
the anti-racc track gambling bill,
now before the Legislature, leaves
no room for division as To the
stipulation or procedure. 1t pre-
SCENTS a clear-Cut issue as to whc-
Their or not the State of Maryland
shall continue to be a partner in
the racetrack gambling business
and TO legalizc it as State insti-
tuition. 1t is simply a question of
being for or against lcgalized
gambling.
No one is deceived about
racing nowadays. least of all
those who have had any expert
cnce at the tracks. The rcfcrcn-
Ces to its being the sport Of
kings" and to the glories OF the
"Old Hill Top" track at Pimlico.
and To the great monetary bcnc-
fit accruing to the State from the
license fees, all strike responsive
chord of approval when consid-
cred alone. But when exposed to
the light of the actual conditions
InScparably connected with rae
ing, these references are shown
to be mostly mythical, and the
stern and indiSputable fact of the
matter is that all race track
gambling has but one primary
aim, namely, to legalize gambling
at the tracks and to make the
State a partner in this business,
i'll consideration of immunity
from penal action.
Just why the State should eX-
pressly sanction wide open gamb-
ling on horse races if done at the
tracks. and actually be a partner
in the business. and at the same
time make it a crime it done
away from the tracks. is difficult
TO see; yet that is precisely the
present state of the law. From
the standpoint of conSiStence, il
for no other reason. the State is
bound to put gambling on horse
racing under the ban of the Grim
inal law. in all places alike, and
not lcgalize it at one place and
outlaw it at another. All this, of
course. IS on the assumption that
the tracks are not in reality race
tracks, but are rather gambling
tracks. That is to say, the
gambling features are unques-
tionably predominant and not
horse racing. Ii gambling at the
tracks were made 4 crime just
as gambling on horse racing at
other points within the State is
made q crime. then the tracks
would cease to exist. About
this there can be scarcely any
difference of opinion.
1t is argued, however. that
should the anti-racc track gamb-
ling bill be passed. we should
have within the State violations
of the law on all sides by those
who would persist in gambling
through the agency of the pool
rooms and other criminal enter
prises. and that. therefore. it
would be better 10 have wide
open legalized gambling at the
tracks than run the risk of sur
reptitious gambling, especially as
the State would realize about
500 900 in license fees by the
deal. This argument is predi-
Gated on the assumption that the
machinery of the law would be
50 inefficient that it could not. or
would not, operate TO uphold the
law. In other words, it would
amount 10 an admission that the
officers of the law would sue
cumb to the criminal class. No
such assumption is justified
either by past experience in
Maryland in dealing with this