Court Opinion

ID: 9681747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:56:00.005058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:35.711426
License: Public Domain

Griffin Smith, Chief Justice, concurring. I entirely agree with the majority to the extent it has gone, but would add that I am still.of the view that pari-mutuel gambling as legislatively and judicially sanctioned is violative of § 14, Art. 19, of the Constitution: — “No lottery shall be authorized by this state, nor shall the sale of lottery tickets be allowed. ’ ’ See Longstreth v. Cook, 215 Ark. 72, 220 S. W. 2d 433, and the dissenting opinion, p. 83 of the Arkansas Beports. The majority there rested its determination upon the chimerical assertion that pari-mutuel betting is a game of skill. As the dissenting opinion asserts, the result in point of profit or loss is so interlaced with chance that not even the management can tell, until the final bet is in, what the lot of the ticket-holder will be. Owners of the franchise and the state take their trim before the element of risk arises, then pass on to the reckless, to those who are not concerned with the value of money, and to society’s element that basks in the grand parade, whatever of skill either the novice or the turf sharpshooter may possess. A convincing demonstration of this so-called applied skill, repeatedly overtoned in the majority’s opinion in Longstreth v. Cook, is found in financial returns for the past six years, including 1953. The state’s ‘ ‘ take ’ ’ in half a dozen years has been $4,306,652.80, while owners who have operated with such consummate finesse received $7,274,701.81. Thus, during the brief period in question, the public has paid $11,581,354.61 for access to the venture of glamouring skill and the authorized bookmakers have apportioned the remainder of $70,758,566 so hopefully donated to the goddess of skill. I would reexamine the Longstreth-Cook decision in the light of known factors and overrule its intrusion upon the Constitution.