Maitland Stewart McCarthy
Absolutely. We do not hope to carry on hand-book betting, or giving information to pool rooms.
Subtopic: RACE TRACK GAMBLING.
Absolutely. We do not hope to carry on hand-book betting, or giving information to pool rooms.
All you wish to protect is
Mr. McCarthy. Is betting on the race track while the races are in operation.
Than the whole point of the discussion narrows itself down to that particular point-all that the opponents of the Bill desire is betting on the race tracks of a duly licensed association and during the meet. We may well ask ourselves why it is that the opponents of the Bill are willing that the scope of the discussion shall be so limited. In the first place, the professional gambling on the race track during the meet is the only thing that brings any revenue to the association, and, therefore, while the opponents of the Bill say they are willing to give up every thing but that) they are very much in the position of Mark Twain who' was willing to sacrifice all his wife's relations. I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not it does not appear to any reasonable, to any sensible, unprejudiced, unbiased man to be rather an absurd thing that while we by our Criminal Code, without any objection from any quarter, make the business of gambling a crime, w'e shall make an exception of the business of gambling on the race tracks. What good reason can there be why that which is wrong on the street or on a lot adjoining the race track should be perfectly proper and within the law when it takes place on a race track. I do not know what virtue there is in the atmosphere or in the soil or the surroundings of a race track that there makes right that which is pronounced to be wrong in every other place. The opponents of the Bill have laid down three prime, main objections. First, that the thoroughbred horse is necessary to the breeding of good horses; second, that racing is necessary to maintain the thorough!)#ed; third, that professional betting is necessary in order to maintain racing, and, fourth, (incidentally') that hoTse racing is the sport of kings and ought not to be interferred with or prohibited. We largely admit the first statement, that the thoroughbred is necessary or of advantage in the breeding of many kinds of horses. But, the second statement, that racing is necessary to maintain the thoroughbred, we will not admit, although it is admitted that the race track is one of the means that is found useful in the development of the thoroughbred horse. The third statement that professional betting is necessary to maintain racing we absolutely deny and refuse to admit. To the fourth allegation, that horse racing is the sport of kings and should not be prevented, we say it has never been the desire or intention of the promoters of the Bill to interfere with horse racing, and we do not think that the Bill, if carried into effect, will do awav with horse racing. Again, as to the first statement-and I dwell upon that for a few minutes because it has been made a very strong argument by the opponents of the Bill-let me say that the thoroughbred horse is never used for the improvement of any of the breeds of draft horses. Dr. Rutherford, the Dominion veterinary, who was examined before the committee as a witness in opposition to the Bill, stated in his evidence that the thoroughbred horse was not being used, so far as he knew, by any breeder of standard-bred horses, or by any breeder of hackney horses, either in the United States or Canada. If, then, it is admitted, as it is, even by the opponents of the Bill, that the thoroughbred horse is not used for the improvement of any of the breeds of draft horses, the standard-bred horse or the hackney horse, then surely the class of horses for which it is important to use the thoroughbred is a comparatively small and unimportant class. The evidence, then, of witnesses who came to oppose the Bill, goes to show that the race-track has been the means of lessening the value of the standard-bred horse. Dr. Rutherford, being asked as to that, said:
Men having speed tnares have brought them to the fastest stallion they could get without paying any attention whatever to the maintaining of the constitution, the conformation and the general symmetry of the horse.
Another gentleman who gave evidence before the committee in opposition to the Bill was Dr. McEachem, the. eminent veterinary surgeon of Montreal. He gave the following evidence:
Q. In breeding the standard bred for extreme speed have they not suffered in other qualities?-A. I think so. There has been a great deal of harm done to the country by breeding from standard bred horses.
Q. Now what I want to ask is whether the same thing has been proved about the thoroughbred, that in breeding the thoroughbred for extreme speed there has been a loss of other good qualities?-A. That is so. It 1 is well known in England that short races
have altered the character of the horses and there is a strong feeling in the United States and I know that the feeling exists in Canada that only heavy honed horses should be used for breeding and light boned horses should be eliminated, and it is quite proper. Speaking generally you are quite right.
When he says, 'speaking generally you are quite right1, he admits that the racetrack has been the cause of deteriorating rather than improving in many instances the thoroughbred horse. He was asked further:
Q. Do you think that the short races in Canada are a real test of proof of endurance on the part of the horses?-A. No.
Q. Then, if horse racing was to he the assistance to horse breeding here that it ought to be one would require to lengthen the races? -A. Yes, would have to breed as large and as heavy as you could get and lengthen the races.
Dr. Rutherford was asked this question : [DOT]
Q. But talking recently to a man who seems to know a great deal about breeding horses, a lover of horses and a lover of sport, he said to me, and I thought he was very sensible in his remarks, that the present short races rnn on the running tracks of Canada are really no test or evidence of endurance upon the part of the horses engaged. What do you think about that?-A. That man is quite right.
Thus we have the testimony of the highest authorities in Canada that horse-racing has not improved and is not likely to improve either the standard-bred or the thoroughbred horse. The Hon. Mr. Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, was asked as to the necessity of the race-track, and particularly race-track gambling, to the improvement of the breed ofi horses. This is what he said'-he was asked:
Q. Is it your idea that the race horse of England should be produced and refined as he has come to be, is not a useful horse?- A. He is useful for the purpose for which he is bred.
Q. You think for racing only?-A. Well, not altogether. There is no doubt that there are some of the race-horses, perhaps a considerable number of them, who have the bone and the muscle and the necessary formation to be good breeders for any purpose. But. at the same time I have seen, I suppose, a dozen poor things, weeds, on the race courses in England-as I have seen in the few times I have visited the race course in Canada- for one that is any good for 'breeding purposes.
There is the evidence of the hon.' Minister of Agriculture for Canada to the effect that there are on the race courses of both England and Canada a dozen poor horses for every one that would be likely to improve the breed for other purposes! The members of this House will remember very well Mr. Peter Christie, who was a Mr. MILLER.
respected member of the last parliament. We all know him as a practical farmer, whose opinions on matters relating to stock raising were of value, because he knew what he was talking about. Mr. Christie was a witness before this committee.
Mr. C. A. WILSON.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend in his able argument; but he is claiming some rights on behalf of people who are much interested in the passing of this Bill and is quoting from the evidence that was given before the Special Committee which has considered it. I have a copy of this evidence before me; it covers more than 500 pages. It has not been translated into French, and I know that a number of members of this House have not had the time or the opportunity to read all the evidence, and I am told that the great maiority of the members have not read it. To speak for myself alone, I have not had the time to read even one page of that evidence, having been much occupied in the committee dealing with the Lumsden affair, where four of us have to do the work of seven, sitting morning, afternoon and night. Therefore. I am not at all prepared to give my opinion on this Bill or to take part in the discussion, and I would ask my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Miller), in all fairness and justice-and I know he is moved by a great spirit of fairness and justice-not to proceed any further with his argument now, or until, according to the rule and custom of this parliament, in order to give full effect to the right of the minority in this House to the use of the French language, the evidence given before the Special Committee is translated into French, in accordance with section 133 of the British North America Act, which I have now the honour to invoke.
I believe there is no rule of the House that says that the proceedings of the House must be printed in both languages. I know that there is a rule, No. 71, that says that no Bill shall receive its second reading until it has been printed in both languages. This Bill has received its second reading and has been printed in both French and English.
The point of order, as I understand it, is that the consideration of this Bill cannot be proceeded with until the report of the Special Committee to which it was referred is translated into the French language. There is a custom here that reports of special committees may be made in .either language, and on the day following their presentation they are printed in the Votes and Proceedings in both languages. Rule 71 says that all Bills shall be printed before the second
reading in the English and French language. Previous speakers have held that the point of order that a Bill has not been printed in both languages must be taken before the second reading, and that if it is not taken then it cannot be taken afterwards, and they have allowed then discussions to proceed upon a Bill printed only in one language. In the present case the Bill has been printed in both languages. I have, looked in vain since confederation for a precedent to enable me to decide whether or not this Bill could be considered when the report of the Special Committee to which it has been referred has not been translated into both languages. I have found nothing since confederation bearing in that point. I have found a decision given by Mr. Speaker Turcotte, previous to confederation on the 19th of March, 1863, in which he held as follows:
The adoption of a report of a committee respecting the employees of the House, having been moved by.John Simpson, Esq., an objection was raised by H. L. Langevin, Esq., that the report wTas not printed in French, and distributed to members in that language. After a considerable discussion on the subject, the Speaker was understood to declare: ' that the report could not be considered at present, in consequence of the objection raised.' The subject then dropped.
It is true that section 133 of the British North America Act provides tha't members may speak in either French or English and that both those languages shall be used in the records and journals of this House. The Votes and Proceedings to-morrow will contain the French version of the report of the committee, but naturally without the evidence. Whether or not, it would be proper to stop all proceedings on this Bill now, is largely a matter for the House to decide. It would practically mean that this Bill could not he proceeded with this session. Under the circumstances, I am not prepared to take that stand, seeing that I have found no precedent since confederation bearing on the point of order. I will therefore, allow the debate to go on.
committee on this Bill? The report of the Special Committee has not yet come up for consideration. It may come up afterwards.
Mr. C. A. WILSON.
My hon. friend from Grey is quoting from the evidence.
There is no objection to that, because even if the report were in French, he would have a right to use it in support of the motion he now makes. My decision is that the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) can, proceed with his motion.
Mr. C. A. WILSON.
I respectfully desire to appeal from your decision to the House. I move that the ruling of the Chair be not sustained.
Mr. C. A. WILSON.
It is not only a question of considering the Bill. My hon. friend from Grey had to withdraw his first motion. He then made the motion that the report of the Special Committee should now be brought before the House, and that the House should go into Committee of the Whole to examine the evidence. How can we be in a fair position to examine the evidence if it is not translated into French in accordance with the rules oi the House and the British North America Act? I insist on mv point of order.
The only question before the Chair is: Shall the House go into
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Huron), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer),
McLean (Huron), McMillan,
Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Meighen,
Currie (Prince Owen,
Fowke, Reid (Restigouche).
Graham, Ross (Middlesex),
Hunt, Sharpe (Lisgar),
Kidd, Smith (Middlesex),
King, Smith (Nanaimo),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Sperry,
Lemieux, Taylor (Leeds),
Maclean (York, S.), Warburton,
McCall, Wilson (Lennox &
Before the interruption which has occurred, I was reminding the House of the evidence of Mr. Peter Christie, who distinctly stated that the Bill, if passed, would not to any extent affect the interest of the Canadian farmer or stock breeder. At page 153 of the evidence will be found the statement of Senator Douglass, an experienced live-stock breeder of the western provinces. At page 430 will be found the evidence of Mr. Gunn, the vicepresident of the Dominion Grange to the same effect. At page 443 is the statement of Mr. C. J. Smith, an experienced horse breeders are to the same effect.
May I ask the hon. member a question? Would it not be fairer, and would it not be better, as a matter of policy in winning support for his Bill, to read as little as possible of this evidence, and to make his argument as much as possible independent of it. in view of the fact that hon. members here have state!) that they cannot understand it, My mind is open on this matter, and I submit this point to the. hon. gentleman.
I have no objection to complying, as far as possible, with the request of the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster).
I think, however, that wishing to be reasonable, we may all recognize the fact that there is not a member of this House but Mr. C. A. WILSON.
lias been able to read the evidence, and all the evidence, in the form in which it is printed. I was saying that Mr. C. J. Smith, than whom, perhaps, no other man in Canada has had a greater experience of breeding racing horse3, has stated emphatically that- the thoroughbred horses of to-day are not better than those of thirty or thirty-five years ago, notwithstanding the racing that has taken place in Canada, and the race-track gambling, in the meantime. Major William Hendrie, in giving evidence, recalled the fact that his father raced horses and bred thoroughbred horses years ago, when there was no professional race-track gambling, and when no large purses were being offered. Now, I wish to quote the opinion of Mr. Albert Dyment, a former much respected member of this House. We know that Mr. Dyment is a prominent horse breeder, and that he takes a very laudable and proper interest in horse-racing. In order to show that the passing of this Bill would depreciate the value of race-horses, representing in the aggregate a very large sum of money, he mentioned that horses in the state of New York, for which $3,000, $6,000 and $10,000 apiece had been paid, after the passing of the Hughes law could have been purchased by him for from $100 to $300 each. The fact that the thoroughbred horse which is purchased at one-time for $10,000 is then offered for sale at $100 to $300 because of the passing of a Bill prohibiting racetrack gambling, but permitting horse-racing, shows conclusively that there is no value in the thoroughbred horse as a means of improving the breeds of utility horses. It is conclusive proof that there is no value in the thoroughbred horse other than as a racing machine. If the farmers of the progressive state of New York believed otherwise, these horses would not be sold at any such prices. I wish to point out also that it is not the first object of the gentlemen in Canada who own thoroughbred horses and conduct the race-establishments of Ontario, and of Canada generally, to encourage the breeding of good horses in Canada. The question was asked Mr'. Dyment: 'Where are your thoroughbred stables?1 and his answer was that they were at Barrie. There was then the following question and answer:
Q. Have the farmers around that locality the privilege of using any of your thoroughbred sires at prices at which they can afford to use them on their ordinary animals?-A. No.
Here we have one of the leading breeders of thoroughbreds in Canada, one 'who maintains a stable of thoroughbreds, and he states that the sires they have in their stables are not kept for the use of the farmers of the neighbourhood in their live
stock enterprises, and that the farmers of the neighbourhood are not permitted to use these animals in that way. Therefore, the object is not the improvement of the breed of utility horses.
It is contended by the opponents of the Bill that this country ought to be willing to perpetuate race-track gambling in order that the improvement of the breed of horses should be carried on. Are we so philanthropic. as a Canadian people, that we will tax ourselves, or allow ourselves to be taxed, to encourage the breeding of good horses, not in Canada but in the United States? The evidence of Mr. Orpen, found at page 122, shows that not more than twenty or twenty-five per cent, of the racehorses found on Canadian tracks are Canadian-owned horses. Therefore, whatever sacrifice we may make, whatever perpetuation we may permit of race-track gambling, it encourages the development of the thoroughbred, not in Canada so much as in the United States. Mr. Fraser, secretary of the Ontario Jockey Club, says, at page 135, that the Ontario Jockey Club and the Woodbine race-track are perpetuated as ' a highly social and sporting concern.' So, this has not to do with the breeding of horses or keeping up the supply of horses, but simply keeping up a social and sporting concern. In order that we may measure what the race-tracks of Canada have done in thirty-five years for the improvement of the breed of horses, let us take the evidence of Mr Nelson, the sporting editor of the Toronto ' Globe,' who has, perhaps, as much knowledge of horse-racing and of horses as any other man in the Dominion. His evidence, as it appears at page 563, is as follows:
Q. 1 am told the net result of the last twenty-five years running races, thoroughbreds have been the reduction of the mile record by two seconds?-A. Oh, much more tiiau that. The mile record is 1.35$- now, aud 1 think twenty-five years ago it would he something like 1.40.
So, by the evidence of Mr. Nelson, this man who knows, the whole result of twenty-five years racing in Canada has been to lower the speed of the thoroughbred horse *by 4$ seconds to the mile. But, as was pointed out by Mr. E. King Dodds, late editor of the ' Canadian Sportsman,' the reduction of 4$ seconds is not attributable to the breeding of the horses, but largely to the improvements of the tracks, the tracks of to-day being very much better and faster than were the tracks of twenty-five years ago. The most conclusive evidence * that the horse-breeding industry does not depend to any extent upon the perpetuation of professional gambling is that afforded by the agricultural journals. Every farm paper of prominence in Canada has spoken editorially emphatically in favour of the Bill. The ' Farmer's Advocate,' the ' Canadian Farmer,' the ' Farm Journal,' the
' Nor'West Farmer ' of Winnipeg-these and other agricultural journals have spoken emphatically in favour of the Bill, and not a single letter, I believe, has appeared in the -columns of any agricultural paper from any subscriber or reader connected with the live stock industry in opposition to the Bill or to the editorials that have appeared in its favour in these papers. The superintendents and presidents of agricultural colleges have spoken in favour of the Bill; the farmers' institutes have passed resolutions -in support of it; the Dominion Grange, at the head of which is Mr. E. C. Drury, son of the late Charles Drury, at one time Minister of Agriculture of Ontario, has spoken emphatically in favour of the Bill.
Sir, the question has been raised as to what Great Britain is going to do for army remounts if this Bill becomes law? It is said that without the thoroughbred horse and without the race-track and without race-track gambling. Great Britain cannot obtain her army horses. This argument was put as forcibly as possible by Mr. Ryan, of Montreal. I would refer to the evidence of Mr. S. Gammon, of Nova Scotia, at page 105 of the evidence. He stated that in Nova Scotia there is no book-making or professional race-track gambling. He stated also that, at the time of the Boer war, when Great Britain was purchasing horses, many hundreds of horses were sold in Nova Scotia to Great Britain to be sent to South Africa. I would like to call attention to an annual published by the ' Live Stock Journal,' of London, England, which is considered to be the most authoritative live stock journal published in Great Britain. The article I read from is entitled ' Horses for the army ':
The army requirements in times of peace are only a little more than 2,000 horses annually, and therefore it is evident that it would never do for breeders to depend on this market alone.
The same article says:
There are many people adds Major Fife, who are under the impression that there are not horses in the country to meet our present peace supply, and in consequence our army is under-horsed. No greater nonsense was ever talked. There are more horses than enough at the present moment for all requirements, hut we must look ahead, aud therefore we should not he satisfied with this, and allow ourselves to be dependent on importations in time of peace which would be liable to be cut off in time of war.
Again the article proceeds:
Unfortunately the national horse supply is not sufficiently popular with either political party to enable public money to be spent on it, to a sufficient extent. The only course open to the pioneers of the movement is to be perpetually calling attention to the matter with the object of getting a government
grant, for no good can possibly be done until horse breeding is subsidized by the treasurer.
Now there is a statement from a very reliable journal, that two or three centuries of the breeding of thoroughbreds in Britain, two or three centuries of racing in Britain, and many years of book-making in England, have not afforded England a proper supply of army horses, and that the only hope of the people in Britain, who are interested in this subject, is in government subsidies. They have racetracks in France, they have professional race-track gambling in France, but they obtain their remounts and their army horses by direct subsidies and direct regulations of the French government, and not from race-courses, and they are not dependent on race-track gambling. I have stated that it is not the object of the promoters of this Bill in any way to interfere with racing, that is not the intention, not the purpose, and not the expectation. Dr. Mc-Echern, of Montreal, made a statement before the committee that it was very possible, in his opinion, that if this Bill went into effect it would add to the quality of the attendance at the race-tracks, and would perhaps in the end increase rather than decrease the attendance. Mr. Hugh Paton, of Montreal, a prominent business man, and a prominent horseman, who has been racing horses for many years, stated to the committee that he had been raising and racing thoroughbred horses since 1875. Reminded that in 1875 no large purses were being paid and no book-makers operated, he said that in 1875 he raced his horses for the honour of the thing. When asked why, if people did that in 1875, they could not do it in 1910, his reply was that he would now let younger men engage in the sport. Mr. Peter Christie was of the opinion that the passing of this Bill would not at any rate do away with racing. Mr. Boyle, a son of Mr. Charles Boyle,-late of the* town of Woodstock, Ontario, who is a well known turf man, said that since 1865 his father had been racing and raising thoroughbred horses. Reminded that in 1865, and for long years after, there were no large purses paid, and no professional gambling, he admitted the fact, but said that they raced for smaller purses, and engaged in racing as they do to-day. If hon. members will refer to the Toronto 'Star' of the 3rd of February, they will see a programme, of the racing associations for the state of New York for the year 1910, and they will find advertised there thirteen different meets that is, a meet on every one, I think, of the important racing tracks of the state of New York, to continue from 12 to 20 days at each meet; so racing in the state of New York does not appear to have been much interfered with by recent legislation in that state. I think that the Mr. MILLER.
House will admit that there is perhaps no greater authority in Canada on horse-racing and racing matters generally than Mr, E. King Dodds, who was, until less than two years ago the editor of the Canadian ' Sportsman ' of Toronto. Mr. Dodds published a book in the latter part of 1909, entitled ' Canadian Turf Recollections and Other Sketches.' Without wearying the House by reading it at length, I might refer to what Mr. Dodds says on page 18 of his book:
There are certain owners so closely mixed up with book-makers that grave suspicion attaches to the combination, and it. is not going too far to say that their horses are often run in the interests of those which lay the odds. Much of the trouble is directly traceable to the fact that a low class of Tew gamblers have, during the past few years, invaded the ring and may now be said to practically control it. A liberal percentage of them are absolutely devoid of principle and act on the belief that their mission in life is to get money; make it honestly if they can, but make it anyhow.
There is the statement of Mr. Dodds, the editor of the Canadian 'Sportsman,' that betting on the Canadian tracks to-day is largely under the control of a class of Jew gamblers, whose motto is to make money, no matter whether they make it honestly or otherwise. Again on page 54 of the same book, Mr. Dodds says:
Though much pleasure was taken out of racing in the days of yore there was not much profit. The almighty dollar was not appreciated then quite as much as it is at the present time. The sons of Israel had not swarmed upon the race-course trying to occupy every corner where a nimble dime could be made. Men went to the races not altogether to bet money, but to meet their- friends and enjoy a pleasant time. The enjoyment was great, but the profits were small. The balance sheet at this Carleton Park meeting, after all expenses were paid, [DOT] showed a profit of $79. Yet, strange to say, it was then considered as satisfactory when the income balanced the expenditure. Truly the times have changed. There is now a different class of owners and the present ones are nearly all out for the dollar.
Again Mr. Dodds says on page 115:
There are some new-fledged turf men who pretend to believe that racing in Canada thirty or forty years ago was of no account. True, the tracks then were not as fast as now, neither were their furnishings as liberal, nor the purses as large in amount as those offered at the present day, but the charge for admission was small and the public then, as now, were liberal in their patronage. Prominent men from distant sections of the country used to foregather and there was more friendly intercourse and social enjoyment at those early meetings than at the present time, in a word, there was more pleasure and less business, more keen enjoyment of the racing through enthusiasm for the sport than for
It ha3 been .said that the Bill before the House is a product of the preachers of Canada. I want to read just two short letters out of about twenty received by Mr. Templeman from business men of the city of Victoria. The first letter is from E. B. Marvin & Co., large ship chandlers, of Victoria, and it is addressed to Mr. Templeman, and reads:
Victoria, British Columbia,
December 31, 1909.
Sir,-We would strongly urge the passing of a Bill by the Dominion government which will stop gambling on race-courses.
The effect of the recent meeting in this city, at which a great deal of gambling was carried on, should convince any one that it does great harm to the community. Money is staked and lost, which should have gone to pay just debts, which injures the storekeeper and general business man. Besides this, the habit of gambling is most demoralizing for both men and women, and we feel sure a law against the practice of it will be a benefit to the community generally.
We are, Sir, yours obediently,
E. B. MARVIN & CO.
Another letter is from Moore and Whittington, contractors and builders, of the city of Victoria, and it reads:
Victoria, British Columbia,
December 30, 1909.
Dear Sir,-In response to your request as to our employers of labour for our experience and views in connection 'with the recent race meet held in the city, we must state emphatically that we believe it to be detrimental to the financial and moral interests of the city.
Some of the workmen left their work and neglected their families for the summer and attended the races regularly, others incurred heavy liabilities, other men were arranging to build homes, but lost their money at the track. When out collecting accounts it was a prominent excuse, ' I have not got the money, I lost it out at the races/
Wre express the hope that race-meets, as we experienced them here, will he a thing of the past.
(Sgd.) MOORE & WHITTINGTON.
Then, we had the evidence of Mr. Ralph Lawton, an insurance agent, of Toronto, who had lost his position, lost his money, and had been reduced to poverty by betting on the race-track. Then we had the lamentable _case of Mr. Fred. Hart. Mr. Fred. Hart was a young man engaged in a trust company in the city of Vancouver, and during the very time this Bill was before the House it became the duty of the police magistrate of the city of Vancouver to sentence this young man to one year at hard labour in the common jail because of embezzlement which was the direct consequence of betting on the racetrack in that city. In passing sentence the^ police magistrate said: * This is a
case where you have pleaded guilty to a serious charge, that of taking $1,000 when you were in a position of trust. I have considered your previous good character during the long number of years that you have been in similar positions of trust, and this is the first time you have fallen. I must consider the circumstances surrounding the case, this race-track gambling, and the temptation you were put to. It is unfortunate that the young men of our city should be subjected to such environment.' Perhaps it will be some comfort to this young man, Fred. Hart, to know in jail, that he was contributing to the improvement of the breed of thoroughbreds in Canada. Here was Mr. Hart, a young man who for years had been in a position of trust in Vancouver; he had never before taken a single copper that did not belong to him so far as we know, but is it any comfort for that young man to remqmber as he now serves twelve months in the Vancouver jail, that he was encouraging the breeding of good horses to a very great extent. I want to know if that young man's mother; -I want to know if that young man's father; I want to know if the employers of that young man who had heretofore found him to be a man of principle and integrity; I want to know' whether they do not think that it was at very very great cost indeed, that he encouraged the breeding of thoroughbred horses.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at Three o'clock. -
Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at one o'clock, I was speaking of some of the evil effects of race-track gambling. I mentioned the case of Fred. Hart, a young man of Vancouver. I wish now to refer to the case of Thomas W. Batt, who gave evidence before the special committee. He was a young man who had gone from Newfoundland to Toronto some 13 years ago to engage in business as a butcher. He said that for the first three years that he had been in Toronto he had saved from his business an average of $1,000 a year. At the end of the three years he began betting with the book-makers on the track, with the result that in ten years he had lost all that he had saved in. the three years, and had become from $1,500 to $2,000 worse off than nothing, while in the meantime his family had not been properly provided for. I know there has been some disposition on the part of the opponents of the Bill to ridicule the strong evidence given by Mr. Batt. On this point I quote 'the following from the Canadian ' Collier's ' of March 5 last in reference to Mr. Batt and his evidence:
A Toronto butcher, who wishes his name suppressed, gave testimony before the Miller
Committee as to the evils of race-track gambling. Loud laughter greeted this man's homely, earnest protest. The idea of a
butcher giving evidence! The idea of a butcher wanting his name kept out of the papers! Really, it was the drollest thing! Pray consider,^ too, the spectacle of a humble butcher and his lit! It1 family being ruined by the thoroughbred ' merry-go-round.' Also ponder on the courage of the humble little butcher facing the inquisitorial knives of the lawyers at Ottawa, his only motive being to save others, if it might be, from the misfortunes that overtook him. After all, it is not funny. Our little butcher s testimony was a human document. He is one of the few witnesses who knows what he is talking about and knows that he knows.
Because the exposure of money gives them a great ormortunity to snatch money and tickets, and pick pockets.
There may be members in tnis House, I trust their number is not large, who say: 'I do not care about the moral or irnrAoral effect of race meets; that is nothing to me; if a man is strong, he ought to be able to take care of himself, and if he is weak, he might as well fall with the race-track gambler as in any other way.' To men who take that uncharitable position the economic argument in the case may appeal. There are men opposing'this Bill who oppose every kind of trust, trade combination end monopoly, on the ground that they take money unjustly out of the pockets of the people. Let me point out to these gentleman that these race-track associa-
tions and these professional race-track gamblers are every year taking a very large amount of money out of the pockets of the Canadian people for which they give no value at all. Mr. E. King Dodds has said over and over again, in his book recently published, that these men who take away the money of our people in large sums are not Canadians, but foreigners, mostly Jews. Let us try to estimate what amount is lost to the Canadian people from the fact that in the year 1909 the book-makers paid for the betting privilege on the Hamilton racetrack, $74,800, on the Woodbine track in Toronto, $67,700, and on the Blue Bonnet race-track in Montreal, $76,650; a total of $219,150. These figures do not include the rqoney paid by the book-makers for bookmaking privileges on the Canadian tracks at Windsor, Dufferin, Fort Erie, Vancouver, Victoria and a few others which hold meets throughout the Dominion. We may, therefore, be well within the mark when we say that the book-makers paid in 1909 for betting privileges in Canada over half a million dollars. In addition, each bookmaker, according to the evidence of Mr. Orpen, on page 118, employs five assistants, to whom he pays $10 per day.
Referring to the evidence of Mr. Fraser, page 132, secretary of the Ontario Jockey Club, I find that on the Woodbine track the book-makers average 50 in number per day. Each of these has to pay five assistants at $10 per day. In addition there are the expenses of the book-makers and -the large profits made by them out of the betting public, so that the whole tax on the Canadian public is probably $2,1)00,000 in twelve months. By whom is that paid? Mr. Nelson, sporting editor of the Toronto 'Globe,' says, at page 564 of the evidence, that it is paid by the betting public. Mr. Blain asked him if he thought that was not as good a way to raise the money as the present system. Mr. Blain was referring to the English practice. Mr. Nelson replied :
I think the money is still raised from that portion of the public who bet in either case; the book-maker is only a collector, that portion of the public who bet put up their money to-day, whether they call it book-making, the Pari^ mutual or auction pool-selling. The money comes from the public who want to bet, and those who do not want to bet do not have to contribute.
Therefore, according to the evidence of Mr. Nelson-and it appeals to the common sense of every man-all the expenses of the book-maker and all of their profit come out of the Canadian public.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
Out of the betting public.
Mr. MILLER, Out of those who bet. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Mr. MILLER.
Maclean) and many others are laudably engaged in protecting, not all Canadian citizens, but those who do business, from having their money taken away by mono-plies, and it seems to me that they should be ready to extend the same protection to those who have their money filched from them by the book-makers. The opponents of this Bill are quite willing to do away with the hand-book men up towm and poolrooms, which bring no revenue to the racing associations, but they want book-makers to be allowed on the tracks. Inspector Duncan, at page 204, gives evidence as follows:
Q. Has the individual betting on the race track amounted to anything?-A. I do not think it has.
Q. Can you give us any better reason for cutting out by legislation the hand-book man up town than the book-maker on the track. Is one worse than the other, or are they in the same class?-A. They are pretty much in the same class, I would say.
Q. You can see no particular difference?- A. No, if it is right to bet down at the Woodbine, I would say, give then the right to bet up town, that is if you are going to allow it at all.
Inspector Duncan took the logical position that if it be a crime to bet up town, it must be equally a crime to bet with a book-maker on the race-track. Inspector Archibald gave evidence, page 217:
From that standpoint I think these places are worse in that respect than the. Woodbine. But, if you want my opinion as to whether the Woodbine, as a place for betting on horse races, in contrast with those places, is the more dangerous, I say by all means the Woodbine.
They are worse in as much as the handbooks are in operation all the year and the book-makers on the track only during the meeting. He added:
But if you want my opinion as to whether the Woodbine, as a place for betting on horse races, in contrast with those places, is the more dangerous, I say by all means the Woodbine.
Again Inspector Archibald said:
But there is an expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars at the track in place of that many cents in the city.
Q. The evil is greater in the Woodbine, you mean?-A. Yes.
Inspector Archibald was asked this question :
Not referring alone to those particular cases cited by detective Duncan, but the class of cases that come before your notice, would you say the larger number of them arise from betting on the race-track, or does a larger proportion of them come from betting with the hand-book men up town ?-A. By long odds the larger proportion from the Woodbine; no question about that.
Mr. Batt gave his evidence as to the comparative evils resulting from the betting on the tracks and the hand-book men up town:
Q. Now as to making a comparison between the harm that comes or that follows from betting with the book-makers and the harm that comes from the practice of betting with the hand-book men, which do you consider the greatest evil, which brings the worse results?-A. Betting with the hand-book or on the track?
Q. Yes, which ruins the most men?-A. The track.
Q. There is no doubt at all of that in your mind?-A. I know it, yes, because a man will go to the hand-book and will bet $5 or 50 cents or $2 and that is all he will bet that day. A man will go to the track and will take $300 or $200 or $500 with him, and he will loose every cent he has got if he happens to strike a bad day, but when betting with the handbook he bets that much and then stops there, but it is the race-track that gets the bunch of them.
Q. Take the man who follows the races, who bets on the horses, does he usually begin by betting with the book-maker on the track or betting with the hand-book man up town; where does he usually begin his betting career?-A. Usually at the track he starts.
Q. You have no doubt as to that?-A. No, sir.
Again he said:
Q. The large number of persons you have spoken of as having ruined themselves, as having suffered the loss of their business and so on, would they in your opinion have suffered those losses and ruined their lives to the extent they did, had it not been for the book-maker?
A. No, I don't think they Would have. No, they would not. They lost it on the track practically.
Again speaking of the comparatively greater evils resulting from betting on the track, he said:
A man goes to the track, he takes his wad down with him, and if he loses $10 on the first race he tries to make it up on the next race, and if he loses it on the second race he , tries to make it up again on the third, and before he goes back he is broke. But on the hand-book they aint got that chance to do it.
There we have the evidence of Detective Duncan and Inspector Archibald and this man Batt, who has had great experience on the race-track, and their evidence is to the effect that the evil resulting from book-making on the track is infinitely greater than what results from the hand-book men up town. I was talking to one of the leading criminal lawvers in Toronto, and he told me that whatever knowledge he had gained of Tace-track betting was from his defending criminals in Toronto, and he told me that if I could get this legislation on the statute-book, I would accomplish a great deal of good. Can any one doubt that young men do not learn
to bet and become addicted to betting on horse-racing with the hand-book men up town, but with the book-makers on the track? I have always known it to be the case that the opponents of a Bill, when they cannot meet the argument squarely; when they cannot defeat the measure on its merits, will say that it does not go far enough, that there are loop holes in it, and that it will not have the results intended. And so, they sav. if this Bill becomes law, there wili be the private bettor in disguise. Mr. Orpen, giving his evidence, said-page 123-that the interpretation the courts had giveu to the present law, that the book-keener must keep moving about, has so injured the business of the book-maker that he himself has gone out of the business and that it is impossible to carry on the business with anything like the' profit, that was possible before that interpretation was placed on the law. I argue that if the present interpretation of the existing law has driven Mr. Orpen as a book-maker out of the business there would be no possibility at all of the book-maker plying his calling as a disguised private bettor under this measure. Inspector Duncan was asked questions as reported at pages 203-4:
In most of the cases that you have spoken of, and most of the cases that have come to your knowledge, have most of them been the result of betting with book-makers, or have they been the result of private bets?-A. With the book-maker op the race-track or the hand-book man up town.
Q. In almost every instance that has been the case?-A. Yes.
And Detective Sleeman-page 377:
Q. Do not let us quarrel or quibble. If you do away with the book-maker, and there must be betting, with whom is the man going to bet?-A. I do not think we will have very much betting if the book-maker is done away with.
That is the evidence of an experienced detective of the highest standing. I want to give the House now the opinion of Mr. Counsell, one. of the solicitors who appeared in opposition to the Bill, a gentleman of high standing at the bar in the city of Hamilton, Ontario. And I desire to say that I agree with what appears to be his opinion. He said in questioning Mr. Batt:
Q. There is just one question I want to ask about betting by individuals; there is very little betting by individuals on the racetrack, is there?-A. A man that wants to bet bets with the book-maker, there is practically no individual betting at the race-track.
Q. The betting is done with the book-maker ? -A. Yes, it is ivith the book-maker.
And now he says-and it is in this that I agree with him:
Q. You and I cannot make a bet very well without the book-maker at a horse race?-A. Not very well, no.
I agree with Mr. Counsell and Mr. Batt, from the knowledge I have been able to obtain, that if you take away the bookmaker you take away largely the possibility of extensive betting. Mr. C. J. Smith also gave evidence. I may explain that Mr. C. J. Smith is a son of the late joint proprietor in the partnership of Cooper & Smith, wholesale boot and shoe dealers, of Toronto. Mr. Smith stated that he had had large experience as a breeder of race-horses, and as a racing man. His evidence, as it appears at page 451 is as follows:
Q. If a law were passed in Canada to prevent book-making, with that object in view, and if that law were enforced to its full extent as it could reasonably be enforced, could there be any extensive amount of betting going on, on the track with book-makers in disguise who were endeavouring to evade the law?-A. No.
Q. It could not he, it would not be possible? -A. No, no doubt there would be a limited amount, but it would be very small.
Q. Take, for instance, a bank clerk, who was attracted to the race-track through his love of excitement or his love perhaps for horses, would these book-makers in disguise who were endeavouring to evade the law offer to that young man the same temptation to bet on the races as is now offered by book-makers carrying on their business openly?-A. I do not think so, I do not see how it could.
Mr. Penderton was a witness subpoenaed to give evidence in opposition to the Bill. He is, I understand, a detective of large experience, and head of the Thiel Detective Agency of Montreal, an agency well known throughout the United States and Canada. Mr. Meredith asked him:
Q. In your experience at present the average person that bets on the race-course today, does he bet with individuals, or doesn't he bet with the book-makers in preference to betting with the individual?-A. He bets witb the book-maker in preference.
Q. If those book-makers are done away with the parties he will bet with will be the individuals?-A. I do not know who he will bet with and he will find that he does not know either, when he wins.
He, in effect, said that if the professional bettor were there in disguise as a private individual still endeavouring to carry on his business as a book-maker, he would not be there to pay a debt when he lost. How long will men continue to bet with those whom they do not know, and whom they cannot find when they come to claim the payment of a bet?
Another proposition has been made and argued for very earnestly, and that is that we should pass legislation allowing betting with the .book-maker on the" race-Mr. MILLER.
course during the meet, but shortening the length of the meet, confining it, perhaps, to ten or twelve days. In the first place, I desire to read to the House the opinion of the Minister of Justice given in a letter to myself as chairman of the committee, as follows:
Ottawa, February 5, 1910.
Dear Mr. Miller,-I have your letter of the 2nd instant, asking whether the Dominion Parliament has any authority to restrict, or limit, the length of a racing meeting on the tracks of an association incorporated by a provincial legislature.
I think the rational way of regulating such a subject would he by action on the part of the provincial authorities. Such a question seems to me properly a matter of police supervision, and in that view within the jurisdiction of the local authorities. There is nothing I can see to prevent any provincial legislature from requiring licenses to he obtained for the holding of race-track meetings. Under such licenses, they could regulate the days and times that racing could be carried on, charging such license fee as they saw fit. The Dominion parliament has no such jurisdiction, and the only way in which the Dominion parliament could deal with the subject is by undertaking to make it a crime to continue a race-track meeting for more than some given number of days.
I do not question the power of the Dominion parliament to legislate in that majpner, hut it would certainly seem to me entirely illogical to do so. It would be an equivalent to declaring that racing for, say, 30 days was perfectly lawful and innocent, hut that to race on the 31st day was a crime! That does not strike me as sensible or reasonable, and although I think the Dominion parliament has, in its general jurisdiction over criminal law, power to pass such an enactment, it would seem to me that the regulating of the times and manner of conducting race-track meetings was properly a matter for purely provincial attention.
I remain, yours faithfully,
Mr. W. P. MACLEAN.
Will the hon. member (Mr. Miller) say why he does not take this agitation to that field?