Mr. WILCOX.

Mr. Speaker, before recess I was speaking of the men who own, and control the Windsor race-track. They are W. J. McKee, ex-Member Parliament, W. J. Pulling, E. S. Wigle, and J. A. McKay, all of Windsor, Ontario., W. O. Parmer and George M. Hendrie. Mr. Raney, in his argument, states that this track is owned and controlled by refugees from the other side. I desire to say that you cannot find within the confines of this Dominion any better citizens than the men whose names I have just mentioned. At page 33 of Mr. Raney's argument, he says:

The facts, so far as the trotting association are concerned, being thus reduced to a negligible quantity, there is nothing to argue about under this heading, and we may dismiss the trotting horseman.

During the years 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1909 the trotting meet in Windsor received from the book-makers $19,747, and paid out in purses $31,815. These purses could not have been paid had it not been that bookmaking, and betting were allowed on the track, and if book-making is prevented, it will certainly do 'away with these races. In Mr. Raney's argument in pamphlet No. 2, he states, at page 8, under the heading ' No Argument from Fort Erie or Windsor,' as follows:

The Windsor track has been operated by the Highland Park Club of Detroit since the prosecutions instituted by the district attorney in 1906, which put an end to its gambling operations at the Highland Park track out Woodward avenue.

From the very best information that I can get on the subject, I am inclined to the view that Mr. Raney is entirely mistaken. It is stated that the lease of the Highland Park Club expired on the 1st of May, 1906, and a renewal could not be obtained. On March 23, 1910, Mr. George H.

Hendrie received the following communication:

DeaT Sir,-In reply to your inquiry, would say that the lease of lots 6, 7, and 8 of section C." of quarter-section 4, 10,000 acre tract, between the trustees of the estate of the W. H. Stevens and Highland Park club expired on the first day of May, 1906, and that under the conditions of said lease or agreement said club had a right to remove the buildings situated thereon, and I am informed and believe they did remove the same during the fall and winter of 1905 and 1906. The premises above described were commonly known as the Highland Park club. I may add that after the lease expired the property was placed upon the market for sale.

So that it would appear that Mr. Raney's statement to the effect that this track was operated by Americans, and that they were compelled to move to this side because certain laws were passed on the other side, is not based upon facts. Upon page 7 of the printed proceedings of the committee, Mr. Raney states:

There is a broad line of demarcation separating these tracks into two classes, and I may perhaps classify them in this way; on the one 6ide of the line are the Woodbine, the Montreal track and the Hamilton track. On the other side of the line of demarcation are the Fort Erie track, the Windsor track, the British Columbia track. These tracks are divided, as I say, by a line of demarcation, and I will define at once what that line of demarcation is. To illustrate it, I will refer to two tracks-the Woodbine on the one side and the Fort Erie on the other as types of these two classes. Now the Woodbine race meet is essentially a social and sporting event, attracting many of the best people of Canada, with race-track hook-making as an attraction and as a principal financial support.

Further on Mr. Raney states:

The evidence will show that the attendance at these tracks, especially Windsor and Fort Erie, is from 79 to 75 per cent American, the managament entirely American.

I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that that statement is not in accordance with the facts. The Windsor track is operated, and controlled by Canadians exactly as the Woodbine track is owned, and controlled by Canadians. Mr. Raney says that * the Woodbine race-meet is essentially a social and a sporting event,' so is the race-meet at Windsor. With regard to the provisions of this Bill, I am inclined to the view that if it is not amended in some respects, the operation of it will be very much like an amendment that was made a few years ago in the Ontario Agriculture and Arts Act. I had the privilege of acting in the capacity of one of the executive officers of the Association of Fairs and Exhibitions a few years ago, when there was a good deal of argument upon this very question. A clause had been placed in the Ontario Agriculture and Arts Act prohibiting rac-

mg at agricultural fairs throughout the province, of which there are 367. The Act provided that any agricultural society which held a race-meet at its agricultural show, contrary to the provisions of the Act, would not receive the government grant. Well, Sir, there is not an agricultural society in the province of Ontario to-day that does not hold exactly the same race-meet at its annual exhibition that it did previous to the passing of that Act. The mafiage-ment of those fairs simply insisted on adding what they called ' trials of speed,' but which were really race-meets. So that the very same racing which was carried on previous to that legislation is carried on today; and we may conclude that public opinion in this country is so strongly in favour of horse-racing that the provisions of this Bill, if adopted, will be evaded in some such way.

In conclusion I wish to read a statement from the chief of police of the city of Windsor :

I hereby beg to 6tate that the horse races at the Windsor Racing Association's race track, have been conducted in a proper and orderly manner. I have frequently visited such races with the view chiefly of obtaining a knowledge of the people who attended there, the manner in which they behaved and of the way dn which the races were conducted in general. I have also, at various times, visited the fairs held at Toronto, Ottawa and other places, and to my knowledge, from such observations, the people who have attended the races here behaved themselves equally as well as those who attended the fairs, and in all, I have to state that the race meetings were as orderly and fully a9 well conducted as the fair meetings. Furthermore I have to state that during the race meetings here an average of 3,000 people attended the races daily, yet tho records of the police department show that the number of offences committed in Windsor during any such race meetings is not in excess of the number committed in any similar period of time when races were not held here.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).

As one of the members of the committee who supported the measure, I consider it my duty to give reasons for the course I have taken. At the outset I want to make myself perfectly plain with respect to one aspect of the Bill which, I believe, is appealing to a good many who are opposing it. I refer to the question of the rights of the private bettor. I am absolutely in favour of some amendment which will make it certain that these rights will not be interfered with, first because such legislation would be an unwarranted interference with private rights, and secondly because such a law could not be enforced. There is an amendment proposed in the committee by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McColl) providing for the protection of the private bettor, but, in my opinion, that would have rendered the whole purpose of this Bill void, and for that reason it was opposed in the committee. But if any amendment can be suggested to protect the private bettor, I shall be in favour of it. I do not think that this Bill will interfere seriously with these rights. I know that the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) gave an opinion, on the second reading, to the effect that the Bill might interfere with these rights, but I cannot share that view. At the same time I should be in favour of an amendment which would protect the private bettor without destroying the Bill.

In discussing this measure, there is no need to enter into the question whether betting in itself is wrong or right. The only question to my mind is whether we are in favour of permitting book-makers to operate on race tracks. If I understand the principle of the English law which was acted on bv this House in 1892, when it passed the Criminal Code, the motive which led to the passing of these measures was the belief that the business of book-making on race-tracks created an appetite for gambling. I have heard it stated by an hon. gentleman that it was in the nature of the Anglo-Saxon to bet. I believe that statement will be found in the evidence. Well, the book-maker caters to that appetite and becomes a public nuisance; and as soon as that stage is reached, it is the

duty of parliament to prevent that business being carried on at the various race-tracks.

My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. McColl) said that the promoters of the Bill were attempting to interfere with an innocent pastime.. For my part, I have always been in favour of innocent pastimes, but I do not favour a pastime when it degenerates into professionalism. Horse racing, as practised in Ontario and other parts of Canada, has simply become professionalism. There is no desire on the part of those who support this measure to interfere with legitimate sports. My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. McColl) argued that Japan had abolished betting on the race-course and book-making, and after one year's experience had gone back to the old system. Now, the state of affairs in Japan is not that conveyed by the remarks of that hon. member. I have here the weekly report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for March 14, 1910, and, for the purpose of putting this question right, I read a brief extract from that report:

The government of Japan realizing that their cavalry was not as effective as it should have been during the Russian war, and that the main cause was the unsuitable class of horses used, has been trying to improve breeding by encouragement in several ways. Until 1907, the race clubs in Japan were very successful. They used the ' pari-mutuel' system of betting and large profits were made. In consequence of this, numbers of thoroughbreds, stallions and mares were brought into the country for the meets, and with the exception of the best, were all sold ultimately for very low prices. In this way the Japanese farmers obtained a great number of good horses very cheaply, with the result that through the country the improved results in breeding can already be seen1. However, in 1907, the authorities deemed it wise to forbid gambling of any kind at race meets. The race clubs are now in a bad position financially, but at the same time the government recognized the value of these clubs and the service they were doing in improving the breeding. This year several of the largest clubs are receiving a subsidy in order that they may continue importing thoroughbreds and Australian mares.

If this statement means anything, it means that the government of Japan, rather than go back to the old system of the book-maker, and betting on the racetrack, is willing to give subsidies to the race-meet in order to develop the horsebreeding industry.

Mr. McCOLL.

If the hon. member (Mr. W. M. Martin) will refer to the evidence of Major William Hendrie, of Hamilton, he will see that it appeared from that evidence that what the Japanese government had done was to appoint a commission to visit the different countries of Europe to

ascertain the systems of conducting their race-tracks with a view of introducing some system of betting upon the tracks in Japan.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

Now, the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) devoted a considerable part of his remarks to a defence of the Windsor Racing Association. I may say, as a member of the committee, that efforts were made by persons appearing before the comfnittee in support of the Bill to get some one representing the Windsor Racing Association to appear before the committee, and give u3 evidence as to their dealings on that racetrack, but we were not successful; no one appeared. Consequently, we have no information about that association, we have no statement of its financial operations such as we have concerning the Hamilton Jockey Club, and the Ontario Jockey Club. Our only course then, is to class that track among more doubtful race-tracks of Ontario.

Let me refer to some of the main contentions put forward by men opposing the Bill. The first contention, as any one will see who takes the trouble to read the evidence, is that the thoroughbred strain is important in developing the breed of horses. That was admitted by the committee after the first evidence had been put in. There seemed to be no dispute on the point. The second proposition was that racing is necessary if the breed of horses is to be improved; the race-course furnishes the indispensable test by which the relative merit of different strains of blood can be ascertained. This proposition is probably correct, though, on the evidence brought before us, only partially correct. It is correct if you mean the development of mere race horses, for a certain amount of evidence was given before the committee to show that the present system of racing was not really a proper test, and further evidence was given which would go to show that the racing of horses on the track leads to the development of what has been called an ' attenuated racing machine ' and nothing toward the development of the general utility horse of the country. The third proposition put forward is that bookmaking is necessary to maintain racing; without it purses would not be sufficient to encourage breeding, for the revenue derived from the book-makers would cease, and gate receipts would greatly diminish. With that proposition, I, as a member of the committee, could not agree, because evidence was put before us to prove, and we all know as a matter of fact, that horseracing was carried on successfully in Ontario, and other parts of Canada before the book-maker came into existence, and the same is true of England. Furthermore,

horse-racing is carried on in certain provinces of Canada to-day without the aid of the book-maker. I understand, from the evidence given by a man who came from Nova Scotia that there is no such thing as a book-maker operating in that province, and his evidence would lead me to believe that horse-racing is successfully carried on, and that they have as good horses in Nova Scotia as in any other province of the Dominiojp

One peculiar feature of the opposition to the Bill which struck me, was that there was not a solitary farmer, or any representative of a farmers' organization who appeared before the committee to oppose the passing of the Bill. On 'the. contrary^ every man appearing before the committee whom you could count as representing the farmer's interest favoured the Bill. And every farm journal in the province of Ontario, so far as I have been able to find out, is in favour of the Bill. In order to show to the House my position on this phase of the argument, I am forced to ask the indulgence of the House while I read two or three extracts from different farming papers, and also from the evidence. The ' Farmer's Advocate ' of December 16, 1909, said:

An anti-gambling Bill has been introduced into the Dominion House of Commons by H. H. Miller, M.P. for South Grey, one of the members of the House of Commons who seem to esteem it their duty to represent the agricultural community. The Bill has been sent on to a special committee, where the old, exploded arguments are being brought up that book-making i9 necessary to maintain racing, and that racing is necessary to encourage horse-breeding. More absurd fallacies have rarely been offered for the public to swallow. In the first place, it is not true that racing is necessary to improve the breed of horses. On the contrary, it has probably done more to injure two breeds than it has done to improve them. It has converted the standard-bred or the stock from which it has sprung, into an attenuated racing rachine, not nearly so valuable for utility purposes as though it had been bred with more regard to conformation and scale. Undoubtedly, racing focussed early attention upon the breeding of the blood horse, and perhaps helped to develop it by the selection of the fittest, but here again, has it not tended to produce a race of weedy, hot-tempered, and dubiously useful stock? What has racing done to improve the breed of Clydesdales, shires, hackneys, or, in fact, any of our most useful breeds?

And ' Farm and Dairy ' of December 23rd says:

The Bill does not make any attempt to interfere with private betting, but only with the business of book-making and pool-selling. Opposition is being raised to it on the ground that it will tend to discourage the breeding of good horses, the claim being advanced that horse-racing cannot be conducted successfully without book-making.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

As far as the farmers of the Dominion are concerned, ten have been injured to one that has been benefited by attempting to raise fast horses. The enormous expense that is involved in the handling of those animals makes it an impossibility for the average farmer to raise such horses with success. Efforts to encourage farmers to raise this class of horse should be discouraged rather than encouraged.

And the ' Weekly Sun ', of Toronto, of December 15th last, says:

It may be that the maintenance of race meets is necessary if the breeding of horses of the kind used at these meets is to be kept up. But no really useful purpose is served by breeding horses of that class.

The rest of the article corroborates that which I have quoted from ' Farm and Dairy '. With respect to the men who represented the farming interest, and who gave evidence before the committee, I need only mention three names, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), Senator Do'uglas, of Saskatchwan, and Mr. Peter Christie, from South Ontario. These men expressed the opinion that the passing of this measure would not injure horse-breeding in this country. I will refer first to the evidence of the Minister of Agriculture on that subject. He said:

Although I am not w'hat would be called a freciuenter of race-tracks, still I see the racehorses of the country pretty frequently and in various ways, and my observations of the race-horse, as trained and raised in Canada, is that the large majority of them do not fulfil this condition which I think is necessary for the improvement of stock in Canada, that the large majority of them are weedy in character and fitted only for speed, and that the use of such animals for the improvement of our breeding stock is not likely to be conducive to its improvement. There are thoroughbred horses in Canada which would improve that stock very much. Some of them may be race-horses, but the class of animal that I would like to see introduced into Canada for the purpose of improving the mares of the country for breeding purposes is the stamp of horse to which the King's prizes are given in England, a horse which very seldom goes on to the race-track and is not considered by the racing men, and the men who breed thoroughbreds for racing purposes, at all a style of stallion which they want and which they use.

Then there is the evidence of Senator Douglas, to which I need not refer. I have said that he was of the opinion that the passing of this Bill would not interfere with horse-breeding. Now the evidence of Mr. Peter Christie is very important along this line, because it goes to show that in his experience no farmer who ever had anything to do with thoroughbred horse-breeding ever made any money out of it, and his experience was that the breeding of the ordinary mares to thoroughbred horses had not developed the ordinary farm utility

horses to the advantage of the farmers oi the country. I will read an extract from Mr. Christie's evidence:

Will you tell me what your view is as to the relation of the thoroughbred to horsebreeding in general as an economic factor and from the farmer's point of view?-A. From the farmer's point of view, I do not think he ever wants to go into racing thoroughbreds, because a farmer in my county at least does not farm for fun. He wants to make money out of it, and my experience and my knowledge of my surroundings is that the draught horse, the Clyde horse, is the profitable horse for a farmer to raise.

Q. You say that the farmer does not want to go into the raising of thoroughbreds. Do you mean that it is not a profitable business to breed his mares to thoroughbred sires?- A. No, sir, I could not.

Then he goes on to say:

What is the experience of the farmer who has raised animals of this class, thoroughbred animals, so far as the price he gets for them is concerned?-A. If he happens to get a good one he will perhaps get a good price for it, but the difficulty I have noticed is that they only get a seller perhaps one ill five or six that will bring a big price, and then the ones that won't bring a good price is not nearly as good a horse for the farm as if he had been a Clyde or a draught horse.

Q. Then if there is a good price paid for that horse is it the farmer or the middleman who gets it?-A. My experience is that the farmer don't get the good price, it is the middle fellow, we call him the sporting fellow, who maka9 his living out of that sort of thing.

Now, it seems to me that if the passage of this Bill would be such a menace to the horse-breeding interests of the country, surely some farmer, or some farmers' organization interested in the development of horses, would have appeared before the committee to protest against the Bill. We find that the opposite is the -case. Every man who spoke for the farmers, spoke in favour of the Bill.

A great deal is made out of the argument that by passing this measure you will interfere with large vested interests. Let us see for a moment what those vested interests are. They divide themselves into two clases. The first vested interest is that of the race-track, and the grand-stand, or what you might call the *whole racing plant. Secondly, there is the money that has been invested by horse-breeders in thoroughbred horses and racing horses. There are a number of men in the province of Ontario and in other provinces of Canada who have invested money in the purchase of good stock with which to develop race horses. So we have those two classes of vested interests to deal with. Now, so 'far as the first class is concerned, I do not believe the passing of this measure will interfere to such an extent with vested interests as was stated by some of

the horsemen before the committee. But, granted that it will interfere with the money invested in race-track and racing plants, what do we find to be the fact with respect to these vested interests? As I have said, we have no financial statements from any of -the jockey clubs except those of Hamilton and Toronto. If you look on pages 93 and 94 of the evidence, at the evidence of the secretary of the Hamilton Jockey Club, Mr. Loudon, you will find that they had an actual investment of some $4,000. According to his statement, the assets of the club are now worth $175,000, with $50,000 cash in the bank after a very few years of operation. Now, in respect to the Hamilton Jockey Club, there was some hint before the committee that a large amount of money was invested by men in Hamilton prior to the organization of this jockey club, but there is no definite evidence on the subject, and I am forced to accept the evidence of Mr. Loudon on page 93. We find that from a total investment of $4,000 in this club, their assets have grown to an amount of $225,000 in a very short period of time. Then we find that the receipts of the club in the year 1909 were made up as follows: Gate receipts, $59,405; advance information, $78,800; the bar, $3,850, making the total receipts under these three heads of about $140,000. They paid in purses, $79,850, in 1909. In the Ontario Jockey Club we find a somewhat similar condition of affairs. The total paid-up stock is $10,000. Their net surplus, according to a statement produced before the committee by their secretary, is $337,846, and that is taking the property of the club at its actual cost. I have heard the property estimated at various amounts, but I think a fair valuation is about $500,000. Now suppose that, by the passage of this Bill, these racing clubs were put out of business, to what extent would it interfere with vested interests? Their property can be sold for everything it has cost, and the land itself can probably be sold for twenty times what it originally cost. _ I submit there is no argument at all in the cry that vested interests will be injured, so far as the money put into these race-tracks is concerned. Then there is the other side of the vested interest question, that is, the horse breeders' side. Now so far as I am concerned, and I am sure that is the opinion of every supporter of this Bill, we would be sorry to think that men who have invested money in thoroughbred horses would be put out of business by the passage of this Bill. But I do not think they will, because as I stated a few minutes ago, horse-racing existed long before bookmaking, and perhaps in a more healthy condition than at present. The majority of horse-breeders in Ontario and the other provinces, particularly in Manitoba,

who appeared before the committee, agreed in saying that if the Bill passed, they would1 all close their stables. I would be very sorry to think that such a result would follow the passing of this measure. I find, however, there was one horseman, the Hon. Adam Beck, of London, who said that he1 would not close his stables if the Bill passed. I will read his evidence on the question:

One or two horsemen have given evidence that if professional book-making were stopped on the race tracks they would close their stables for breeding, would you go as far a9 that yourself?-A. No, I would not say I would go as far as that, that is entirely a matter of whether a man is in it for gain or not. You cannot expect people to do anything for fun any more in horse-breeding than you can in anything else. Farmers are not breeding horses for fun but to make money out of it.

There is this fact, however, to be considered. Most of the horsemen who gave evidence before the committee, and others with whom I have conversed, say that there is no money in breeding horses. So, if there is no money in the business, who can be hurt to any great extent by the passing of this Bill?

Now a great deal was made out of the argument of the committee by lawyers representing the racing associations, that in the state of New York the price of race-horses has gone very low, the price of thoroughbred horses is very much depreciated since the passing of the Hughes law. On that point Hon. Adam Beck did not seem to agree with his fellow horsemen: He said:

Q. Do you know whether, since what is known as the Hughes1 law was passed, there has been any depreciation in value of the' first quality of thoroughbred horses in New York State?-A. The first quality.

Q. Yes.-A. Probably the first quality of horses of any breed at the present time is as high as I have ever known it to be in all countries.

* Q. I am told that the first quality of thoroughbred horses in New York state commands to-day a higher price than ever before. -A. That is probably correct.

Q. Then it is said that some stables in New York state have been closed as a result of the Hughes1 law.-A. I know nothing about that.

So, whether the Hughes law in New York state has had anything to do with the price of horses there we are unable to say, but it is in evidence that the price of that class of horses in New York is as high at present as ever it was. It is a question in my mind, in fact. I am rather inclined to the opinion that a race-horse that is sold for some $10,000 has a fictitious value. No horse in my opinion-although I cannot speak as a horseman-can be said to have an economic value such as $10,000. It may have that value -on account of Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

its earning power in winning races. It is always questionable whether a fictitious value of anything is a good thing.

Mr. TALBOT.

Has my hon. friend ever heard of a cow being said for $20,000? Is that a fictitious value?

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

From the actual earning power of a cow that would be a high price.

Mr. TALBOT.

Lots of them are sold at that price.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

That bears out one argument I was advancing that a horse has a fictitious value on account of its power of winning victories on the racetrack.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

It was to improve the breed of horses in the countries to which they were taken.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

I am quite satisfied to let my hon. friend purchase any of these horses at that figure. The question of vested interests so far as the money invested in horses is concerned, resolves itself into a very small one, for you must admit that the thoroughbred interest in Ontario and Canada is very small, and the number of men who would be affected by this legislation, if it were to have such an effect as is suggested, would be veTy small. In Ontario, according to the report of a commission appointed by the Ontario government in 1906 to investigate the question of the licensing of stallions, there were only 78 thoroughbred stallions in the province, or 3 per cent of the entire number of stallions. There were only 2,273 thoroughbred mares in the province, or 11 per cent of the entire number. Thus racing in Canada since the establishment of the Queen's plate in 1861 has not done much to develop the thoroughbred interests if we judge by the number now in Canada. I am informed that a similar condition of affairs.: exists in the United Kingdom. A year-book published in 1910 bv the 'Live Stock Journal1, the leading live stock paper of Great Britain, contains an article entitled 'Horses for the Army', in which it says:

There can be no doubt that horse-breeding has been declining for some years in the United Kingdom.

Both in this country and in England races have been .carried on under the good influences of the book-maker during all these years. I have shown you what has been done in Ontario since 1861 towards increasing the number of thoroughbreds, and to show that in England racing has not done very much to develop the breed of horses I have quoted this article which says that the breeding has been declining for some years there.

The question of whether betting in itself is right or wrong is not before the House with respect to this measure, it is merely a question of whether we consider that a public evil exists in connection with the present practices on race-tracks, and whether we are in duty bound to protect as far as possible the public from that evil, if it is to be so considered. I agree to a great extent with what may be said by many members who think that if a man wants to bet he should be allowed to bet, but should do so in a proper way. What I do object to is allowing bookmakers to come on the track, pay for their privilege, and take money from the people for nothing. The evidence showed that a tremendous amount is taken annually from the pockets, of the people of Canada, and absolutely nothing given in return. In my mind a book-maker is nothing more nor less than a parasite and when he is allowed to practise his calling in the open, and people are allowed to flock there, and invest money with him he becomes a public menace, and it is something to which thisi House should devote attention with a view to his prohibition, if that is possible. I do not want to get into any discussion of the ethics of gambling, but I do wish to read to the House an expression of Herbert Spencer with respect to gambling. It is a question which must be left largely to the individual conscience of each man. It may be right under certain circumstances for a man to bet, and wrong under certain circumstances. Herbert Spencer says:

Listen to a conversation about gambling; and, where reprobation is expressed, note the grounds of the reprobation. That it tends towards the ruin of the gambler; that it risks the welfare of family and friends; that it alienates from business, and leads into bad company-these, and such as these, are the reasons given for condemning the practice. Rarely is there any recognition of the fundamental reason. Rarely is gambling condemned because it is a kind of action by which pleasure is, obtained at the cost of pain to another. The normal obtainment of gratification, or of the money which purchases gratification, implies, firstly, that there has been put forth equivalent effort of a kind which, in some

nay, furthers the general good; and implies, secondly, that those from whom the money is received, get, directly or indirectly, equivalent satisfaction. But in gambling the opposite happens. Benefit received does not imply effort put forth; and the happiness of the winner involves the misery of the loser. This kind of action is therefore essentially antisocial-sears the sympathies, cultivates a hard egoism, and so produces a general deterioration of character and conduct. -

With that expression of Herbert Spencer I thoroughly agree. I think it sets forth splendidly the injury or deterioration that may come to the character of any individual who practises gambling to excess. It has been said that betting on horse-races is not gambling, I agree that a man may be a bettor, and not a gambler. At the same time the legal definition of gambling as far as I can gather is really the same as a definition of betting. In the work ' Words and Phrases Judicially Defined,' volume 4, gambling is defined as follows:

Gambling is the risking of money or anything of value between two or more persons on a contest of chance of any kind where one must be the loser and the other the gainer.

Betting is defined:

Betting on a horse-race is gaming within the meaning of a statute providing for recovering back money lost in gaming.

There is no question that the great majority of people who bet on horse-races do not do so with any skill or exact knowledge of what qualities the horses possess. As far as I have been able to gather from my observation of horse-races the average man who bets on a horse-race, bets a ad nothing more. He knows nothing about the horse, there is no skill involved, and to my mind there is no question that betting cn horseraces, when practised to excess at any rate, is gambling as here defined.

It is stated that the public get a fair chance with the book-maker. We had very little evidence from the book-makers before the committee. We had the evidence of Mr. Orpen, of Toronto, who has been in the book-making business for many years. This is what he said:

Q. Will you tell me what you mean by bookmaking? How would you define book-making?-A. Book-making is a business, it is a matter of figures, of handling money at diffe

ent prices so as to figure out .a percentage for the book-maker.

There is no question at all but that the book-maker always makes the odds, and if he cannot win on one basis he changes the odds to another on which he is sure to win. The dice are loaded against the public on every occasion. As to the amount of money bet on the race-tracks in Canada every year reliable evidence is not obtainable. Mr. Orpen produced before the committee cer-

tain book-making sheets which he had used on the race-track, and these sheets showed that $850 on the average was bet on each race and, there being six or seven races per day each book-maker handled about $5,000 per day. It has been found that about $450,000 was paid to the racing associations during 1909 by book-makers, and making a rough calculation I find that the total amount bet on the race-tracks in 1909 was $22,500,000. We have no means of estimating what was the profit or loss to those who bet with the book-makers but the evidence is clear that the man who bets continuously always loses. For instance, a Toronto butcher deposed that he lost $1,000 for the last 10 years betting on races and that he knew hundreds of men like himself. I should say, in order to be perfectly fair, that some members of the committee at all events were disposed to take the evidence of men of that type with a grain of salt, but at the same time I am disposed to believe his statement that he lost $1,000 a year. '

Mr. McCOLL.

Did he pretend to say he lost it on the race-track or did not his evidence show that he was a frequenter of the pool-rooms and that it was there that he lost most of his money?

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

My recollection is that he said he lost $1,000 a year on the track.

Mr. McCOLL.

No, and he also stated that he bet on everything that was going, prize fights, and chicken fights, and although he had taken a pledge not to gamble for a year he reserved to himself the right to bet on the prize fight next July.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

All that goes to show that this Toronto butcher who said there were hundreds like hiftr contracted the spirit of the race-track. He stated before the committee that he was a reformed man and that he was not going to bet again but that the last betting he did was on the ice races at which he lost some $70 or $80, and he further stated that he had lost a similar sum at the meeting of the Hamilton Jockey Club last fall. The most regrettable feature in the betting business is that the people who do the betting come from the class who cannot afford it. If a man could afford to bet without doing an injury to his business or to himself or his family I do not know that very much harm would come of it, but the trouble is that the great toll taken out of the people of Canada every year by the races, comes from the poor people and from a class who have not sufficient control over themselves to stop_ betting even though they know it is injuring themselves and every one connected with them. I have here further testimony which goes Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

to show that the odds in betting, whether with the book-maker or in the pool-room, are always against the public. .

Canon Horsley, ex-chaplain of the Clerkenwell prison gave evidence before the Lords Committee in 1902, as follows:

Earl of Aberdeen:-Did you take the prophecies from one of the well known sporting papers?

Answer:-From all of them. I have here a case in which seven sporting papers gave 79 horses; in 74 cases their prophecies were wrong. Another case I have is a case where the f Standard ' selected 79 horses for 179 races; 155 were wrong and 24 right. _ Some sporting paper sneered at that and said that this particular prophet did not know very much about his business. Then I took the chief sporting papers. They had seven races that week and gave 45 hor9es, of which 40 were wrong; another week they gave 47 horses, 46 wrong and one right. Then to take a longer period of a month, there were 156 races for which six sporting papers gave 898 horses, out of which 777 did not win. This i9 the sort of thing I constantly do because I have found with intelligent young men that is the be9t argument when I say ' You know nothing about a race/ and they answer, 'J$o, but so and so does, therefore I follow him/

A great deal is made out of the argument that we should follow the law of England in respect to betting, and while I am always disposed to look with favour on English precedents, yet I am bound to say that if there be a law in the United States which is better than the law of England, I see no reason why we should not take the example of our neighbours to the south. At all events, this is not a new subject for legislation. The Criminal Code at present covers almost everything intended to be covered by this Bill except the permitting of betting on the race-track, and that of course, is the nrincipal issue here. The English statute of 1853 which was practically adopted in sections 226 and 227 of our Criminal Code was directed not against betting but against those who made a business of betting. A decision of 1897 in the case of Hawke against Dunn declared that book-making on the race-track was illegal and the decision practically drove the book-maker out of business, and it remained the jurisprudence of England for many years. Then, what is called a friendly action was taken by men interested in the business, and the result was what is known as the decision in the Kempton Park case which has given rise to the anomalies existing in our Criminal Code at the present time, and which has had a great deal to do with the agitation for this legislation. _ .

There can be no question in the mind of any one who reads the evidence brought before the committee that many men have been practically ruined on the race-track. It is said that these men

would go wrong any way, that if they cannot control themselves on the racetrack they cannot elsewhere. To a certain extent that may be true, but there are instances of men having been led astray and practically ruined on the race-track. In corroboration of that statement, I can refer to statements of a number of eminent English judges.

Mr. Justice Hawkins says:

I know nothing more likely to ruin a young and inexperienced man than the system of betting which goes on around us.

Mr. Justice Grantham:

Gambling with book-makers is the cause of more crime and misery than anything else in the land.

Mr. Justice Darling:

No one could attend the civil and criminal courts without knowing that many persons spent a much larger amount of time in betting than they devoted to their own business.

Lord Alverstone:

Sport never ought to be by necessity associated with gambling or betting. Those who had to do with the administration of the law knew that there was nothing in their great towns, and he wras afraid in the smaller ones too, that brought more people in the humbler walks of life to misery and ruin than the betting agents.

Mr. Justice Wills:

When I first came upon the bench I used to think drink'was the most fruitful cause of crime, but it is now a question whether the unlimited facilities for illegitimate speculation on the part of people who have no means of embarking on it are not a more prevalent source of mischief and crime even than drink.

Mr. Horace Smith, London stipendary magistrate:

Nearly every case of embezzlement I try has resulted from betting, and then to pay their losses they rob their employers.

We also had submitted to the committee the presentment of the grand jury of the county of York for June, 1909, and a presentment of the grand jury of the same countv for September, 1906, to the same effect,

The opponents of the Bill with one accord say, do away with the handbook, the pool-room, and the supplying of racing information outside of the race-track, but let us have book-making on the race-track. To my mind there is no distinction in principle between betting on the street or in a poolroom and betting on the race-track. If the one is bad, the other is bad; if we prohibit the one, we should prohibit the other. The evidence goes to show that hand-books and pool-rooms are greater sources of evil than betting on the race-track. The only reason for that is that hand-books and poolrooms operate for 365 days in the vear.

On the other hand, certain Toronto police officers stated in evidence that for the time of the race meet, say 20 days, the gambling on the Woodbine is worse than it is for the same time in the pool-room or by the hand-book. Again, it seems to me that if you endeavour to legislate to prohibit the hand-book and the pool-room, and do not cut out the race-track, your legislation with respect to the hand-book and the _ poolroom will be very ineffective. The evidence bears this out. The hand-book and poolroom men cannot operate without the information they get from the book-maker. The evidence" shows that the pool-room and the hand-book are only the branches, while the book-maker is the root of the evil.

Mr. LANCASTER.

Does not the amendment proposed by the hon. member for West Northumberland cut out the bookmaker, as well as the hand-book man and the pool-room man, except on the track while the race is in nrogress?

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

That is quite correct, but the argument I am attempting to make is simply this, that if you are going to legislate effectively to cut out the handbook man and the pool-room man, you must cut out the root of the trouble, which is the book-maker. It is most inconsistent to make a law which permits the bookmaker to do as he likes on the race-track, but makes it a crime to do the same thing on the street. That would be making one law for the man who can afford to attend the race meeting and another law for the poor man who has not the dollar to pay for entrance to it. Inspector Duncan and Inspector Archibald who are leading police officers of Toronto, and well qualified to speak on such a subject, agree in their evidence that in order to deal effectively with the outside evil, you must deal with the inside evil, and that is the book-making on the track.