view raw text
NEW YORK BETTINGREFORMS DR. SLICER HAS CONFIDENCE IN STEWARDS OF -THE JOCKEY CLUB. Takes a Broad-minded View of the Situation, With draws Support From Lansing-Cassidy Bill and Is Criticised. New York, March 19. In reaching an understanding with the Stewards of the Jockey Club with reference to betting at the tracks in this state. Rev. Thomas R. Slicer has drawn fire from many of Ills brothers of the cloth. They declare that he is "compromising with evil," that he is "dangerously involved In that miserable practice of doing evil that good may come," and Rev. Wilbur F. Crofts, the international reformer, sarcastically says "the attempt to suppress vice by an agreement with its devotees to be good is entirely unique In reform work." The specific terms of the understanding have not been made public, hut In summary the situation is this: Rev. Wilbur F. Crofts had an intimation from some tinmcntioned quarter that Governor Hig-gins would favor a bill making it a jailable and Unable offense to make or take a bet on a horse race in New York state. With the aid of Anthony Comstock, a bill was drawn and presented to Assemblyman Lansing and Senator Cassidy for Intro-duction to the Legislature at Albany. The bill was introduced and referred to the codes committee, which set March 7 as the date for a hearing of those favoring and opposing the measure. The hearing was not completed on the first day and March 14 was set as the date for a continuance of the hearing. In the meantime, Bishop Doane, of Albany, and Rev. Slicer, Dr. Strong, Rev. Whiton and Rabbi Schulum, as a committee of the State Conference on Religions, "withdrew their support or the measure. They had been advised that such a bill would conserve to the interests of poolrooms and handbooks and they set about to determine the truth or falsity of this statement. They found that under such a law the condition would be worse than at present. Then came the meeting between Dr. Slicer and his. committee and a committee from the Jockey Club, which was composed of F. K. Sturgls, former president of the Stock Exchange, and Joseph S. Auerbach, of the law firm of Davies, Stone and Auer-bacb, counsel to the Jockey Club. After this conference Dr. Slicer and about thirty other citizens, including Edward R. Hewitt, son of ex -Mayor Hewitt, William Herbert, Francis G. Lloyd, F. H. Brooks, F. A. Baker, Emerson Foote, put their names to the following communication which was sent td the Legislature: After careful consideration of the Cassldy-Lansing Bill, now pending in the Legislature in this state, we are of opinion that although the bill Is from misapprehension advocated by some worthy people, it is not, as claimed, aimed at gambling, but derives its origin and main support from evil sources in the city of New York, and that Its passage would be most injurious, if not disastrous, to public morals. We do not by this position wish to he understood as indorsing or approving of betting on the racetracks or elsewhere, but we are of the opinion that the evil of betting is to be reached by attempts to repress and limit and control it within bounds rather than by any general scheme of suppressing it, and that anything like the present measure would operate to cause the evil to manifest Itself in a much more flagrant, prejudicial and injurious form. Moreover, we have received the satisfactory assurance from the gentlemen responsible for the conduct of racing in this state that they will cooperate not only In discouraging the spread of gambling in its most injurious forms in cities but also will do what may lie in their power to restrict the evils of betting generally. It is, in our opinion, difficult to emphasize too much the benefit to the community that may result from the co-operation of these gentlemen, who for ten years past have been conducting racing under the laws of this state, upheld by the courts as within the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution. Because we feel that any such experiment as is now proposed would lead to injurious results, we prefer to see the conditions remain as they are, under the control of men for whom the community has full respect, and who, in the assurance referred to above, have given additional evidence that they are entitled to this respect, rather than to have these conditions changed at the instance of unworthy or worthy people. We are of the opinion that racing, as is true of other kinds of business or industry, has its attendant evils, and that betting is one of those which attend racing. The whole subject, however, must be looked at not absolutely, but relatively. It haviug been found by experience impossible to wholly suppress these evils, prominent writers and citizens of the community generally have wisely concluded that the more judicious course is to endeavor to regulate such evils without aiming by ill-advised legislation at the destruction of the industry to which they are temporarily attached. A contrary course does not operate to exterminate or seriously affect these evils, which thereupon reappear in more ob-jctionable form. For all these reasons we are opposed to the pending legislation now before you. Since this letter was sent to the Legislature, Dr. Slicer has said: "I believe that a man has as much right to own a racehorse as a yacht, consequently I do not oppose racing. I do not believe in belting, but at the same time I cannot see how it can be abolished. The Jockey Club can restrict it, however. As I have received assurance and as I am convinced that evil influences are at work in favor of the anti-lietting bill, I have decided to withdraw my support. 1 think you will find that the Jockey Club will institute many reforms this year which will make betting a much more difficult matter than ever before." To those or the thinking people in this state, as well as elsewhere, who are informed as to racing and betting, it must appear that Dr. Sliccr is a long way ahad of his critics on the road to true reformation. Instead of standing on the ancient ground of the Puritans and looking afar through reversed binoculars he is moving in the van of modern progress and lias evidently chosen advanced thought for his vehicle. There is much gossip as to what the Jockey Club may do and numerous suggestions as to what it will do, but until the stewards act, little is to be known with certainty. However, it is apparent that they mean to take steps which will lessen the volume of betting and it is the belief of the majority that the Legislature will be satisfied to let the matter rest entirely with the Jockey Club and under the present law.
