view raw text
"LET WELL ENOUGH ALONE." THIS IS THE ADVICE OF THE NEW YORK SUN , TO REFORMERS. Says It Is to tho Interest of the Pcoplo at Largo That tho Anti-Racing Bill Bo De- v featcd. New York, March 22. Reformers who are seeking support to the Cassidy-Lansliig Anti-Racing Bill, now in the hands of the codes committee of the legislature at Albany, have succeeded, unexpectedly, of course, in arousing the press of this city and state against the measure. In the face of the present opposition It is not expected that the bill will become a law. The New York Sun is advisiug the reformers o let well enough alone. In its issue of yesterday appeared the following editorial: "Shall racing be abolished or utterly suppressed In the State of New York?" is the practical question now before the Legislature of this state, where the so-called Cassidy-Lansing Anti-Racing Bill is urged for passage. This bill is actively supported by the Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts - and some other clergymen, by certain poolroom interests and by Anthony Comstock. It would seem to be the view of Mr. Comstock and Ids assistants that personal liberty, freedom of action and volition of the average citizen should be suppressed; that the public should listen to sermons and to the laudation of Anthony Comstock In the daytime, and be spanked and put to bed at curfew, and that amusements cherished by the public should be interdicted or at least made felonious and criminal. "Certain-clergymen were imluced by Comstock on Monday to pass resolutions in favor of the proposed new legislation, in which they denounce the existing laws as "shameless outrages of the Constitution." Such talk is untruthful and silly. The racing laws, as they exist today, are constitutional and have been held to be constitutional by the Court of Appeals after full and careful consideration, and these racing laws have received the general approval of the people of this state for the last eleven years. In 1005 the state of New York received from Wie racing associations more than 93,000. The present Constitution of this state, whicli look effect on the first day of January, 1S05, in Section 0 of Artical I., declares: "Nor shall any lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, poolselliug, book-making or any other kind of gambling hereafter be authorized or allowed within this state, and the Legislature shall pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any of the provisions of this section." In the Constitutional Convention of 1894, which framed the now Constitution, when the subject matter of this section was under consideration. It was moved to amend this provision by inserting a clause to prevent horse racing, and that motion was defeated by the convention. As subsequently pointed out by Mr. Justice Iugra-ham: "It is proper to consider this action ,the convention in determining what construction they intended to give these words, other kinds of gambling. " The makers of the organic law by this provision conferred upon the Legislature the sole judgment of what laws were or should be appropriate to prevent offenses in the nature of gambling. Fresh upon tho adoption of this Constitution in May, 1895, the people of this state, In the Legislature, and with the purpose of complying with the constitutional provision, passed four statutes relating to the subject of racing, which are known as Chapters -570, 571, 572 and 573 of the Laws of 1895. Chapter 570 is entitled: "An act for the incorporation of associations for the Improvement of tlte breed of horses and to regulate the same; and to establish a State Racing Commission." It em-Iiowered the Governor to appoint three persons to be members of a State Racing Commission, who should hold office for the term of five years, and no two of whom should be members of the samu racing association, and it placed all race meetings for running races under the control of the Statu Racing Commission, which was authorized to graut licenses, and it further made all running races subject to the rules and regulations of the Jockey Club. In Section 17 it provided that any person who upon any race course shall make or rucord any bet or wager shall forfeit the value of any money or property so wagered to be recovered in a civil action, and provided further that "this penalty is exclusive of all other penalties prescribed by law." Chapter 571 amended Section 343 of the Penal Code, which makes it a misdemeanor to keep a gambling and betting establishment, and Chapter 572 amended Section 351 of the Penal Code, in reference to poolselliug or bookmaking. The practical effect or this legislation was to penult betting upon a race course subject to the forfeiture of the value of the money wagered. This vital Section 17 of the main racing law. Chapter 570, subsequently came before the courts for construction in litigations Inspired and furthered by Peter DeLacy, of -poolroom notoriety. The Appellate Division of this Department, in a unanimous opinion rendered by Mr. Justice Rumsey and concurred in by Presiding Justice Van Brunt and Justices Barrett and OBrien, decided in favor of the constitutionality of Section 17. Judge Rrnnsey, in rendering the opinion of the court, said: "The duty of the Legislature was to pass appropriate laws to prevent the offenses aimed at. It was for them to say what laws were appropriate for that purpose, and when they have exercised their discretion in that regard the courts are not at liberty to put themselves in the place of the Legislaure and say that as some other penalty might be more effective in preventing the act. therefore the prescribed penalty Is not appropriate. Cooley, Const. Lint. 49, 00. "The whole matter was within the control of the Legislature. So long as It passed no law to permit or authorize the making of bets or wagers It was at lltarty to do whatever it saw fit by way of preventing them. It might make tliem crimes, or it might content itself with imposing civil liabilities for them. But whatever it saw fit to do in the matter was clearly within its own discretion and cannot be reviewed by the courts." The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the" Appellate Division in a unanimous opinion, People ex rel Sturgis vs. Fallon, which will be found reported in l."i2 N. Y. at page 1. Judge Siartin rendered the opinion of the court of last resort, in which he said: "That this provision of the Constitution was not intended to he solf-executiiig is manifest, as it expressly delegates to the Legislature the authority, and requires It to enact such laws as it shall deem appropriate to carry it into execution. "The contention of the appellant that the purpose of the enactment of Section 17 was to evade or defeat the provisions of the Constitution is not proved and cannot he presumed, but a contrary presumption must prevail. Presumably the purpose was laudable and proper, such as the Legislature deemed "best for the proper and efficient accomplishment of the purpose of -the-Constitution. and no contrary presumption will be indulged in by tills court." The Court of .Appeals subsequently in April, 1903, in the case of People vs. Stcdeker, 175 N. Y. 57, in its opinion by Judge Cullen, which was concurred In Parker, Ch. J., and OBrien, Siartin, Vann. and Werner, J. J. Gray, J., concurring in the result said: "The principal objection urged by the appellants is that the section of the Penal Code referred to Is unconstitutional and void because of the great difference between the punishment . of offenses by that, article when committed without the grounds of any racing association and that imposed by the racing law on the same acts when committed on the racing grounds. But the constitutionality of the racing law and of the provisions of Section .".51 of the Penal Code "has been so recently affirmed by tills court, the former In the case of People ex rel Sturgis vs. Fallon 152 N. Y. 1 and the latter in People ex rel Weaver vs. Van De Carr 150 N. Y. 439, that we deem it not necessary nor wise to reopen the discussion, and shall confine ourselves to an examination of the objections to the form of the indictment." As the law now stands betting on a race track is not a crime; it Is not even a misdemeanor, whereas tatting in a poolroom is a felony. A million people who love racing and attend the races want to be let alow just as men wish to be at liberty to take a drink when they, so desire, before one oclock at night. In the interest of the people at large the existing laws should be left undisturbed.
