view raw text
LOOKS BAD IN MARYLAND] FRICK AMENDMENT TO HALL BILL DEFEATED BY AN UNEXPECTEDLY LARGE MAJORITY. Hall Bill Passed to Third Reading: and Will Close Every Track in the State if It Becomes a Law. Annapolis. Md.. March 23.— The race track interests got a nidi- shock in the lower house of the legislature this afternoon when that body by ■ rote of tiO to 40 voted , low n the Prick substitute to the Hull anti-betting lull aid passed the Hall measure to third reading. If finally passed by both houses. the Hall lull will close every mile track in Maryland, but amonelme nts adopted will permit the county fair half-mile tracks to conduct short meetings. There was intense interest in the result and the final vote was preceded bv a long debate. Delegate Ball made a hot speech in favor of his bill and against the committee amendment, which was the Frick senate bill, creating a state racing commission and imposing a license tax of £1.000 a day. several amendment* to the amendment were voted down before the main amendment was voted on. The vote for the Hall bill was a few votes stronger than was expected and it is not thought that enough votes can be shifted on the final read-inig to defeat it. There are predictions tiiat the bill Will go through the senate, although it is expected to meet with ■trout ft opposition there than it did in the lower house. Additional details are available of the appearance before the boaee judiciary committee at Annapolis of Thomas Clyde, the dominant figure in the affairs of the Maryland .lackey Club, in connection with the Hall hill, which is a copy of the so-called Hughes law in New York. Sneaking against the bill, Mr. Clyde declared that it was neither an anti-racing nor an anti-betting bill. The same law. he said, had been in operation in New York state for five years ami it hid not only not stopped racing, but it had not even decreased betting- He told how bookmakers make their bets on credit, baring a regular clientele, lie said this, was a much worse form of betting than the pari-mutuel system, because the latter was strictly cash and a man could not wager more than the money he had with him. The Hughes law in New York was declared by Mr. Clyde to be the worst blow to decent racing that the country had erer had. It had not stopped betting, but made it worse. "If I told you." interrupted Chairman Hall, "that the governor would veto any bill patting the state in the gambling business, what would you say?" "I would say that probably it was a mere assumption." was the reply. "Well, you would be wrong." said Chairman Hall. "Inder this Hall bill." continued Mr. Clyde, "there would be no limitation of racing. Baring could go on from January 1 t December 31 of each year. The Maryland Jockey Club would not hold race meetings under this law. but its track would probably be leased by sssne person who would run races, and races might be run all over the state without limitation as to time. It would increase racing and not decrease betting. If vim must pass this Hughes law. which failed in New York. for heavens sake put in something to limit the amount of racing." Mr. Clyde told of the status of racing in other states, the impossibility of eliminating betting, and declared that the frick bill was a "good, honest reform measure." and would be a good revenue producer for the state. In answer to questions Mr. Clyde said that the Maryland Jockey Club was capitalised at 50,000, on which the stockholders refused to take more than six percent., or 1916.sh,000 a year. They had thus received in the last three years 7,000, while the surplus of 8,000 had been given to charity. Mr. Clyde said that what was needed was strict regulation and limitation of racing and the reduction of profits by means of taxation. Neither the president of the Maryland Jockey Club nor any of the stewards received any salary, said Mr. Clyde. The regular secretary and judge receives ,000 and the treasurer ,500, Mr. Clyde explained all the finances of the Maryla id Jockey Clul and declared it was willing to pay a tax of ,000 a day under the provisions ot the Prick bill. it was stated that the three tracks using the pari-mutuel system of betting last year bandied not less than ,000,000 through the machines. Advocates of the Hall bill think that Governor Harrington would veto the Prick bill if it were passed. This was stated by Mr. Hall in the hearing on his bill, and the governor was asked if his attitude had been correctly represented. He replied that hi did not reeollet baring SS expressed himself, and indicated that he did not think a public statement of his stand on the question necessary at this time The assumption was that he did not think the Frick bill could be passed. If there should appear to be a strong chance of its getting through, the prediction is that the governor may be heard from, so that the legislature may know what to expect. The Frick bill limits the racing season from April 1 to December 1 and provides that no purse shall be for less than 00 in added money. It provides for an unpaid commission of five, which shall be paid, however, for expenses incurred, not exceeding ,500, The bill exempts from its provisions trot ting meetings and races conducted by state, county and other fair associations holding not more than one meeting annually, and fir a period of not exceeding six days for each meeting. For permission to hold such meetings application must be made to tin- state Baring Commission, which will grant a license therefor on Use payment of a f if 5. The bill makes all meetings at which any running iai"s are held for any parse or stake nuisances, unless authority to hold tin m is granted by the commission, and subjects every p. i son Connected therewith to | fine of not lis, than 00 nor more than ,000 for each clay such racing goes on. It also grants the i immission power to sue out an injunction to prevent the holding "f any such unlicensed meeting. Payment of the ,000 license fee is made a condition precedent to the granting f any permit to hold a race meeting, and the award of days nnd elates nude by the commission is to be final in all cases. Any racing association which shall be refused a permit to hold a meeting or whose license shall have been revoked by the commission because of failure to complj with the commissions regulations, may have- the decision reviewed by any court having souitj Jurisdiction in the comity where the meeting is to be or was held.
