view raw text
j _ j ,| _ t_ I . _ ,1 BOOKMAKERS ASK FOR PROTECTION SYDNEY. N. S. W.. January 2. -Sydney I molt - makers have d.-tciinined to take couccrted action with a view to protecting what they regard as their rights, especially in the matter of resisting what is termed inequitable taxation. At present they get no protective return for t li-ir heay payments to the government. An association has been formed and its object declared to be to eecare for beefeaaahern the s.uue rights as are enjoyed by other sections of the community and to endeavor to protest effectively against inequitable taxation. The bookmakers have various grievances, not the least being the Inability lo l-cov.r betting debts a law. Kv.-n with lnokniakeis. opinions differ as to whether departure from the piesent position N desirable, but. as it Rtaan , it is somewhat onesided. If a b-okuiaker does m.i pay he is. if the backer is insistent, denied the opportunity of following his calling, but if a backer defaults about the worst tiial can happen to him is removal from a race course. H - can continue to earn his living as usual. The fait of the government licencing bookmakers . to bet on lace courses should make their business , lagnl end justifies the contention that the right of [ recovering betting debts by legal process should be theirs. The position in New South Wales and Vie-,j toiia is quite different from that in England. There neither the government nor clubs receive anything in tin- way of license fees from Ixjokmakeis. If belting debts were recoverable at law it would j act as a check on some backers, who. in the knowledge that they are safe so far as the law is concerned, " have no hesitation in going beyond their means. On the other hand, a good name is part of a , baakmakers stock-in-trade, and he cannot afford to take risks.
