Belief-in the power of the Press is so prevalent that, ex-¢ept to journalists who have Jearnt to be mildly sceptical on the point, it may come as a surprise to find newspapers asking to be protected against themselves. It will be recalled that, when the Act restricting the reporting of divorce court eases was on the stocks, representative organisations of the newspaper trade and of professional journalists definitely welcomed' the proposal that Parliament should deliberately breach the doctrine of the liberty of the press by prescribing the limits of publicity given to the evidence, albeit in open court, taken in' divorce cases. Now it will be seen that English newspapers have told the Royal Commission on Lotteries ang Betting that they would welcome a law which forbade the publica. tion of news concerning illegal Jotteries. It is admitted that newspapers are not the autocrat tie ministers to public opinion often imagined. Against their will they are induced to give space to matter which, in the interests of the public, they—no less than the same public—feel were better ignored. It argued that this imply cognition of the lowness of Journalistic standards, for plainly the ideal is that a newspaper, in maintaining the liberty on which the Press lays so much stress, should be able to decide such issues solely on the ground of public interest. Journalist are not inclined to be depressed on that account. They know that, speaking generally, decent conduct in their profession is not only the most pleasing criterion to follow; it is also the most profitable, For all. thei assumption of _infallibility-delicious fiction which deceives no-one—newspapers are human. They reflect human weakness and) human limitations. They ¢annot therefore be free of the herd-instinct. So the British public, for example, is told that even "The Times" has lately deen forced against its will, by the mere pressure of competition, to publish the lists of the draw the Irish Sweepstake—an enterprise which is so contrary to the law of the land that the Post Office has taken elaborate and not. unsuccessful measures to restrict its operations.
'The, inconsistencies of the British' law regarding gambling have led to the appointment, of the Royal Commission. It is too readily assumed, however, that the inapplicability of the law to modern conditions will give rise to the conclusion that restric tions are likely to be relaxed: The prompt issue by the Commission of an interim report to deal with the menace of totalisator clubs goes far to refute this comfortable notion. d Nor should it be forgotten that the hackneyed insistence by propagandists on the antiquity of certain anti-gambling laws, as if, by the mere effluxion of time, those laws had lost their social Deneficence, is in essence nothing more than a quibble. An old law may require adjustment to the needs of the day; its mere age is rather a testimony to its worth than a proof of its imbecility. Otherwise the Common Law might be scrapped and a hard-worked Parliament burened with the need of propounding a new legal code every other decade. On this problem of gambling much misapprehension has arisen and the path of the reformer has been obstructed owing to the intrusion of what may, without offence it is hoped, be termed the extreme instran-Bigeance of the "unco guid." The gambling. and drink issues have several points in common.
Neither habit in itself, is infherently harmful. The consumption of alcoholic liquor—regarded in the broad sense of the term—is beneficial to human health ang -human relationships. Abstention from it may be praiseworthy and is, in fact, the considered practice of certain Jereeds—notably that of Islam. Except in so far as he attempts to proselytise for his religion [the good Moslem does not expect others less enlightened—as ithinks—to follow him in abjure-Iment of the grape which inspired Omar Khayyam, who was a better poet than 'a Moslem and a better philosopher perhaps th: poet. Yqt many countries today recognise the importance of subjecting the drink traffic to governmental control of one kind lor another. Thtis policy would be more freely supported if advocates of temperance were inclined to be temperate in their desire to curb human indulgence. They consistently overlook the fact that, while many a man may be the worse for liquor, there jate many more who might retort with a once admonished but highly efficient official of a certain Service "On the contrary, Sir, the better." The stern facts lof modern life, with its ever-creasing demands on the inman frame, and, be it added, the marked' improvement social habits, apply a suitable corrective to those who abuse a stimulant which has been honoured in poetry and prose from time immemorial.
Discriminating control, allied this moral improvement, will readily endorseq by most people as the proper mean. It enables man to prevent a pleasant habit from becoming an unpleasant vice, although the better rates accorded by life insurance companies to teetotalers suggest that perfect control has yet to be secured. As with drink so with gambling: nothing can be more injurious to human welfare than unrest tracted indulgence in the courtship of the Goddess of Chance. It, is notoriously productive of atime and untold family misery. Yet who would agree that any effort at eliminating it altogether from the ordinary transaction: of day-to-day life would have the lightest chance of success? The restrictions have been imposed, not because of the moral turpitude of backing an opinion or putting a shirt on a quadruped but because certained conditions, incre the the protection of the community from crime, The development fof modern institutfons—the printing press, education and swift means of eommunication—has provided the gambler with facilities unforeseen by the framers of the law. The chief consideration which presents itself to the minds of those who desire to suppress—not gambling but the crime directly stimulated by undue indulgence in gambling is that of making such facili-strictly accord with gamble means. It is obvious that st as tendencies to extravagtance in ordinary expenditure are regulated by the operation of the commercial law of credit and it, 30 should the human desire to exploit the vagaries of the turn of a coin, the speed of horse, the incidence of numbers, be brought into relation with the resources individually available." Rough and ready must be the attempt at such regulation, To press the matter to its logical extreme: it may be quite unfair to prevent the poor from going to the limit in testing the favour of fortune. Tt may be just as unfair to allow the rich man to plunge till even ithe purse of Fortunatus has been emptied. Practical considerations, however, make it convenient to take into account the difference between the man who is used to dollars and him who Iknows only copper cents. There is a tendency to believe thift too benevolent despotism in the law is bad for the community. That is a sound principle, provide it accepted with reservations. Consequently, in noting the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.