This address was signed by Messrs. Joseph H. Choate (Ambassador to England), Elihu Root, H. T. Cookinham, Elon R. Brown, Chester B. McLaughlin, Milo M. Acker, Daniel H. McMillan and M. H. Hirschberg.
The anti-gambling amendment, which was adopted by the convention with only four dissenting votes, was as follows:
“The delegates of the People of the state of New York, in convention assembled, do propose as follows:
“Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution is hereby amended so as to read: ‘No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government or any department thereof; nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by judicial proceedings; nor shall any lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, bookmaking or any 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.’”
The “great and unscrupulous money power” to which Mr. Choate and his associates alluded was that of the racing associations. Their power was felt in the convention, and some of those who discussed the amendment prior to its adoption claimed that it was offered at the suggestion of one set of gamblers (poolroom keepers) against another set of gamblers (the racing associations). This was true enough. The racing associations were as grasping then as they are now. Their members claimed that the poolroom was a nefarious and demoralizing influence. Why? Because it prevented the racing associations from having a monopoly of the petty as well as the big gamblers’ money—of the cash of those who had not time to go to the races as well as of those who were unable to go. The engines of the law were stoked up and run full tilt against the poolrooms at the behest of the racing associations; therefore, in self-defense, the poolroom keepers were anxious that all gamblers should be placed on the same level; hence the anti-gambling amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Telusky, who offered the amendment as a resolution, said that if any member of the convention “can name one man in the state of New York that is in the bookmaking business that is not a thief, a blackguard or an ex-convict, I will withdraw my resolution. I say, Mr. President, every bookmaker in the state of New York, no matter where he comes from, is nothing but an ex-convict, a cracksman, a pickpocket, a thief of the lowest character, and these men come here and desire to shut this (amendment) out because the Legislature of a few years ago legalized a certain kind of gambling, and they are trying to protect them.”
Mr. Edward Lauterbach paid his compliments to the racing associations in plain language. “Their nefarious establishments,” he said, “have been erected from Montauk Point to Niagara Falls, and the state treasury has received and distributed to the county fairs a few miserable shekels, which it has reserved as its share of the plunder. Why, for every dollar that the state has received, it has expended ten dollars to support those who have become inmates of its prisons by reason of the weak policy so pursued. You are all familiar with the terrible temptation of this alluring vice. The passion of gambling is pandered to in this fashion in the most insidious manner. Exaggerated accounts of great winnings are presented to the readers of every journal. Tens of thousands of young men and women have been hurled to their ruin through the instrumentality of the state that should have protected them. Gambling has already been made unlawful. If anyone desires to legalize any one branch of gambling by the suggestion of proposed amendment (to the anti-gambling amendment), let us say to him, Never. Let us pass this amendment, so that, once enacted into a law, it may carry out its beneficent purpose and not prove a sham and a deceit. Just as it was as reported let us have this amendment—no subterfuge, no change, no alterations; make no halfway work. Sweep the whole brood together—gamblers, pool-sellers, bookmakers, all the racing fraternity—into oblivion forever. Pass this amendment now, as it is, unaltered and unchanged. True horse fanciers—the Bonners, the Lorillards, the Belmonts, the Keenes and the rest—will thank you for the protection you thus afford to their legitimate pursuit. Only the gambler, who should be a pariah and an outcast, and not the state’s associate, will have cause for regret.”
It was said at the time that the racing associations and the bookmakers had collected a fund of $700,000, and intended to use it in buying enough votes in the convention to defeat the anti-gambling amendment. Who said it? The newspapers. True? Not at all likely. The racing associations were able to raise such a fund, but would have got little assistance from the bookmakers. The latter were an asset of the racing associations and knew it; they must be taken care of. ’Twas said, when Mr. Jerome was at Albany championing the Dowling bill, that the gamblers of New York had contributed $100,000 for the purchase of the Black Horse Cavalry in the Legislature. The press gave Troy as the headquarters of the gamblers’ committee. There was no such committee. The gamblers of New York, including Canfield, who had more at stake than any other gambler, did not contribute a dollar for the purpose of killing the Dowling bill. The latter was passed with surprising ease in Assembly and Senate, and had become a law before the “clever division” had begun to think of the possibility of such a result. This law, in the hands of Mr. Jerome, has proved rather embarrassing to the gambling fraternity, and may give him an opportunity of distinguishing himself in a manner after his own heart before many weeks have passed.
The anti-gambling amendment to the Constitution was ratified by a popular majority of nearly 90,000 votes. Some of the voters believed, doubtless, that it would eliminate betting on race-tracks. These forgot that the amendment was of little worth unless the Legislature made such gambling an offense and also made a punishment to fit the offense. The Legislature which followed the adoption of the Constitution was “open to reason.” How much money was required to salve its conscience I do not know, but the manner in which it replied to the demand of the popular vote shows that it was dishonest. By the anti-gambling clause of the Constitution it was ordered to “pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any of the provisions of this section.” Instead of obeying such mandate it adopted the Percy-Gray law, which makes gambling in poolrooms a felony and gambling on race-tracks a misdemeanor. In other words, if the keeper of a poolroom takes a bet on a horse race he commits a felony and can be sent to jail, for according to the law he has committed a penal offense, whereas if a bookmaker accepts your money on the same race he does not commit a felony and you are at liberty to publish yourself as a poor sort of creature by attempting to recover your money by civil action. Class legislation? It looks like it. But class legislation is unconstitutional. That is the general opinion, but in this particular case many thousands of dollars have been spent in an effort to discover whether or not the present racing law is unconstitutional, and the dollars have been thrown away.
The situation would be amusing did it not demonstrate the power of money. To the average mind it would seem as if the constitutional convention had barred all kinds of gambling, particularly gambling on race-tracks. Yet, under the fostering care of the Racing Trust, the volume of gambling at race-tracks is at least thrice as great today as it was in 1895. Before the convention met the Racing Trust was permitted to do business for five months in the year; now it does business for seven months. Under the Ives Pool law, which was wiped out as vicious, the tracks were limited to thirty days of racing; now the Jockey Club does as it pleases in the matter of dates. Under a law which is, upon its face, unconstitutional because it discriminates, the Racing Commission, a state institution, has the power to issue or refuse licenses. The Racing Commission is under the control of the Jockey Club, and the latter is the ruler of the racing associations. The Jockey Club, of which Mr. August Belmont is the head, is lord of all it surveys in the metropolitan circuit, to say nothing of the Bennings race-track, in which a majority of the stock is owned by Mr. Belmont. Racing began at Bennings on March 23, and its dates are not included in the seven months of racing in the metropolitan circuit.
In this circuit there are seven tracks, not counting the Buffalo track, which is controlled by the Racing Trust. The track at Morris Park, the most picturesque race-course in the United States, has been relegated to obscurity, as it was not owned by the Racing Trust, but was leased at an annual rental of $45,000. Belmont Park, which is owned by Mr. August Belmont, the head of the Racing Trust, has taken its place. The associations which are controlled by the Racing Trust are capitalized as follows: