Selling Hope

Selling Hope

Why, indeed? George''s campaign raised a wider concern. There was a clearly discernible class dimension to the sanctioning of lotteries which was both discriminatory and a direct consequence of the restrictions imposed in the 1881 Act. Poor people who

relied on charity and wanted to raffle personal goods to sustain themselves were denied the chance unless they were able to prove their goods fitted the narrow criteria. But paintings, sculptures and mineral specimens, which invariably meant alluvial gold, were expensive items and the preserve of more affuent individuals or organisations. The work-of-art dimension was designed to keep lotteries ''cultured'' and to help sustain the work of ''artists''. The euphemism ''art union'', as we have seen, was part of an attempt to sustain that image and distance the government from any ''connection with gambling''. The acceptance of ''art unions'' in whatever form, as a legitimate ''non-gambling'' activity for the bourgeois, led to strange dichotomies. Sir Robert Stout''s impassioned humanist opposition to gambling was well-known and frequently expressed duting 40 years of public life as a politician and jurist. But Stout was also an art lover with a particular enthusiasm for the paintings of C

hristchurch artist Petrus van der Velden. In January 1896, in some desperation, van der Velden wrote to Stout requesting support with a forthcoming art union in which he hoped to raffle his watercolouts in order to survive professionally. If he failed he would seriously consider leaving the country. Stout assuted him that he would be only too happy to do what he could, calling it a ''calamity'' should the colony lose an artist of van der Velden''s calibre. It is likely that Stout saw no hypocrisy in this: he would have denied that there was any moral contradiction between his distaste for gambling and his implicit yet enthusiastic support for this form of art union. He was probably even unaware of any connection.

Politicians were aware of the anomalies, and the abuses. Scared off by the tight restrictions, hundreds of community and sports groups ran their own raffles, unlawfully. In 1897 Auckland''s William Jennings MLC proposed a change to the Act to allow friendly societies ''eight-hour-a-day work leagues'' and trade unions to run art unions without being limited to work of-art prizes. While agreeing that the definition was problematic, his parliamentary colleagues were not prepared to open the door wider and let more ''gambling'' in, no matter how philanthropic the cause. That was the rub. As the anti-gambling movement grew stronger there was no chance of even minor liberalisation of the Gaming and Lotteries Act. Jennings'' motion was allowed to lapse.

Whether or not the organizers of illegal lotteries were arrested depended on a variety of factors: where the lottery texas was held, its nature and purpose, the attitude of the local police, who was involved, and the ease or otherwise of obtaining evidence. Raffles were ''victimless crimes''. Unless there was a complaint or dear evidence of a scam, the police preferred to chase Chinese gamblers and two-up players. There was always a measure of hypocrisy. When a New Plymouth raffle organizer was fined in 1882, there was no disagreement with her defence lawyer''s claim that prominent churchmen were running lotteries at their church bazaars and going unpunished. Indeed it seemed a novelty when unlicensed lottery texas operators were taken to court, particularly when they were respectable citizens. One would not have expected A. W. Gillies, chairman of the Taranaki Winter committee, to be a willing law-breaker. But to his embarrassmen �10 for disposing of a car in an unlicensed raffle at the annual Hawera show in 1912.

Gillies was unlucky. Punishments for lottery infractions were rate. Duting the 1880s and 1890S workers celebrated Labour day with street processions and, in the afternoons, sports and picnics for the whole family. Admission to the venue was usually gained by purchasing an art union ticket, with the proceeds helping to fund both the celebration and the maintenance of local trades halls. The legality of many of lotteries was dubious. There is no record of whether the police took an interest.

TATTERSALLS
With local raffles under tight restraint, thousands of New Zealanders looked overseas. The most popular lotteries of the period, despite the restrictions were Tattersalls'' Australian horse-racing sweepstakes. From a humble beginning running sweeps among his patrons, New South Wales publican George Adams developed a lottery business, Tattersalls, in to a profitable colony-wide organization. But in 1891, when a growing plethora of illegally run lotteries forced the New South Wales government to ban them altogether, Adams was forced to move twice: first to Queensland and than, in 1895, to Tasmania, where the state government asked him to conduct a lottery on its behalf to help its bank survive an economic recession. heagreed and organized a ''Grand Lottery'', with 300,000 ticketed �1 return for the right to run Tattersalls legally in Tasmania. The lotteries were a big success and he received a licence which gave him sole rights to run future lotteries on the island. Tattersalls thus acquired a base from which it was to operate for nearly 60 years. As testament to its growth in popularity, a ''Ticket in Tatts'' became a household phrase in Australia and later in New Zealand.

Lotteries had, of course, been- illegal in this country since 1881. An amendment to the Act in 1885 prohibited the exhibiting or publishing of any placard, handbill, card or sign which advertised lotteries and sweepstakes. In 1898, for example, Blundell Brothers, the proprietors of the Evening Post ware fined for advertising a Melbourne Eight Hours Lottery. The 1885measure also empowered the Postmaster-General to refusel to register letters and money-orders if postal staff suspected they were being used for a lottery or sweep transaction. But such transactions were easy to disguise and the government move seemed only to encourage New Zealand investment on Australian lotteries. Astute local bookmakers acting as middlemen made a killing. It was estimated that in the four years up to November 1889 despite a continuing recession in the local economy �260000 was remitted from New Zealand to Australian lotteries of which �57200 was returned in prizes.

That kind of spending was very attractive to Tattersalls organizers, despite its illegality. In March 1896 George Adams'' lieutenant, David Harvey, established Tattersalls lotteries and sweepstakes in New Zealand by setting up a clandestine system of agents. It was an immediate success. These agents, usually tobacconists or newsagents, were enthusiastic, foreseeing large profits from an expanded betting market. Each used middlemen, who collected the tickets, posted them to Tasmania, circulated a list of winning numbers and arranged for the payment of prizes. The euphemistic phrase, ''We Post to Hobart'', appeared on billboards, pamphlets and shop windows throughout the country. Tattersalls lotteries offered by far the biggest return of any gamble available in New Zealand. Tobacconists were grateful for the extra custom; for many it was their most profitable line of business. By the 1900S Tattersalls was running lotteries with first prizes of up to �20,000, a small fortune for eager New Zealand investors.

Early American Lotteries � The First Lottery � State Lotteries � Policy Shops. Copyscape. All Rights Reserved � LotteryFlorida.net 2005-2007. http://www.lottery-texas.net/

Permalink: http://expert-talk.com/tips/652/selling-hope-268652.htm

Comments

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the article, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Related Tips and Advices

Selling Digital Stock Photos Part 3

Related Tags