On November 24, 1965, Governor Smith made a statement to the press that he did indeed receive an anti-gambling bill from Ohio County Prosecutor Arch Riley. He added that Riley's bill was one of the items in consideration for the call to the 1966 Legislature. Governor Smith did more than consider the anti-gambling bill. He asked for a revision of the state gambling statute in his call for the 30-day legislative session which was to open on January 12, 1966. The editors of the Intelligencer weren't so quick to celebrate. They remembered how last year's anti-gambling bill died in the legislature:
Whether or not a meeting of minds have been effected among those who profess to recognize the need for modernization of this ancient law, or whether the scattergun, every-man-for-himself approach will be tried again, this newspaper is not advised.
Certainly the performance of a year ago would seem to argue against anything less than a united front. what happened, it well be recalled, was that an admittedly drastic bill -- among other things it would have made the possession of such devices as slot machines a felony -- remained stranded for weeks in a Senate Committee. This measure, sponsored by Prosecuting Attorney Arch Riley, Ohio County, and endorsed by the Prosecuting Attorney's Association, became the center of controversy. A modified version was prepared in the Senate by Senators Chester R. Hubbard, Ohio County, and John E. Carrigan, Marshall County. Governor Smith also got into the act at the eleventh hour. The upshot was that, what with time running, the heat and confusion generated by the dispute prevented the completion of any legislation at all.
This experience should be sufficient to warn those who sincerely want the law strengthened against a repeat performance or delay that would endanger the enactment of a satisfactory bill. The time is short at best. Those who are interested in preserving the status quo because the law is inadequate -- this is the consensus of law enforcement officers -- to the challenge of modern commercialized gambling and present-day devices, will be on the job, exerting again their not inconsiderable influence. So unless the forces of reform can agree on realistic revisions which will put needed teeth into the gambling statute, this year's session may be no more fruitful than last year's was in advancing this important facet of law enforcement.
Early support for the anti-gambling bill did come. The News-Register reported that State Senator Chester R. Hubbard studied the bill, noting that it "distinguished between social and professional gambling and was something that he has been very interested in for a long time." Hubbard said that it differed from last years' failed bill and that if it "is all that it appears to be, (I) will support it wholeheartedly." Hubbard especially liked the bill for its provisions of providing "adequate tools to curtail professional gambling."
Whether or not a meeting of minds have been effected among those who profess to recognize the need for modernization of this ancient law, or whether the scattergun, every-man-for-himself approach will be tried again, this newspaper is not advised.
Certainly the performance of a year ago would seem to argue against anything less than a united front. what happened, it well be recalled, was that an admittedly drastic bill -- among other things it would have made the possession of such devices as slot machines a felony -- remained stranded for weeks in a Senate Committee. This measure, sponsored by Prosecuting Attorney Arch Riley, Ohio County, and endorsed by the Prosecuting Attorney's Association, became the center of controversy. A modified version was prepared in the Senate by Senators Chester R. Hubbard, Ohio County, and John E. Carrigan, Marshall County. Governor Smith also got into the act at the eleventh hour. The upshot was that, what with time running, the heat and confusion generated by the dispute prevented the completion of any legislation at all.
This experience should be sufficient to warn those who sincerely want the law strengthened against a repeat performance or delay that would endanger the enactment of a satisfactory bill. The time is short at best. Those who are interested in preserving the status quo because the law is inadequate -- this is the consensus of law enforcement officers -- to the challenge of modern commercialized gambling and present-day devices, will be on the job, exerting again their not inconsiderable influence. So unless the forces of reform can agree on realistic revisions which will put needed teeth into the gambling statute, this year's session may be no more fruitful than last year's was in advancing this important facet of law enforcement.
Early support for the anti-gambling bill did come. The News-Register reported that State Senator Chester R. Hubbard studied the bill, noting that it "distinguished between social and professional gambling and was something that he has been very interested in for a long time." Hubbard said that it differed from last years' failed bill and that if it "is all that it appears to be, (I) will support it wholeheartedly." Hubbard especially liked the bill for its provisions of providing "adequate tools to curtail professional gambling."
RSS Feed
