In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

79 4 The Ives Pool Law of 1887 Whether it is wiser for the State to regulate and restrain—by license laws which can be enforced—and thus apparently tolerate an evil, which cannot be eradicated , or to pass futile prohibitory laws against the evil, is an old question upon which moralists disagree and upon other sides of which much can be said. The only practical test of such a question is actual experiment. The Legislature . . . has chosen to make a trial of the same policy with reference to pool selling which this State has so long pursued with reference to sales of intoxicating liquors. —Governor David B. Hill, quoted in New York Times, 26 May 1887 T he cornerstone of New York racing was, like everywhere else, the gambling, which in the 1880s was primarily with bookmakers. The 1877 Anti-Pool Law made the keeping of any room to record wagers or sell pools on human feats, animals, or elections illegal and was enforced mainly against the Jerome Park Racetrack, but racing circuits in the rest of the state encountered little interference . In the mid-1880s, reformers like Anthony Comstock tried to halt horse race gambling at the Brooklyn tracks where the authorities, including the police, the district attorney, and local judges politically connected to the track operators, had given the racecourses a pass. The growing difficulties racing operators faced led them to seek a change of the state penal codes so they could operate without interference from the authorities. They wanted a new law that would permit wagering at their tracks, while simultaneously invigorating the bans on off-track gambling that were harming their business. The tracks called upon their political allies to enact the Ives Act in 1887, which they hoped would protect their business and get the reformers off their backs. The First Efforts to Revoke the Anti–Pool Room Laws After the Anti-Pool Law passed in 1877, the gambling interests tried to get a reversal but had little chance of success with the Republicans in control of the 80 • The Sport of Kings and the Kings of Crime legislature. Their luck seemed to change in 1882 with the election of Democrat Grover Cleveland as governor; the Democratic Party captured the state legislature as well. At the start of the 1883 legislative session, Col. Michael C. Murphy and former judge Joseph Koch submitted bills to the assembly and the state senate, respectively, to permit pool selling at racetracks. Murphy’s ill-advised proposal called for empowering a judge in each county to designate one local track for pool selling. Not surprisingly, the racing magnates in Kings County, where there were already two thoroughbred tracks, opposed that plan. Koch’s better-designed bill exempted racetracks from current antigambling laws. Both bills advanced out of committee but not much further, partly for fear that pool selling would occur legally outside the racetracks.1 In 1884, Democratic senator Cornelius Van Cott of New York City tried to secure on-course gambling with his innocuously titled bill, “An Act to Enforce the Obligations of Contracts,” but it had little support and died. One year later, the AJC and the CIJC had a bill introduced in the assembly by Daniel E. Finn to amend the 1884 act Incorporating Associations for Improving the Breed of Horses, proposing that agricultural and fairground societies, as well as trotting and racing associations, sponsor up to four fifteen-day race meets. The intent was to confine pool selling and betting to events at incorporated associations that would suppress and abolish systematic betting organized by irresponsible folk. Expectations were high that the amendment would pass the assembly. The state’s twenty-six racing associations and other groups interested in supporting agricultural fairs backed the bill. Carloads of supportive petitions arrived from New York, Brooklyn , Buffalo, Rochester, and Utica.2 Churchgoers, as expected, opposed the bill. In addition, certain New York and Kings County legislators also resisted the plan, under the influence of the Brighton Beach track, which often enjoyed privileges that Jerome Park did not have. According to the New York World, “It is hinted that a ring of politicians protect the island course from the effects of the present law and annually receive a big pile for their influence. They are therefore opposed to the passage of a bill, which will relieve them of the influence of their ‘pull.’” The assembly did not approve the bill.3 The World was a strong supporter of racing...

Share