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.”