Chapter XV (3)

But he would say what they would do;--they would sit up all night, have suppers, wine and spirits set out to tempt men, and they would play with any that came; and though some such customers were known or suspected to have obtained the money they played with by robbery, yet he never knew that the gamblers had ever refused to allow such men to play, so long as they had money. Mr. Green described several snares that were practised by gamblers, particularly one at New Orleans, called the "broker." He hoped some of the gamblers of this city would reform as soon as the new law went into effect. He had already heard of some having turned collectors, policemen, &c.--but he doubted their reform if they were turned over to the police--for though there were some very good policemen in this city, he could confidently say also there were some spotted ones.

Mr. Green considered the bowling-alleys and billiard rooms as the very bane of the city--leading men on step by step to the vices of gambling and drunkenness. Mr. Green stated that he had never met with a gambler in his life, who played honestly, and got his living by playing cards honestly--for all he had ever known would take advantage, sometimes--which perhaps the world might call cheating. Mr. Green practically illustrated with a pack of cards the modes of taking advantage, (cheating in plain English,) that were truly surprising. Mr. G. said that such things were done by gamblers, called _honourable_, and if any one had charged such men with dishonesty, why a duel, or worse, might have been the consequence.

On one occasion, he (Mr. Green) had been cheated out of several hundred dollars by a brother gambler. He knew it, but lost his money and said nothing--at length, he found out the method of cheating--and went home and set up all night by way of studying a cheat that would recover his money and more. He succeeded at last, and went and won all the money of his antagonist and party--in fact, he won enough to break the whole party. Mr. Green then showed by cards how he had been engaged in winning (by tricks) money from a planter in Louisiana.

Mr. Freeman replied, and contended that Mr. Green had referred to only a few mean gamblers--and by his inference charged their practices upon the whole body. But our limited space warns us to be brief. Mr. Freeman only contended that a gambler was honest in a relative point of view--as honest as other men who in trade or otherwise, or in speculation, did things as bad or worse than gamblers. Mr. F. related anecdotes to show that persons charged with faults and crimes were almost always condemned by public opinion, and their faults and crimes exaggerated. Mr. F. stated that in former times, the keepers of gaming-houses in New Orleans paid heavy licenses, and were subject to ruinous fines if they cheated in the smallest degree.

Mr. F. contended that cheating at cards was decidedly a disadvantage to the gambler--because, if he lost his character as a fair man, people would not play with him, and so cheating was to him a loss: on the principle of a man in England, who said he would give a hundred thousand dollars for a character. "Why?" asked his friends. "Because," replied the first, "because I could gain two hundred thousand dollars by it!"

Mr. F. introduced several anecdotes. Mr. F. had heard several sensible men in New Orleans say, that if gaming-houses there were licensed, there would be little or no cheating, because those houses would be under the police, and people could not then do as they now do in holes and corners. On the principle of "Vice is a creature of such hateful mien," &c. &c., Mr. F. thought that Mr. Green, by showing and explaining some of his tricks, would be likely to tempt some persons to practise such tricks, if they wanted a little money; and on this point he would quote Scripture, and say--"Lead us not into temptation!"

Mr. Freeman exhibited a capital trick on the cards, quite equal to some of Mr. Green's. But, said Mr. F., all such things were nothing--for, in gambling, playing on the square with fairness is the best policy. [Mr. Green admitted Mr. Freeman's trick to be very superior--and it was at length understood that at the next meeting (on Saturday night) several of these mysteries would be shown on both sides.]

Mr. Green declared that he could show the principle of gambling to be a hundred per cent. worse than stealing.

The debate was listened to with much interest, and we learn that it will be closed to-morrow (Saturday) evening.

From the Evening Bulletin.

Messrs. Green and Freeman renewed their discussion last night, at the Chinese Museum, in the presence of a crowded audience, Leonard Jewell, Esq. in the chair. Mr. Freeman spoke first, and very _modestly_ contended that none of his arguments of the previous evening had been answered by his opponent, but that, instead of this, painful anecdotes and stories had been told. He had quoted Scripture only to show that making stringent laws to punish gambling was contrary to the spirit of our Saviour's teaching, viz. to return good for evil. This argument, will, of course, apply to all laws for the punishment of crime. Freeman went on to except to Green's wholesale denunciations of all gamblers; it was well known that some were _honourable_ men. There were a few bad ones, his opponent knew, and one, in particular, who on a certain occasion drew a bowie-knife to prevent a sum of money, fraudulently obtained, being returned to its proper owner. Green acknowledged that he was the man to whom Freeman alluded. He would not deny that he had been as guilty as the guiltiest.

Freeman continued by saying that he supposed his opponent would get over this by saying he had reformed. Green looked assent.

Freeman justified gambling by business operations, which were the result of chance, such as stock-jobbing; but we confess we cannot see where the parallel begins, the one being a clear matter of chance on both sides, the other, if Green's stories be true, which we firmly believe, all on the side of the gambler, who cheats from the beginning to the ending of his playing, what with tricks of the trade, marked cards, &c. Freeman took the ground that gamblers were honest, and thus made out a better case than the facts will sustain.

Mr. Green's reply was quiet and unaffected. He knew some gamblers who were straightforward and honourable in their playing. But the majority of the profession were dishonest, and the community was demoralized and impoverished by them. He admitted the story about the bowie-knife. He had never been disposed to conceal any of his wicked acts while one of the _profession_. There was one point on which all gamblers were unprincipled; they would play and win money of men they knew were totally ignorant of the arts of card-playing. This was a fraud--it was dishonest; a strong argument against the whole band, good or bad.

Mr. Green denounced bowling-alleys and billiard saloons. He then exposed the tricks by which gamblers cheated, and in doing so interested the audience very much.

Freeman's rejoinder was still to the end that some gamblers were honest and honourable. He knew that there were rogues among gamblers, who practised tricks, and he gave an excellent specimen of their adroitness, in a trick which Mr. Green acknowledged was a capital one.

The debate was listened to throughout with great attention. It will be resumed on Saturday evening.

THIRD NIGHT

From the Daily Sun.

On Saturday evening, the debate between Messrs. Green and Freeman, on the subject of gambling, was resumed, in the Lecture-room of the Museum building. There was a full audience in attendance, and towards the close of the debate, the proceedings became intensely interesting.

At the appointed hour, Dr. Elder, the moderator, made a few remarks, by way of opening the meeting, and introduced

Mr. Freeman, who, upon advancing to the table, said that he regarded it as complimentary indeed, that he was permitted to proceed with the discussion. Under all the circumstances, he considered it a great compliment, that a highly intelligent audience should listen to one of the proscribed fraternity. But friends, (said the speaker,) if the scene of the discussion lay farther South, in the region of the spot where he was born, he would not consider it so much of a compliment--he would not make such a concession, even from the great Harry of the West down to my fallen foe. In looking round the staging he observed new faces, and missed those who had previously occupied their places--he had heard those men had consulted their dignity, and any man (in the opinion of the speaker) who thinks more of his dignity than his duty is not fit to occupy the sacred desk. The arguments which he had brought forward on the previous occasions have not been answered. Mr. Green has not even attempted to do so, but he (the speaker) had found that a worthy gentleman had entered the field, though not verbally, and endeavoured to supply the place of his opponent. He would take the liberty to compliment him--the distinguished editor of the Post--though he did not know him, nor that such a paper as the Post was printed. That editor, like many others whose prejudices overbalance their reason, had misunderstood him. The speaker then indulged in a _critique_ on the editorial, principally upon the ground which he had taken--that a man has a right to do with his own things what he pleases, provided, in so doing, he does not infringe upon the rights of others. On this point, it appeared that the editor thought and argued differently, and Mr. Freeman said, that in taking the above ground, he did not claim originality, for it is a principle of law, as laid down in Blackstone, Paley, and others--it is the language of great commentators, and upon it he would stand or fall, and leave the distinguished editor to battle with those men.

Some things, continued the speaker, may seem inconsistent at first, which, upon examination, are not inconsistent. A thing may be legally right and morally wrong, and whilst he could defend it legally, he could not morally. For instance, suppose a rich man had two sons, both of whom acted as sons should act, and the father in making out his will should devise his whole estate to one son, and cut the other off, as they say in England, with a shilling. Now, who would deny his right to do so if it pleased him; who would say that it is not legally right?--no one. But would it be morally right?--certainly not. What is morality?--love your God, your neighbour, and yourself. And though he could defend the will as legal, yet in a moral point of view he could condemn it as unnatural. The editor of the Post (said the speaker) confounds gambling with robbery, and what for?--that future generations may grow up in faith. It is, said he, a settled principle of morality never to hoist false colours, but to raise the standard of truth and defend it to the last. (Applause.)

He remembered an anecdote: a physician was sent to attend a poor sick boy, and when he arrived at the couch of pain and distress, he found it necessary to administer a pill--a very nauseous dose. Said the mother--"Doctor, it would be better to put a little sugar on it, and then he can take it, and not know it's a pill." "No, madam," replied the doctor, "it won't do to deceive him. Here, my son," said the practitioner, "take this medicine and it will cure you," and the little fellow swallowed it like a man. Thus it is with Mr. Green and the green editor; they associate the gambler, without distinction, with assassins and robbers. In doing so they are wrong; they do not speak the truth. The speaker then proceeded to show how a young man may often be lured into temptation--by representing gamblers as assassins, who, upon acquaintance, he finds are apparently gentlemen, and he is induced to think that he has been hitherto misled and deceived in regard to such men. He then cultivates their acquaintance, and finally, through his own depravity, he becomes worse and worse, until he is at last swallowed up in the vortex of degradation. This is the result of employing dishonourable measures to prevent him from visiting such places, or to carry out honourable ends.

A man has a right to commit suicide, so far as propriety is concerned. If he does not owe any thing, and feels it in his conscience that he would like to die, he has a right to do so--but if that man owes five dollars, he would certainly violate a moral principle by killing himself, because he ought to live as long as he can to pay his debt. The speaker once knew a man, in good circumstances, who was weary of existence, and feeling disposed to take a journey to "that bourne whence no traveller returns," committed suicide. There may be many who would call it murder--but the community are murderers--they sometimes murder in cold blood. But lately a man was taken to the gallows, and they hung a young man because he had killed somebody else, and yet there are many persons who believe this is right, and that suicide, such as the speaker had selected, is wrong.

The speaker now proceeded to criticize the law relative to gambling, passed at the recent legislature, in which he said that if a man has a fixed place of residence and carries on a dry goods business, he might gamble as much as should please him and the law would not take hold of him. He would ask anybody to read the law understandingly and then deny this round assertion. This act, said he, is bugbear--it is a disgrace as it now stands, for it smacks of cowardice. The legislators, he presumed, had a little sense, and they knew that some kind of a law must be passed, and they were ingenious enough to know how to frame it to sound well, and yet be comparatively powerless. They knew by such a statute that _nolle prosequis_ could be entered--and solicitors make more money--they well knew that there were many religious people among their constituents, and it would not do for them to act singular, or else they would find so short an account at the next ballot-box that they would not be sent back. He would spurn such legislators and keep them for ever in private life. (Applause.)

In conclusion, he said that he was decidedly an anti-gambler, and he did not defend the subject morally. In order that he might enlighten the people on the subject of gambling, he would give one lecture, in which he would relate his experience, and promised that it should be the richest and most interesting thing that could be listened to. He did not want money. He would only ask enough to pay expenses of the room--the ladies and the reverend clergy may come in gratis--all he wished was that the truth should be told about gambling.

Mr. Green now took the stand, and said that it appeared to him that there was something in the law which seemed to stick to his opponent, Mr. Freeman. He complains that the Jaw is dull--that it is trash--a bugbear, and heaps other similar epithets upon it, and yet he appears to make considerable noise about it, and why should he attempt to ridicule me, in connection with the law. Every man in this state knows that Mr. Green himself could not pass the law without the aid of the legislature. He (Mr. Freeman) goes on to take many other positions which he (the speaker) could not understand, and therefore would not further allude to them. He thought that if the young men were warned properly to keep aloof from the gambling shops, and they should heed the warning, they would escape a life of infamy. 'Tis true, a young man may go from the parlour to a gambling-place. He will first find the gamblers fascinating--rooms handsomely furnished--fine suppers given, and in fact, every temptation may be set out to catch the unwary novice. The gambler will tell him this reform is all priestcraft--you can see for yourself that we (gamblers) are not the assassins which we are represented to be--these reformers don't speak the truth. The young man is blinded--he thinks he knows by this time all about the gamblers--but in fact he knows nothing. He goes on by degrees, until becoming more hardened, he does not fear to do that which would have made him recoil with horror, in the outset. He may go to another city--carry letters of introduction to prominent gamblers--forty other letters may get there before him, putting the robbers on the look out, getting them to set their stool-pigeons. The young man is trapped--he is enticed into a gambling hell--don't call them sporting saloons or gambling-rooms, (said the speaker,) but call them what they are, _hells_--he loses all his money--his character is gone--he is ruined, and who then cares for him--does the gambler?

Let me relate an instance which came under my immediate notice:--A young man in Baltimore, sometime after he had been ruined at a gambling hell, went there, but having no money, was not cared for by the gambler. He laid down on the floor in a corner of the room, night after night. One day, in particular, it was asked who he was. "Only a loafer," replied the gambler. The young man was aroused from his stupor by the one with whom he had gambled and lost, and was told to go about his business. The young man replied, "Sir, you should be the last man to treat me so; it was with you I first played cards, it was under your roof where I tasted the first glass of wine;" and whilst thus expostulating, the gambler pushed him out, he reeled down the stairs, fractured his skull on the curb-stone and fell into the gutter. Mr. Green was present and saw this base transaction. He raised the young man from the gutter, gave him a handkerchief to wipe the blood from his forehead. The next day that young man was found dead under one of the wharves. Now he, Mr. Green, could not say that the gambler murdered him, but he was dead and held the handkerchief in his clenched fist. That young man had swallowed the wrong pill; why did not the gamblers tell him they were robbers and assassins, why did they not stick to the truth. They dare not do it, and he (Mr. Green) thought it his duty as a reformed man to speak truly and act honestly. The present law which so much troubles Mr. Freeman was passed with due deliberation unanimously, and when it goes into effect on the first of July he would not wonder if there should be a very great amount of trouble among more gamblers than Mr. Freeman. (Applause.)

_Mr. Freeman._ The gentleman wants to know, why this law grieves me so--why! because it is trash. He (the speaker) did not expect to live in Pennsylvania but a few days longer, as he intended going South, and if he should chance to come back again, and choose to play a game of cards, he did not wish to be placed on a par with incendiaries, robbers and murderers. All of you, no doubt, have heard of steamboat racing, boilers blowing up, &c.--everybody is up in arms about it, and cry aloud for a law to stop this abominable racing. Now he (the speaker) could make the round statement that there never has been one explosion of a boiler during the time of a steamboat racing. The reason is plain. When the race is going on, everybody is wide awake, the water is kept high, and the boilers prevented from being overheated, and in such a case no explosion can possibly take place. A law, therefore, passed to stop steamboats racing in order to prevent boilers from bursting, would be equivalent to the law passed relative to gambling. In conclusion, he would say that he knew of but one gambler who had been in prison, and not one south of Mason and Dixon's line, which was more than could be said of any other profession. (Great applause.)

_Mr. Green_ (quickly.) Why is it so?--because the gamblers are eelish, and not because they don't deserve the penitentiary; Mr. Freeman knows that. (Roars of laughter and continued applause.)

_Mr. Elder._ Ladies and gentlemen, it is now proposed that a vote be taken on the distribution of the proceeds of this evening. Mr. Green has had the receipts of the two previous evenings, and at the first meeting it was agreed to let the audience decide as to the third meeting.

_Voice._ Were not the lectures given by Mr. Green?

_Many Voices._ Question, question, question.

_Voice._ I demand an answer to my question, for I wish to vote understandingly.

_Voices._ Calling question from all parts of the room.

_Another Voice._ Mr. Speaker, I wish to know one thing. Mr. Green says, since his reformation, he has given back over twenty thousand dollars of property which he won when he was a gambler. Now I wish to know if he will give the proceeds of the night to the gamblers, if the question is decided in his favour.

_Voices._ Question, take the question; loud talking and grumbling.

_First Voice._ Suppose it is decided in favour of Mr. Freeman, I wish to know if the debate can be continued or not.

The question was now taken by rising, and silence being restored, the Moderator said--"It is the decision of the chair, that the proceeds belong to Mr. Freeman, by a very large majority."

_Voice._ Sir, there is a mistake.

_Moderator._ Are there any gentlemen here who are dissatisfied with the decision?

_Voice._ I am.

Hon. Charles Gibbons, speaker of the Senate, proposed to take the question by voice. This was agreed upon.

_Mr. Elder._ All in favour of the proceeds being given to Mr. Freeman, say I. Here there was a tremendous response. The contrary opinion was then taken, and the chair decided that the I's were in a large majority. (Great applause.)

_Voice._ Mr. President, I demand back my quarter dollar--I can't pay money to go into the pockets of a gambler. (Hisses.)

_Mr. Freeman._ The gentleman can have his quarter back with pleasure. (Applause.)

The rest of the evening was consumed in the explanation of tricks of gamblers by Mr. Green, which was intensely interesting, and he was greeted with rounds of applause, as he successfully performed them.

From the City Bulletin.

A large audience assembled on Saturday night to listen to the last debate on gambling. Mr. Freeman opened the ball with a great deal of self-possession, and talked away in defence of a palpable wrong, with as much coolness and composure as if he was discussing the last news by the steamer. But his sophistry, as well as all the sneers and jeers of his brethren in the audience, which betrayed themselves when Green began to speak, could not keep the truth under. Before the evening closed, he had every thing his own way, and was complete master of the field. Freeman battled against the late law passed in this State--and contended that it was of no avail in crushing the evil of gambling. He added that if it was effective, it was effective against the wrong persons. He then slurred over his opponent's position, charged him with insincerity, and denounced all his tales of horror. He incidentally, however, took occasion to say, that he could a tale unfold which would harrow up the soul, a tale of his own personal adventure, as a gambler, and he invited the audience to its recital to-morrow evening.

Mr. Green rose with the same pleasant smile which he always has worn during his debate with Freeman, and met his opponent's positions, not with smooth, oily, plausible words, but in a plain spoken, substantial, truth-telling language. He reiterated all that he had charged against gambling at former meetings. He said gamblers were no better than thieves, that they cheated always when they could, and that they had every advantage over those who fell into their clutches.

The audience were now called upon to vote as to the disposal of the receipts at the door--Mr. Green having agreed that his opponent should have them, if it was so decided. The vote was taken, and by a large majority the receipts were awarded to Freeman.

The tricks now came on, Freeman having taken the ground that they could not be done without detection with any cards. He accordingly placed upon the table a pack of cards which he said he had purchased that evening. Mr. Green in taking the cards asked that a committee should be appointed to witness his tricks, and report to the assembly, but Freeman and his friends put in a decided objection to this. Green at once told the audience he would gratify them and perform the tricks openly. Here came his triumph, which was complete. He took the very cards which his opponent had bought, and with them showed conclusively, that all he had charged in relation to the expertness and skill of gamblers, and of course, their immense advantages over their opponents, was true.

Thus has ended a debate which, we do think, has been productive of good to the community, while it has vindicated most fully the position which Green takes in his work of reform. We have no sympathy for Freeman, while he maintains his present stand, though we freely confess he is a gentleman of ability, and that we should be most happy to see him a co-labourer with Green, in crushing the vice of gambling. He says he is broken down in health and spirits. We know of nothing which can restore the last, and make him bear the first with greater resignation, than retire to the path of virtue.

From the North American.

The gambling discussion between Messrs. Green and Freeman was closed on Saturday evening, before a very large and interested audience. After some speaking on either side, which was listened to with becoming patience and attention, the tricks--which were evidently the great point of interest--were in order, and Mr. Green proceeded to fulfil his promises to the letter. Mr. Freeman had brought a pack of cards of his own selection and preparation, and Mr. Green objected that this could hardly be considered fair, and said that he should prefer the appointment of a committee to provide cards, and superintend the experiments. Upon this Mr. Freeman commenced declaiming in a triumphant tone against his antagonist; but Mr. Green cut him short by stating that he was willing to proceed with the cards that Mr. Freeman had brought. Mr. Gibbons then took the pack and marked it with a pencil, so that he might be sure of recognising it. Mr. Green then took them from him, shuffled them a moment with his hands under the table, and showed them to Mr. Gibbons, who pronounced them the same he had marked. Mr. Green then dealt them in separate heaps, and Mr. Gibbons turned up the faces, and showed the audience that each of the thirteen heaps contained the four aces, four kings, four queens, and so on down to the four deuces. The cards were then shuffled, and Mr. Green ran them off, the backs being upward, so rapidly that the eye could scarcely follow the motion of his fingers--naming each card as he threw it off, and making but _one_ mistake in the whole fifty-two cards. This extraordinary feat was received by the audience with acclamations, as being most convincing proof of the power of gamblers to perform the swindling deceptions with the cards, that Mr. Green has charged upon the nimble-fingered fraternity. The audience then good-naturedly voted Mr. Freeman the pecuniary proceeds of the evening, as a remuneration for the zeal he had displayed in a bad cause. The question was then put to the audience whether Mr. Green had satisfactorily performed all he had undertaken, and loudly answered in the affirmative.

From the United States Gazette.

The discussion on this important subject was continued and concluded, on Saturday evening, by Messrs. Green and Freeman.

A man who can for a few minutes interest an audience so much in favour of the vice of gambling, as to make them shut out its horrible deformity, must possess more than ordinary powers, and we question much whether, of the whole fraternity of gamblers, one could be found better adapted for the Herculean task which Mr. Freeman set himself. That which the mind is accustomed steadily to dwell upon, and upon which action is had repeatedly, will scarcely want for self-justification--and while the error of proceeding is reluctantly admitted, whatever may tend to justify, however slightly, is eagerly seized upon and proclaimed. There is scarcely an evil practice for which the doer may not raise up or create reasons in justification, and plausible arguments may be made to gloss over the most detestable and indefensible crimes.

A kind of Letheon is administered to the judgment by continual progression in some improper path, till that which is to all others palpably and painfully degrading becomes pleasant and eminently proper in him who labours under the mental oblivion. Such a course Mr. Freeman has trod, for while he admits that gambling is pernicious, he clamours for the natural right which all men possess, to do it so long as they do not meddle with others, and insists that it in no way gives occasion for the exercise of legal power by the fact that he has played at cards, and lost or won money. If it could be confined to individuals--if the penalty of the crime was visited only upon the doer--- if the moral and pecuniary destruction which gambling visits upon all who offer tribute at its altar, went no farther than him who made the offering, then Mr. Freeman would have a proper privilege, and would be right in saying that a man violated no law by the practice of the nefarious profession. But there are few, very few, we suppose, who are not connected by the ties of blood, the bonds of matrimony, or the relation of father to child, who are all affected by such degradation as the gambler visits upon himself, and who feel the bitter poignancy of the stroke with greater force than he whose heart has been gradually but surely abased. While a man has a single relation or friend, he should not gamble; and if he stood alone in the world, with no friend, the fear of the eternal judgment should deter him from the commission of the sin.

Mr. Freeman is a plausible man; he talks earnestly and fluently, and his argument is clear and comprehensive, so far as it goes. He thinks readily and speaks aptly. As a debater, he far excels his opponent Mr. Green, and with a good cause would be an opponent difficult to conquer. But few, we think, expected so much of the metaphysics of gambling as he gave, but after he had constructed his argument, and presented the justification of the fraternity, it was marvellous how quickly the one crumbled and the other was turned to condemnation, by the application of the tests of reason and truth which Mr. Green applied. Facts stood stubbornly before Mr. Freeman's theories, and bore them down, and the experiments with the cards which closed the lecture, demonstrated, beyond a doubt, how far an unscrupulous gambler could carry his villany against an unsuspecting victim. With a rapidity that defied observation and detection, Mr. Green performed several tricks, by which he produced any card or series of cards at will, and even read eighteen cards in succession by the backs.

In his argument, Mr. Freeman invariably rose in the estimation of the audience, but he rose only to fall again. There may have been respect for his abilities, but there was greater sorrow that so unprofitable and degrading a direction had been given to them. Every argument that he used became, upon reflection, an argument against gambling, and the only thing he really effected, was the proof that the law recently passed against gamblers by the legislature of this State is not stringent enough.

Mr. Freeman announced that on Wednesday next, he would deliver a lecture, in which he would review his course of life, and offer arguments against gambling--which he freely confessed to be a vice, even while he proclaimed his right to practise it. Such an exposition cannot fail to be of deep interest.

From the Inquirer.

This controversy was continued on Saturday evening, Dr. Elder in the chair. The Lecture-room at the Chinese Museum was crowded on the occasion.

Mr. Freeman commented on the notice taken by the press of the controversy--in general it was manly and dignified; Mr. Freeman read from the Post, in which gambling was severely opposed. The ground on which Mr. Freeman had canvassed this matter was, he contended, in accordance with Blackstone, Paley, and other great men, who thought--namely, that a man had a right to do what he liked with his own things. Mr. Freeman held that a thing might be legally right and morally wrong. A man had a legal right (he contended) to gamble--but in a moral light he would not defend it. Suppose a man had two sons, and, from some trivial cause, he resolved to cut off one of them with a shilling. He had a legal right so to do--but perhaps he was morally wrong. Mr. Freeman answered an article that had appeared in the Post. Mr. Freeman contended that young men who engaged in gambling, did so generally from a bad system of education.

The Post had contended, in opposition to Mr. Freeman's maxim that a man had a right to do what he pleased with his own things, so long as he did not interfere with others, that gambling did interfere with the rights of others; for example, it might prevent men from paying their debts, or it might prompt them to commit suicide, either of which was a wrong to society. Mr. Freeman contended, nevertheless, that a man had such a right--certainly he had, if he were not in debt--but if he were, it was then his duty to live as long as he could, to endeavour to pay his debts. Mr. Freeman illustrated his points by allusions to Gen. Taylor and Gen. Jackson--adding, "let the truth be told if the heavens fall."

Mr. Freeman again opposed the new law passed against gambling--for, he said, it was so shaped, that if a man of property gambled, he could not be troubled, but a poor, itinerant gambler could be punished. Mr. Freeman read the law in proof--wherein a difference certainly appeared to be made between those who had something to live upon, and a merely itinerant gambler--the latter liable to imprisonment if he kept a gaming house, of from one to five years. Indeed, "being without a fixed residence" is one of the features of the law. Such a law appeared to Mr. Freeman as if, for example, a man of standing were to go into a store and steal, he would be let off--- whereas, if an itinerant man were to steal, he must be punished with years of imprisonment. The cases were parallel, and yet, it seemed to him that a man of good standing ought to be punished more severely than the other, because his temptations were not so great. Such a law, so partial, was a disgrace to the statute-book. From what he knew of legislators, he thought they had made such a law, knowing that gambling was a bad vice, as a bugbear, to deter people from engaging in it--and, in some cases, because they were afraid of public opinion, and servilely followed the crowd, lest at some future time they might lose their election.

Mr. Freeman said that he considered himself as an anti-gambler--but injustice had been done to gamblers, and he had defended them as far as he consistently could--and if an audience would meet him on Tuesday night, he would give them an anti-gambling lecture. He differed with Mr. Green.

Mr. Green wished to know why Mr. Freeman should dislike the law so much, if he considered gambling a bad vice--he (Mr. Green) really did not understand such a position. Such was the effect of gambling upon the mind, that he was sure that when Mr. Freeman first lost his money, (three thousand dollars,) and first became a gambler, he would not have spoken as he had that night. A young man, in gambling, was driven on by degrees, by the excitement of cards, of fine wines, society, &c. Gamblers ridiculed all ideas of reform, and said to the young man, you know all about us--we are called gamblers--and the young man thinks he knows all about them, as he finds them fascinating--but he knows nothing about them. When the young man is ruined, what do the gamblers do for him? Nothing. Such a young man in Baltimore was thus ruined, and became a sot--and at length had no place to sleep, unless the gamblers allowed him. One night, he was awakened by the gambler shaking him, and calling him a loafer. The poor man said, "I do not deserve this at your hands. This was the first house I gambled in." The gambler threw him down stairs, and his head struck the curb-stone, and Mr. Green lent him his handkerchief to bind up the wound, and prevented further mischief being done to him. The next day he was found under one of the wharves--_dead!_ And such was the treatment inflicted on him by the gamblers. Mr. Green then defended the new law.

Mr. Freeman said that he opposed the law because he thought it discreditable to Pennsylvania--that there should be a law to the effect that, "If I play cards, a man may say to me--there, you have done an act that, if legally visited, would send you to the Penitentiary." Mr. Freeman illustrated his views by a reference to the explosion of steamboats. Mr. Freeman said that there was never but one gambler put into prison south of Mason & Dixon's line. Mr. Freeman hinted that Mr. Green at Harrisburg had shown gambling tricks upon cards, with packs that were known to him--prepared cards, in fact. He thus astonished the natives. And this was one influence brought in aid of a passage of the law.

A vote was then taken on the question--"Shall the proceeds of this night be given to Mr. Freeman?" It was decided in the affirmative by a large majority.

Mr. Freeman did not deny that cheating was practised by the gamblers. But Mr. Freeman contended that Mr. Green could not perform the tricks, could not cheat with cards that he was not familiar with. Mr. Freeman produced a pack which he had just bought, and were otherwise untouched--and he said that Mr. Green could not operate with that pack. He defied him.

Mr. Green said that this was no argument. But if Mr. Freeman would agree, and the meeting would appoint a committee of twelve citizens, he would before that committee meet Mr. Freeman, and with those cards exhibit tricks of gamblers.

Some discussion ensued, and it was agreed that a committee should be appointed. Subsequently Mr. Green said he would exhibit before the audience; but that if Mr. Freeman shuffled the pack, he might of course disarrange his (Mr. Green's) play. But Mr. Green had contended that any gambler _in his own play_ could cheat. And Mr. Green displayed several extraordinary tricks, in which he was remarkably successful, particularly in illustrating the facility with which two partners in gambling could win from their opponents with certainty.

At the conclusion of the meeting, upon Mr. Freeman submitting to the audience the question--"Have I sustained my position?"--it was decided in the negative. The question however, was not put until the audience had risen to depart--but the response was general.

From the Daily Sun.

We have been no inattentive observers of the debate on gambling, between Mr. Green, and his able and plausible antagonist, Mr. Freeman--who brought to the defence of a bad cause, an energy, an earnestness, and a power of illustration, which, on any other subject, must have crowned him with the laurels of a brilliant victory. But what power of logic--what force of elocution--- what stretch, of fancy, _can_ defend gambling?--which, even if right _in itself_, is yet attended by such baneful consequences--such appalling effects--as to strike terror into the hearts of the most reckless, and seal the lips of eloquence by the blood of the unfortunate? This was illustrated in a most striking manner in the recent debate--where a long tissue of false logic, on the part of Mr. Freeman, was blown to the winds by the simple recital of a _fact_, by Mr. Green detailing the death of a ruined gambler by the hands of a prosperous one! _Blood_ dispelled all the illusions of logic. Argument evaporated before the _corpse_ of the victim. Applause for ingenious argument was hushed in a moment, when the dead body of the gambler appeared in view! What a tribute to the power of _truth_--what a tremendous triumph of nature, and her sacred laws, over the flimsy artifices of passion, fiction, and a diseased imagination, fevered by habitual vice.

Dr. Johnson says that the gambler is no better than a robber, because he acquires property without an equivalent. The whole gist of the argument lies here. You strip a man of fortune, or tear from his hands the earnings of a long life, and give him in return--_nothing!_ Mr. Freeman says, in answer to this--yes, you give him the chance of robbing you! And he goes so far in his sophistry, as to contend that if a man attempts to rob you on the highway, you have a right to rob him! Such is the language of the gambler, on the rule of right, who wanting a principle of virtue, resorts to every extravagant theory, to justify his violations of the first law of nature.

Justice is the foundation of all human institutions: and this ordains, that no man shall take from another, what is his own, without paying him an equivalent. The gambler pays no equivalent--and hence, he stands on the same platform with the robber.

The strong point in the logic of Mr. Freeman was, that _other professions_ also acquire property without paying an equivalent, and therefore gamblers were not criminal! We marvelled that a man of his sagacity should venture on so gross a sophism. He alluded to speculators and stock-jobbers, who gained their thousands without an exchange of values, and exulted that the gambler was no worse. But could this make the gambler an honest man, because other men were rogues? How desperate the cause that could clutch at so frail a straw for support! Yet Mr. Freeman appeared perfectly unconscious of the imbecility of his reasoning. More perfect hallucination we never beheld!

Every man _feels_, when he gains property without an equivalent, that he has done a wrong. Every dollar so acquired plants a fang in his heart. Conscience goads him. He is miserable, restless, tortured, and for temporary relief flies to the transient oblivion of the bowl. When he wins, he drinks--and when he loses, he drinks to desperation. He feels that when he wins, he is a rogue--and that when he loses, he is a victim--no matter whether gambler, speculator or stock-jobber--he has violated the _rule of right_, by acquiring property without an equivalent; and he feels the degradation of the robber, who cries "stand!" to the passenger on the highway, and extorts his purse, with the pistol at his breast.

Of the fascinating charms of gambling, history has left us too many records to make us insensible of the importance of the safe-guards which society ought to erect, to defend itself from the poison of so infectious a contamination. Who would believe, that the great _Wilberforce_ was once a gambler! That even _Pitt_ once stood on the brink of a gambler's hell. But Wilberforce was cured by _winning_ £2000 at _Holland-house_--and such was the pain he felt for those who had lost their money, that it prevented all "his future triumphs in the infernal regions." But in those regions, flourished the greatest statesmen and wits of the age--who fell victims to the prevailing fascination of the gaming-table. What destroyed _Charles James Fox_, as a statesman? _Gambling!_ What brought the brilliant _Sheridan_ to the grave? Intoxication, brought on by the ill-starred luck of the ruined gamester? "_Holland-house!_" immortalized as the resort of genius, as well as for its orgies of dissipation, is not less renowned to infamy, as having been the "hell" of respectable gamesters.

There is a kind of democracy of crime, contended for by Mr. Freeman, that has its charms to the ears of the groundlings. He is opposed to a law that punishes _one_ class of gamblers only, instead of bringing _all_, within the focus of its penalties! There is much truth in this. Laws ought to be equal in their operation--but if they cannot be equal, this is no reason why there ought to be no laws at all. This conclusion is not warranted by any rule in logic or in government.

No man has a right to dispose of his property to the corruption of the public morals. Mr. Freeman adduced the instance of a father having a right to disinherit one son and prefer the other. This is not a parallel case. The parallel would be a rich man leaving his fortune to found an Institution of demoralizing tendency--say to teach you the art of cheating! The laws would annul such a bequest. Society has an original, inherent right to defend itself from all evil--and that gaming is an evil, whether played with cards, lotteries, dice, stocks, or betting, not even Mr. Freeman could seriously deny.

In the late debate between these celebrated speculators,--one reformed, the other confirmed in his vicious career--it was observed, what a tower of strength _truth_ gives to the man who espouses the _just_ cause. Mr. Green stood self-vindicated by his very position--while the labour of _Sisiphus_ devolved on Mr. Freeman. But the stone would not stay rolled up hill. It was no sooner at midway from the summit, but back it rolled upon its unfortunate and panting labourer.

The fostering power which _intemperance_ derives from the excitements of the gaming-table, would itself prove an effectual argument against this monstrous infatuation, if no other existed. But when we find intoxication, only one of a legion of vices that attend on it--and that fraud, cheating, forgery, swindling, robbery, murder, and suicide, are its unfailing companions--we may well marvel that it should find any man so reckless of public opinion, as to venture its championship. Mr. Freeman went so far in this mad advocacy of his darling pursuit, as to justify _suicide_! In this, however, he was perfectly consistent--for if gaming of any kind is right, so is murder, robbery, and suicide. In this, Mr. Freeman over-reached himself--and by attempting too much, exposed the futility and weakness of his case.

One fact, of a highly useful import, was established by this debate--and having received the concurrent attestation of Mr. Freeman, must now be considered as no longer open to doubt--that _cheating_ is a necessary part of gaming, from which even _honourable_ gamblers--(what a revolting solecism!)--do not shrink! But this is not the worst of the admissions made, in the course of this debate--which we here enumerate:

1. The winner is always in danger of murder--and runs for his life.

2. The loser becomes a cheat, a murderer, a suicide, or a drunkard.

3. The tortures of the damned are common to all gamblers, winners and losers.

4. Deception and lying are their common attributes.

5. Outlawed by public opinion--they wage implacable war against the morals, peace, and happiness of society.

* * * * *

So many allusions have been made to the Laws of Ohio and Pennsylvania against gambling, that it is thought necessary to append them here, that the reader may judge for himself how far the charges of impolicy, partiality, and non-efficiency are justified by these instruments.

[_Law of Pennsylvania for the Suppression of Gambling, drafted by_ J. H. GREEN.]