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 a.s.sembly, 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 Sat.u.r.day 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 Sat.u.r.day 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 pa.s.sed 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 Sat.u.r.day 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 canva.s.sed 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 ill.u.s.trated 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 pa.s.sed 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 ill.u.s.trated 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 pa.s.sage 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 ill.u.s.trating 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 ill.u.s.tration, 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 ill.u.s.trated 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 pa.s.sion, 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 inst.i.tutions: 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 pa.s.senger 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 h.e.l.l. 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 "h.e.l.l" 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_ cla.s.s 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 Inst.i.tution 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.