DEBATE ON GAMBLING,

BETWEEN

MR. FREEMAN THE AVOWED GAMBLER, AND MR. GREEN, THE REFORMED GAMBLER; BEFORE THE CITIZENS OF PHILADELPHIA, IN THE LECTURE-ROOM OF THE CHINESE MUSEUM, ON THE EVENINGS OF THE 10TH, 13TH, AND 15TH OF MAY, 1847.

Mr. Freeman's challenge, and Mr. Green's acceptance, as published in the papers of the city of Philadelphia.

From the Inquirer.

It is well known that Mr. Green, the Reformed Gambler, gave a Lecture at the Museum on Monday night last, in which he exposed the arts and devices of the Gambling Fraternity of the Union. His audience was quite large, and his illustrations were listened to with no little interest. It seems from the following article, which we copy from the Sun of yesterday, that a professional Gambler was present. His Card or Challenge is quite a curiosity:

Mr. Editor:—Having attended the Lecture of J. H. Green, last evening, at the Chinese Museum, on the popular vice of Gambling, and differing from him in each and in every view which he took, and which he is in the habit of taking upon that subject, I beg leave respectfully to say to him through the medium of your columns, that I have made up my mind to confront him in debate, in regard to the right and wrong of the subject in question. I say, I am willing so to do, provided it meets his views, and those of the community. If he, and those who admire his theory, are the friends of truth, surely they will not shrink from investigation?—and if I cannot sustain myself in debate, why, his triumph will add strength to his cause.

With regard to who I am, I will say in a single word that I am a professional Gambler. I shall set out, if we meet, to prove to the audience, among other things, that in his illustrations of the cheatery which he says the gambler practices upon his victim, he is actually at that very moment practising a palpable cheat upon the very audience which he is proposing to enlighten. As regards any profits that may arise from such a meeting, I want none, although perhaps as needy as Mr. Green.

As regards experience in debate, Mr. G. has decidedly the advantage of me in that respect. I have had the honour of addressing public audiences four times in my whole life, and but four—two of these were in favour of Old Tip, in 1840, and the other two upon the subject of temperance. I am well aware that there are many persons who would look upon it as a sort of inconsistency that a man, occupying my position, should be the honest advocate of temperance—but they so reason because they are uninformed in regard to the higher order of gambling!

Should Mr. Green accede to my proposition, he only has to name his time and place—or if he prefers to have a personal interview, he can do so. I am willing to wait on him at his boarding-house, but would like to have at least one respectable person present to hear all that passes between us.

J.G. FREEMAN.

N.B.—I am a native of South Carolina; I am known from Virginia to Orleans. Mr. Green I have seen in that city, and he no doubt recollects me, though I never had any intimacy with him.

We publish below another communication from Mr. Freeman, in which he announces that Mr. Green has accepted his challenge to debate, and lays down his points for argument. We are glad of this, and have no doubt the public will share in our curiosity to know what kind of a defence can be made by a gambler, even so polished as Mr. Freeman, for a vice fitly characterized by Mr. Green as "fifty per cent. worse than stealing." Expectation is on tiptoe.

Communicated for the Sun.

Mr. Editor—I return to you my sincere thanks for having kindly published my letter to Mr. J. H. Green, the reformed gambler; and beg leave now to state to you, that I have had an interview with him, and that he fully consents to go into the debate. It now devolves upon me, since I have assumed the character of plaintiff in the action, to define minutely the exact points to be discussed.

The first position, then, that I shall assume, is that all those states in this Union that have enacted very severe laws against gambling, such as making it a penitentiary offence, &c., have acted both tyrannically and unwisely—tyrannically, because they are an infringement upon those sacred reserved rights that never were yielded in what law commentators call the "social compact"—and unwise, because their tendency is to generate immorality rather than stop it.

The second ground that I shall take, is that the character of that class of beings called "gamblers" is less understood by the community at large, and especially by that portion of it that have had no intercourse with them, than any class of men in the world. That it has ever been the misfortune of the gambler to be misrepresented, not only of late by Mr. Green, but generally by those that have attempted to portray his character in the prints.

I shall undertake to show him up in his true character, making it neither better nor worse than it really is—"Let justice be done if the heavens fall."

In the third place, I shall propose to prove beyond question, that cheating at cards is decidedly the most unfortunate thing for the cause of gambling and gamblers, that possibly could exist. And on the other hand, that it is the very saviour of that portion of mankind who have a sneaking fondness for play.

In the fourth place, I will attempt to prove that those tricks that Mr. Green is in the habit of illustrating with cards, are entirely worthless; that they can not be reduced to practice; that if they can, it must be on persons wholly destitute of common sense; that an opinion that he can tell any cards by the back, is entirely untrue; that neither he nor any other man can do any such thing, unless the cards have been marked either by himself or some other person.

In the course of those proceedings, I shall take upon myself, for the benefit of the young and inexperienced who may be present, to make such developments as will be of lasting importance to them in their sojourn through this mazy world; for, as Mr. Calhoun once said of the Constitution of the United States, if there be any one man that loves innocent youth better than all others, I claim to be that man. To seduce one into any vicious habit when uncontaminated, is a thing I would scorn to do. And the pleasure which I feel, when I reflect upon it, of having actually saved some half dozen from ruin, is to me unspeakable. But for this I know I am never to be credited; for Mr. Green has informed us that the gambler is hardened, for he never goes to church, and if you reach him at all it must be with a penitentiary act.

But, pardon me, Messrs. Editors, this is not the time nor the place for the argument.

Yours, respectfully, J.G. FREEMAN.

Mr. Green says he will inform me on to-morrow when it will suit to have the meeting.

Mr. Green, it will be seen by the following letter, has consented to meet his challenger in debate on the subject of gambling. We are glad of this, inasmuch as Mr. Freeman is said to be quite an intelligent gentleman, and stands at the head of his profession. The discussion, if conducted in a proper spirit, will be attended by good results.—ED.

For the Daily Sun.

Philadelphia, April 29, 1847.

Messrs. Barrett & Jones:—In the "Sun" of the 28th and 29th inst. are two communications, over the signature of J.G. Freeman, proposing to controvert my positions relative to the gamblers, and challenging me to a public discussion.

This individual called upon me after the publication of his first letter, and seemed to be honest in his intentions to defend his system of untold enormities. If the public, therefore, can be benefited, and my reformatory purpose in this particular promoted, as I suspect it will, I would rather court than avoid such an interview.

I have long wished for, but certainly never expected such a discussion.

I see the shoe begins to pinch. I am glad to perceive that those for whom it was made are beginning to feel and cry aloud. Just as I anticipated, the law seems to be the part which binds most. Men who are most without conscience are generally most restive in view of a threatening penitentiary.

I will accept the challenge to meet him on the several points proposed in his communications. Indeed I am happy that he has chosen his own grounds; for the best which such opposition could select is likely in all conscience to be bad enough.

Suffer me therefore to say to your correspondent that I intend lecturing on the evenings of the 10th, 13th, and 15th of the coming month, (May,) at the Lecture-room of the Chinese Museum, on George street; at which times I will be very happy if he will attend and defend such positions as are assumed in the two communications alluded to.

I shall require, however, that a committee of gentlemen be chosen to control the discussion.

J. H. GREEN.

The Lecture-room of the Museum will, we think, be found much too small to accommodate the audience, who desire to be present on these interesting occasions. Would it not be better to take the upper part of the Museum building? It would certainly be filled.—ED.

Messrs. Editors:—There is a feature in Mr. Green's acceptance to my challenge to meet him in debate upon the subject of gambling, with which I frankly confess I am not at all pleased. Upon looking over it, you will discover that he uses the following language: "Suffer me, therefore, to say to your correspondent, that I intend lecturing on the evenings of the 10th, 13th, and 15th of the coming month, (May,) at the lecture-room of the Chinese Museum, on George street; at which time I will be very happy if he will attend and defend such positions as are assumed in the two communications alluded to." Now, I should like to know Mr. Green's motive for calling a debate a lecture? Why not call things by their right names?

You will, therefore, Messrs. Editors, be pleased to inform your correspondent, Mr. Green, that I cordially consent to meet him at the time and place designated by him, for the purpose of debating the gambling question; and the cash which may be taken at the door to be divided between us, if any, after all the expenses are paid, or to be disposed of in such a manner as the committee may deem just and proper. 'Tis true, I did say in my first communication that I did not care to have any of the money, and I so felt and so thought at that time; but since, I have employed some reflection upon the subject, and, like some of our modern politicians, I have changed. 'Tis true that money is no part of the motive, but then, as Mr. Polk once expressed himself in regard to the tariff and protection, I am willing that it should come in incidentally.

Now, it falls to my lot to know much more of the history of Mr. Green than any of those who know it only from his own statements and publications. About four or five years ago, in the city of New York, I became acquainted with a gentleman by the name of Ball, a dealer in ivory; this Mr. B. exhibited a large quantity of Mr. Green's cheating cards, and said that Mr. Green was largely in his debt, and that his only way to make the debt was to sell those cards, and asked me to buy. He then took me into another room and exhibited to me some very costly machinery, and certainly the strangest I had ever seen;—it had been invented by Mr. Green to put a sign on white-back cards, so as to know them by the backs. He also showed me other stamps invented by Mr. Green. Now the consummation of this work had cost Mr. Green not only much valuable time, but all the money he could possibly borrow; but, after all, the thing ends in disaster—the cards don't sell. Desperation seizes upon him. Like Arnold, he now throws his eye over to the other camp, and thinks what might be done in the way of a reward. He consoles himself with the reflection that he will, at least, be upon the side of virtue: "I will tell the public that my only motive is to benefit the rising generation, (a profitable thought with Mr. Green, 'the rising generation'); but in order to begin right, I will publish to the world a full history of my life, in which it will devolve upon me to make a confession of my sins. All, I will disclose to the world; but as to that ponderous machinery at Mr. Ball's in New York—I rather think I will skip that."

Now when poverty pinched the prodigal son, as it did Mr. Green in New York, what was the language of that truly penitent. Alluding to his old father, he says: "I will go and tell all I ever done, &c." But when Mr. Green resolves to put on a mask of penitence, what is his course? I will go and tell those good ministers of the gospel, and others, half I ever done, &c., and then take good care to run my hand as deep into their purses as possible.

Now in Mr. Green's crusade against gambling and gamblers, if he had shown signs of purity of motive, and had not wantonly and knowingly misrepresented the men, and disguised the facts in regard to the profession, I would be the last man living to impugn him. But the motive, I consider, was corrupt—'twas spoils;—and in the mode of attack, the established principle in morals has not been regarded, which is, that the means in the accomplishment of any public good must always be as honest as the ends; and for these reasons I do feel sanguine in the belief, when the trial comes off at the Chinese Museum next week, that if I do not get the verdict, I shall do more—I shall deserve it.

Yours, &c. J.G. FREEMAN.

N.B.—If the gentlemen, editors generally, of this city, will give the above communication a place in their columns, with such comments as they may think fit to make, they will confer a favour upon one of the proscribed, but one who suffers no man to stand in front of him as a lover of truth.

J.G.F.

Communicated for the Sun.

Messrs. Barrett & Jones:—I had supposed that my consent to Mr. Freeman's request to be heard in defence of his fraternity, had fixed that issue. I did not intend by the announcement of my lecturing on the evenings alluded to by Mr. F., that they were to be any thing more than a fair discussion of the character and tendencies of gambling, if Mr. F. should think proper to participate. I wish it now to be so understood. I want a committee of gentlemen to arrange this matter. But why Mr. F. should suppose that he should have half the proceeds of the meeting, I am unable to conjecture. He seeks an opportunity to defend his business against attacks which it seems has excited no small share of alarm on his part, or those whom he represents, and yet he demands remuneration! The fraternity must be in a rather forlorn condition at present, if they are unable to pay their attorney, in so philanthropic a cause. When we consider the source, this demand sits with ill grace upon such a champion. I have laboured now for four years, having commenced my reform without a dollar, to expose this damnable vice. If I am not supported by the public which my labours are designed to benefit, those labours must necessarily cease.

Were Mr. F. similarly engaged, I would share with him not only the profits of my meetings, but my heart's best feelings also.

I shall be very happy if I am met, as I was led to believe, am no speaker, but somewhat skilful with cards, and their use by me before an intelligent audience is my argument; I want no better for my purpose.

J. H. GREEN.

Messrs. Editors:—It appears from Mr. Green's last communication that he and I are at issue in regard to the preliminary arrangements of the debate that is to come off next week, upon the gambling question. He thinks that he ought to have all the proceeds of the meeting; and I think it should be equally divided, or else given to some charitable institution, or else have it free. Mr. Green's argument for supposing that he should have all, is, that because he has been labouring four years, he ought to be rewarded: and in rather a threatening tone gives the public to understand that if they do not reward him he will quit. "If I am not," he says, "supported by the public, which my labours are designed to benefit, those labours must necessarily cease." Now, my argument for supposing that the proceeds should be equally divided is, that I claim to be the real reformer; that it will be seen by those who may attend the discussion, that it is I that am the true moralist—I shall go with the New Testament in one hand, and Dr. Paley's Moral Philosophy in the other, and upon that battery, and no other, will I plant my artillery. He that is green enough to suppose that I am green-horn enough to get up before a large audience, in the enlightened city of Philadelphia, to defend an absurdity, must be verdant indeed I go not to defend gamblers, but to defend truth, and to show that Mr. Green, like a corrupt witness, in his eagerness to procure a verdict for his party, goes beyond the facts; and that too when there is no necessity for it, for the gambler has real sins enough without heaping others upon him which he never committed. Now then, to end all this difficulty at a blow, I make to Mr. Green the proposition—That the honourable Mayor of the city, if he will do it, be the person to appoint the committee that is to conduct the debate, and to the decision of the committee, as to the funds, will I cordially submit, but not to Mr. Green's ipse dixit. And here I will further suggest, that the committee be composed wholly of lawyers. This will be proper, because it is a question of law that is to be discussed; and further, it is presumed that they understand better than any other class of men what is called parliamentary usage.

Should this proposition not be acceded to, which I know is fair, my course will be to debate the question on "my own hook," and in that case take all the money and give Mr. Green not a dollar of it, but invite him to come to my quarters, and defend himself, for I shall certainly be down upon him—and so let him go to his house the next night and take what may be offered at his door, and allow me to answer him in what he may have to say.

When Mr. Green, in his acceptance of my challenge, would call the debate a lecture, I saw that old habits, that of cheating, had not yet left him. Why it looks as though he has the unblushing impudence to attempt to turn a Jack from the bottom, upon me, in the very blaze of day, the very first deal; but the gentleman ought to know that he is now in contact with one who knows how little things are done. Yes, he would have it that the debate was a lecture, and Mr. Green's lecture, not mine, and why? Why because if it be his lecture, all the cash would, as a matter of course, be his. Also, is this not, I ask, the trick of a perfect black-leg?

J.G. FREEMAN.

First Night, from the Times.

On Monday evening, at the Lecture-room of the Chinese Museum, the debate between Mr. Green, the Reformed gambler, and Mr. J.G. Freeman of the opposite side took place, in the presence of a very large and highly respectable audience, partly composed of ladies.

Dr. Elder, at the appointed time, announced that the disputants were upon the ground, and prepared to enter into the discussion of the subject of gambling. He then introduced Mr. Freeman to the meeting.

Mr. F. said his antagonist and himself had settled the preliminaries, and in regard to the proceeds of the debates, it had been agreed that Mr. Green should receive those of the two first meetings, and that Mr. Freeman should receive the returns of the third meeting, provided, on motion, a large majority of those present were in favour of it.

He would not attempt to disguise his real feelings from his hearers, and the gratification he experienced in having the opportunity of speaking, for once in his life, to an audience composed of men of intelligence and integrity. He well knew the difficulties under which he laboured, being unused to speaking in public, and surrounded as he was in the community by the reverend gentlemen and the press, who were avowedly opposed to him, and who had thrown their bomb-shells and Congreve rockets liberally at the gambling fraternity, without mercy, but he regarded these weapons as harmless, for they had fallen at his feet without inflicting a single wound.

Mr. F. then turned to the consideration of the laws making gambling a penal offence, and particularly referred to the act of Assembly passed by the last legislature, which he denounced as unjust and impolitic. He did not appear for the purpose of defending gambling, but to speak a word in favour of those who had been represented to be the worst members of society, and against whom the voice of proscription had been raised. He contended that a man had a constitutional right to do what he pleased with that which was legally his own property, and all laws passed to abridge that right ought to receive public reprehension.

He was at a loss to understand why Mr. Green should have taken so active a part in the passage of the law at Harrisburg. It had been said that gambling must be checked, and in order to put it down, you must make it a penitentiary offence. He regarded this as an egregious error. Gambling, he was convinced, ought to be treated in the same manner as Intemperance—by moral suasion—and not by passing a law that puts a man in the penitentiary for exercising a legal right. But there were fewer gamblers than drunkards, and the former had no influence at the ballot-box.

He denied the statements of Mr. Green, that young men had been enticed to gambling-houses. They invariably went there of their own accord, and he related instances in which the relatives and friends of young men were called upon by gamblers, to exercise proper authority in restraining them from visiting such places.

He alluded to the excessive penalty attached to the law, and argued that it would never be enforced, there being no inducement for the police to detect the offenders; and that from the face of the law is shown, that it was not made for the punishment of wealthy gamblers, but the poor itinerant wretches who had no local habitation. These being birds of passage, he questioned whether they would remain long enough in one place to be caught, while the rich operator and speculator would be permitted to go on unmolested, in his gilded career of depredations upon his fellow man.

Mr. Green then arose and expressed his surprise that any individual could have the effrontery to stand up before an intelligent body of citizens, a part of that constituency, from whom the legislature of the state had derived its authority, and denounce a law which had not only been passed with entire unanimity of the members of that body, but which had met with general favour from the people. He then referred to the act of Assembly, and made some explanatory remarks upon it. He ably defended the law from the remarks of his opponent, in regard to its vagueness and insufficiency. On the whole, he regarded it as a good one. It could be effectively put in force, and was calculated to crush the evil of gambling.

He said he had no wish to conceal from the people his former habits and mode of getting a livelihood, but on the contrary, had repeatedly, in public, represented himself as being a wary gambler, and acknowledged that he had done, perhaps, as much with cards in a professional way as any man claiming the same amount of information in regard to them.

He then passed to a review of the terrible consequences of gambling, and showed that those who became addicted to it, acquired a passion for play, that predominated over every other feeling, and closed up the springs of affection and sympathy in the human heart.

These facts he forcibly and eloquently illustrated by relating some painful occurrence, which came under his observation. On one occasion he was playing with a party, one of whom was losing his money very rapidly. In the height of a game, his family physician entered the room, and saying that it was with much difficulty that he found his whereabouts, informed him that his daughter had been seized with extreme illness. The gambler replied, that he would return to his home very soon.

The doctor left, but not long after returned with the gambler's wife, who implored him to come home, as the girl was dying. He desired the doctor to lead his wife from the room, with the solemn promise to follow them; which promise he seemed to have forgotten the next instant, so deeply was he interested in the play, and he remained at the gaming-table. In a little while after, the doctor returned and told him his daughter was dead. For the moment, he appeared to be greatly affected, but he still sat at the faro table of that h——l, and when he arose from it he was a ruined man.

The man has since reformed, and Mr. Green said that when he last saw him, in Baltimore, he attempted to describe the feelings which rent his breast, after he had realized the sad events of that night. His first desire was to commit suicide, but the hand of Providence stayed his arm, and by His interposition he was enabled to turn from the vice, and shun the society of those who practise it.

Mr. Green re-asserted that all he had stated about plans being laid to catch the unwary, by gamblers, was strictly true. He had been cognisant of plottings of the fraternity, and in speaking of some individual who was about to be plucked, the common expression among them was, "that he was not ripe yet." The remarks of Mr Green were listened to with great attention by the audience.

Mr. Freeman followed, and after briefly replying to the points of the previous speaker, said that it was his intention, at the next meeting, to prove that all species of speculation is, properly speaking, gambling.

The Rev. John Chambers concluded. He confessed his disappointment. He expected to find a man here who would attempt to defend gambling, but he congratulated the audience that no such thing had been attempted, Mr. Freeman having acknowledged gambling to be an evil.

The Reverend gentleman's remarks were of a general character, and in the course of their delivery he upheld the law of the state, and unsparingly denounced those for whose detection and punishment it was passed.

First Night, from the Saturday Evening Post.

The discussion on gambling, between Mr. Green the Reformed gambler, and Mr. Freeman, of the "Profession," which has been looked forward to with so much interest, opened upon Monday evening. The audience generally, however, were rather disappointed, inasmuch as Mr. Freeman stated that he did not come there to defend gambling, but only to prove the folly and injustice of attempting to put it down by making its practice, by professional gamblers, an offence punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary. But although Mr. Freeman made this avowal, he evidently did attempt in various parts of the discussion to defend gambling—not, however, as a thing good in itself, but as being no worse than many other practices which society tolerates, and which no man loses his reputation, or is in danger of imprisonment, for engaging in.

We have no scruple in confessing, that we were much interested in Mr. Freeman. He appears to be one of a singular class of men, some one of whom may be found in nearly every pursuit, however dishonourable—men of keen and subtle minds, and of as much goodness and honesty of purpose as is possible in the life which they have chosen, or into which perhaps they have been in a degree forced. In the course of his remarks, he made one allusion to his own history, which while it told as much as any thing that was said in the course of the debate against gambling, opened unto us, in a degree, the secret of his present position. He said that when he was a young man, he had lost his all at the gaming table, and that from that blow he had never recovered—"it had broken his heart." And yet, strange anomaly, he now not only makes his living by gambling, but stands up before the world as its defender.

But let us look a little further into Mr. Freeman's arguments. He did not state them very plainly, being evidently unaccustomed to public speaking, and, as the English say, to "thinking on his legs," but if we are not mistaken, he reasons to his own heart as follows. Gambling in cards is not right abstractly, but it is the same in principle as gambling in stocks, in breadstuffs, in merchandise, in land, or in any thing else. None of these are right, but they are necessary fruits of the folly and wickedness of men, and inevitable in the present condition of society. "I make my living, I know," he probably says, "from the weakness and wickedness of my fellow men; but so do the physician, the judge, the lawyer, the jailer, and the hangman." If we are not mistaken, in this way does Mr. Freeman make out a clear case to his own conscience; and to some small extent he is right in what he asserts. To gamble with cards is the same principle as to gamble with stocks, or any thing else—the difference is only one of degree; but although the gambler and the judge both live, in a certain sense, off of the vices of their fellow men, the difference is very evident between him whose business conduces to increase those vices, and his whose noble office it is to lessen them.

But Mr. Freeman complains that, while the gambler with cards is proscribed by society, and branded with all marks of shame, and laws passed to imprison him if found practising his art, the gambler in stocks is neither reviled nor imprisoned. At the rank injustice, as he, in our opinion, honestly believes it, of this course on the part of society, he can hardly contain his indignation. Those "uncouth gestures," as one of our contemporaries designates them, were not in our opinion intended for effect, but were the natural language of uncontrollable indignation at what he believes to be the rank in justice of society, which he could not adequately express in words. The audience laughed, but the speaker was far from laughing—a perfect tempest of conflicting emotions, it seemed to us, was agitating his bosom. Strange as it may sound to our readers, he evidently thought that his cause was just, and wanted to make it appear so, not to the gamblers and their friends, hundreds of whom were present, and ready at any moment with their applause, but to the crowd of intelligent, virtuous men and women, in whose audience he stood. We saw the breaking out of this feeling in the half-contemptuous manner in which he alluded to the tastes of gamblers in general, as contrasted with his own—"he did not keep the company of gamblers; he had nothing to say against them, but his tastes were different."

But is it unjust to punish the gambler with cards by imprisonment and public proscription, while the gambler in stocks, &c., whose crime is the same in principle, though not in degree, goes unwhipt of justice? Undoubtedly it is, for it is no reason that one vice should go unpunished, because another is able to escape for the present. Mr. Freeman's argument is very good, so far as it applies to inflicting upon the gambler in stocks the same penalty as on himself; but the law of Progress, and the best interests of society, demand that these things should never be allowed to work backwards. For the way society advances, is simply this—the worst manifestations of vice are first proscribed, and then their proscription is made a stepping-stone to demolish others. For instance—we attack gambling with cards, the worst manifestation of the gambling principle; we make it abhorrent to the moral sense of the world; we so confound it, and justly too, with robbery, that future generations shall grow up in that faith, and all the efforts of interested sophistry never be able henceforward to separate them to the popular apprehension. Having done this, in the course of some fifty or one hundred years, certain dealings in stocks, for instance, are called in question. If they can be proved to be rightly described by the phrase "GAMBLING in Stocks," the battle is half-won. For the proscription of the worst kind of gambling has given a vantage ground from which to attack the principle of gambling wherever found. And this, we say, is the only law of progress.

Another ground taken by Mr. Freeman was, that "a man has a right to do what he chooses with his own, if in so doing he does not injure anybody else." In a limited sense, this is true, doubtless—but he does injure somebody else if he fails to perform his duties to his family or to his country. For instance, he has no right to commit suicide. But gambling cannot be done without injuring somebody else, as it takes two to play at it—leaving out of view the injury done to society at large, as Mr. Green has shown in his various works on the subject. But there is no necessity in dwelling upon this point—it cannot be defended for a moment.

As to Mr. Green's part in the discussion, it is not necessary to say much. He has our confidence and sympathy. We consider his present course a most noble one, and wish him all success in his efforts to overthrow the abominable vice from whose clutches he has come forth a reformed man.

We have taken up considerable room with this subject, because we feel great interest in both parties engaged in the discussion. Did Mr. Freeman appear to be only a bold, bad man, we should hardly have wasted a single paragraph upon him or his arguments. But he is evidently a man of considerable information and talent, and to all appearance, strange as it may sound, of much sincerity and cross-grained honesty. That he may be led to forsake his present pursuits, before his gray hairs shall have gone down to a dishonoured grave, is our fervent wish and prayer.

From Scott's Weekly.

The interesting question between Mr. J. H. Green, the Reformed Gambler, and Mr. J.G. Freeman, as to the rights of gambling, was discussed in the Lecture-room of the Museum Building, on Monday evening last. A large audience attended, and notwithstanding the zeal of Mr. Freeman more than once carried him a little beyond the limits of propriety, the whole passed off pleasantly.

The announcement in the papers was not adhered to, which created some dissatisfaction; but then the speeches of Mr. Freeman were of themselves well worth the price of admission. He did not defend gambling—he could not, he said, pretend to defend it—he only meant to deny the sweeping aspersions of its foes. He spoke at great length, and sometimes his logic was quite ingenious.

Mr. Green confined himself to a few facts, leaving the more minute part of the discussion for a subsequent evening.

The Rev. John Chambers closed the proceedings by a few timely remarks, in which he reviewed what he considered lawful and unlawful pursuits—among these latter, he hoped to see the time that every vender of intoxicating liquors would be placed in the same catalogue that gamblers are by the recent law—imprisonment. He then referred to the decorum of the audience, and expressed a hope that all the future discussions would be listened to in the same spirit—that all the truth possible may be elicited in reference to that terrible vice—gambling.

From the Inquirer.

The long-talked-of debate upon gambling and its tendencies, was commenced last evening in the Lecture-room of the Chinese Museum. The audience was large, and deep interest was manifested in the discussion. Aboard of highly respectable gentlemen presided as Moderators, and Dr. Elder officiated as chairman.

Mr. Freeman, the challenger, opened the debate, and proposed that the question be met in a categorical form, thus:—Were the laws of the different states which make gambling a Penitentiary offence unjust and impolitic? Were they formed in good policy or not?

Mr. Freeman considered himself as honoured in being permitted to speak before the meeting on the question. Fearful odds were against him; all the ranks of battle were on the other side. The clergy, who were accustomed to public speaking, were against him—as well as the editors and the press. In the war now raging, the climate—the sickly climate, was more dangerous than the shells and shot of the enemy—and in this case, the sickly climate was the prejudice, the prejudice of opinion, which was against the cause he espoused, or rather defended. Mr. F. also referred to other influences against him. Mr. F. contended that even, if the states in which such laws were passed, disliked the vice of gambling—it was no reason why they should pass laws that were unjust and impolitic.

Mr. F. contended, in opposition to such laws, that a man had a perfect right to do what he pleased with his own things. Any legislation to the contrary was tyranny. More mischief and immorality would result from such laws than from the vice itself—for it was a violation of one of the rights of man on the mere score of expediency. He contended, therefore, that men had a perfect right to do what they pleased with their own things, so long as they did not interfere with the rights of others. A drunkard could not drink without disturbing other people—why not make his a Penitentiary offence? Yet a gambler was considered a Penitentiary offender, though he did not interfere with the rights of others.

What were speculators in railroads, &c. &c.?—Why many of them gamblers on the largest scale!

In noticing the temptations of gambling, Mr. F. said that he and other gamblers had often warned youths against entering upon that dangerous course, and had thus saved them from ruin.

Mr. F. argued against the law recently enacted at Harrisburg against gambling, on the ground that it was partial and unjust.

One of the strangest things was, that a man who had been imprisoned, had been an outcast himself, should be the first to betray, and to place others in the same situation, and send them to the Penitentiary. Yet such was the case with the gentleman who had come from Ohio to Harrisburg to assist in obtaining the passage of the law against gambling.

Mr. Green replied, and defended the law in question, as it was passed in Pennsylvania; and read a section, in which gamblers, without a fixed residence, were, upon conviction, to be imprisoned, &c.; and Mr. G. said that although no games were mentioned, yet all gambling games were included. Mr. G. admitted that he had been a gambler for many years, and had done much evil to the community—as much as most evil men—but he was now, he hoped, reformed. Mr. G. then contended that several gambling-houses and tables had been closed under this law—and surely this was a great advantage to the public—surely such closing of gaming-houses had saved many persons from ruin.

Mr. Green gave much experience of his gambling life, and contended that principles of honour were not common among gamblers. Gambling was a principle of robbery—of robbery from beginning to end. If gambling was right—why, Mr. Green would ask—did the former speaker persuade young men not to come into gambling-houses? Mr. Green described a splendid gambling-house in Calvert street, Baltimore, and the snares of robbery laid for the unwary—and the method adopted to entrap a rich and unwary citizen. The revelations were truly startling, and displayed a painful instance of the "facilis descensus averni"—a father whose feelings were blunted, and hardly to be re-awakened even by the death of a beloved daughter. And this was but one instance out of thousands, in which the sum of $1200, $1500, and $2000 had been lost at various times, and a fatal, fascinating infatuation contracted.

Mr. Freeman resumed, and again contended for the right of any man to gamble—that he had a right to do what he would with his own—and that a law was unfair which punished this one vice, and let other and greater vices alone. It was cowardly legislation. A gambler was said to have no home, and would not be missed, if he were sent to prison; but send a man of property, of standing to prison for some one of his vices, and there would soon be a fuss in the wigwam. Mr. F. was very severe upon the great body of editors, for following servilely public opinion, without courage or independence to express a manly opinion of their own.

Mr. F. said that all ministers were not good men—there were a few exceptions—neither should all gamblers, in fairness, be considered as scoundrels. He, Mr. F. as a gambler, never would admit his inferiority to those individuals who, without labour, gained money and circumvented others by extensive and fraudulent schemes of speculation.

The Rev. John Chambers summed up with great eloquence and ability, and said that he was disappointed—he had expected a defence and vindication of gambling as an honourable profession—but he was glad to find that the gentleman who had spoken, Mr. Freeman, had not even attempted to advocate gambling as truthful or honest.

Mr. Chambers considered all dealing fair, in which a man received a quid pro quo—but whether a man cheat at cards or in the sale of a bale of dry goods, he was equally a scoundrel. If Mr. Freeman would make it appear that gambling was a fair business, he (Mr. C.) would not wish it to be a Penitentiary offence; but if gambling was, as Mr. Green had shown, a system of robbery—why then, it ought to be a Penitentiary offence. Mr. C. said that Mr. Freeman had behaved honourably—for he had said to young men—"Do not come into this place!" And why? Because it was the road to ruin.

Mr. C. regretted that Mr. Freeman should have made several scriptural allusions. No virtuous man would ever support gambling—for it gave no equivalent either in money or reputation for the losses sustained. As such was the case, gambling should be a Penitentiary offence—but if Mr. Freeman could prove that it was an upright and honourable calling, why then, perhaps, he might induce us to apprentice our children to it.

After Mr. Green had spoken for a few minutes, the debate was adjourned to Thursday evening next.

From the Evening Bulletin.

The great discussion on the subject of gambling came off last night at the Chinese Museum, between Mr. Green, the celebrated Reformed Gambler, and Mr. Freeman, the individual who acknowledges himself one of the "sporting" band. The audience was very large and respectable. A board of worthy gentlemen were appointed a governing committee, of which Dr. Elder acted as chairman. The whole proceedings were marked with the greatest decorum.

Mr. Freeman spoke first. He is a man somewhat advanced in years, and possesses abilities, which we could wish were better applied than in the defence, or even palliation, of such a corrupting habit as gambling. He directed his batteries mainly against the late gambling laws in this state.

He did not like the application to professional and not private gambling. He denounced editors and ministers by wholesale; in regard to the former, declaring that there was only one in the country who was really independent, and that one, Bennett of the New York Herald! He quoted Scripture, but that is not surprising, for we are told by the poet, "the devil may cite Scripture." His manner was violent, and his allusions to his opponent, Mr. Green, the very essence of bitterness. He tried to slide his repugnance to that gentleman into the small corner of contempt; but the whole audience could see that he, in reality, entertained no such trifling feelings towards his opponent.

Mr. Green spoke in reply to Freeman, not only like a gentleman, but like a Christian. He treated the sneers of his opponent with kindness, seeming to be sorry, if one might judge from his manner, that he should have boldly placed himself in the point which he occupies before the community. There was a plain, straightforward honesty, as well as a gentleness in the tone and manner of Green, which, though he did not indulge in such a flow of language as his opponent, spoke volumes in favour of his sincerity, and won for him new friends and admirers. His opponent had intimated both by word and act, that he was not to be trusted; he did not seem to feel it necessary to go into a defence of his motives in reply, but appeared to say, "Here I am,—I come to denounce a habit of pestiferous corrupting influence, of which I have practical knowledge; I will stand or fall by the position which I have taken,—leaving the future to show the world whether or not I am honest." Freeman spoke again after Green concluded, and very much in the same style as in the early part of the evening.

After he had concluded, the Rev. John Chambers made an address, which was marked with strong argument and a fine Christian-like tone. Mr. Green then said a few words, and the meeting adjourned to Thursday evening, at the same place, when the discussion is to be resumed. There doubtless will be a large attendance. No subject could be more interesting to the public, and the agitation of none can exercise a better moral influence.

From the North American.

A good-humoured illustration of the right of every one to say what he pleases, took place at the Lecture-room of the Museum last evening. Mr. Freeman, an uncouth man, who gesticulates as if he was mending shoes, but who has naturally no inconsiderable endowment of brain and nerve, delivered himself of a tirade against everybody in general, and against the press and clergy in particular. He complained that everybody was against him—compared the clergy to Gen. Scott and his regulars; the editors to bomb-shells and Congreve rockets, and what else we know not; himself individually to Gen. Taylor, and the race of the poor persecuted gamblers to our Saviour—who, he said, like them, had not where to lay his head!

The impious jumble of fustian and blasphemy was accompanied in the delivery by every species of grimace and buffoonery, and a fierceness of dramatic action and posture far more ludicrously affecting than the classic attitudes of Gen. Tom Thumb, who was defying the lightning, as Ajax, dying like the Gladiator, and taking snuff like Napoleon, in the room overhead. At the bottom of all this ridiculous exhibition, which drew repeated shouts of laughter from the very large and respectable audience, lay two principles upon which Mr. Freeman might have erected an imposing argumentative structure. These were, that every man has a right to do what he pleases with his own, so that he does not disturb others; and that laws punishing professional gamblers and letting citizens go free, are unjust.

Mr. Green, without going into the metaphysics of the question, showed by some very plain and straightforward remarks the fraud and villany of professional gambling, and proved that it was throughout a system of deliberate robbery. This being the case, it follows, of course, that the general good of the community, which has ever been acknowledged paramount, requires it to be put down. Thus satisfactorily stood the question when we left, and we do not see how it can fairly be removed from this broad ground. It is evident that Mr. Green is a sincere man, and we firmly believe that he is engaged in a good work.

SECOND NIGHT.

From the Inquirer.

The discussion between Mr. Green, the Reformed gambler, and Mr. Freeman in opposition, was continued yesterday evening, in the Lecture-room of the Chinese Museum, Leonard Jewell, Esq. in the chair.

Mr. Freeman contended that not one of his arguments, on the previous evening, had been answered by Mr. Green, but anecdotes and doleful stories had been told instead. Mr. F. defended his allusions from Scripture, and said that they had been misconstrued; that he only meant to say that the Saviour of mankind had recommended us to do good, and to return good for evil; but some of the clergy had not followed the golden rule in this matter, for punishment and the Penitentiary had been recommended by them as a cure for gambling. As it was known that he (the speaker) played, he came only to defend gambling as far as truth went, but no farther—there he would stop.

Mr. Freeman complained that Mr. Green had classed all gamblers as men of the worst character—as if they were thieves or counterfeiters, whereas Mr. G. knew that he could mention many who were incapable of doing any thing mean—men who would denounce a counterfeiter as soon as any one in that room. Mr. Freeman related a story of a fraudulent trick, by which a large sum of money had been fraudulently obtained, and its recovery prevented by force—one individual, who was named, menacing with a bowie-knife; and Mr. F. said of the getter-up of the plan—pointing to Mr. Green—"as Nathan said unto David, there sits the man!"

Mr. Green admitted that it might be so—that it was so.

Mr. Freeman said that he knew Mr. Green's friends had a reply to cover all such things—because he was a reformed man—Mr. F. hoped it was so, but he really had some little doubt.

Mr. F. distinguished between deep play, which he likened to the strategie of generals in the field, the one to mislead the other, and open, undisguised cheating, which he denounced. Mr. F. referred to several distinguished men who gambled—and to several well-known gamblers—and he defied Mr. Green to say that any one he had named would or could be guilty of a mean action.

There was in the world a certain amount of wealth—the many of mankind were (the industrious) producers—but he held that all men, speculators, who circumvented others by their wits, living without work, were in point of fact—gamblers. If a man were to go into the street and gain $3000 in a morning by a stock or other speculation—why, as surely as we lived, somebody lost that money—aye, and by gambling on the largest scale. Men who lost their money at a gaming-table went there to win money of the gamblers—but generally lost their own. Their object was to put the gambler's money in their own pockets; and when they were disappointed, they exclaimed against gamblers. Gamblers lived on the depravity of men; if men were not depraved, gamblers would have no chance; but they were encouraged by the depravity of others. Mr. F. condemned and would punish cheating, whether by gamblers or other speculators.

Mr. Green did not wish to say any thing personally against any of the men or gamblers who had been named by Mr. F. Some were benevolent men—but one or two he had named were men without heart. He (Mr. G.) knew several gamblers, amateurs and professional men, who were straightforward in their gambling transactions. He did not desire to hurt the feelings of any of these individuals—he attacked not men but vice—and he contended that gambling was a system of robbery, from beginning to end. That it was that he contended for—and that, he hoped, he had already shown. Mr. Green admitted that Mr. Freeman's story of the scheme gotten up, bowie-knife, &c., was in the main correct. If meeting contracts was honest—why then, many gamblers might be called honest. He did not mean to say that such HONEST gamblers would put their hands in a man's pocket and steal money—no—they would not do that.

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."