Secret Band of Brothers / A Full and True Exposition of All the Various Crimes, Villanies, and Misdeeds of This Powerful Organization in the United States.

by J. H. Green

No. 8.

Correspondence of the New York Tribune.

Perrysburgh, Ohio, August 16, 1845.

Mr. Greeley,—I wish to introduce to the columns of your valuable paper the following. Though it may seem mysterious and out of date, it will be read with much interest by many, and may have a tendency to cast a light upon one of the most horrible murders ever committed in this or any other Christian land. There is not one shade of doubt remaining in my mind but that the murderers, as well as their victim or victims, long before the date of this article, might have been discovered, had there been sufficient effort made. True, efforts have at last been made, and the skeleton of one murdered victim found, and much search made for the other. The particulars which led to the but small effort which has already been made, are collected from circumstances as follows:—As near as we can learn, in September, 1844, a gentleman, by the name of Stephens, from the state of New York, made his appearance in Perrysburgh, remained in and near some days, left, sometime after returned. About the time of his departure from the second visit, he made known his business, that he had kept secret until the time near his departure. He then told that two men had been murdered, and their bodies concealed in the woods about one-half mile from the last turnpike gate, which is about four miles from Perrysburgh. His statements corroborating some previous signs of murder, induced the citizens to turn out and scout the swamp in search, knowing as they did that certain packages of clothes had been found in the Maumee river by a fisherman, on the 17th April, 1844. The clothes found were done up in parcels, coat, pantaloons, and vest, with a stone tied round each, with strips of handkerchiefs cut or torn for the purpose. Upon examination, the clothes were cut in a way to show they had been ripped off from the body. The pantaloon's legs cut open; the coat cut open from the back and sleeves; the vest also cut open from the back. The coat had many cuts in the left sleeve, also a hole about the lower button on the right side, which hole was in the pantaloons, cutting the lower suspender in two. The vest had several cuts in it, immediately back of the neck, through the collar, and two knife holes. The vest is a figured worsted piece of goods, of lilac colour, about half-worn. The coat is a black cloth frock, or surtout, but little worn, no velvet upon it, lined inside of the skirts with black silk or serge, the sleeve lining twilled linen. Inside of the left sleeve is a mark of the merchant, which is one cipher—nothing more. From the looks, I should have taken the coat to have cost twenty dollars. The pantaloons are rather of a blue colour, striped casinet, and have never been worn much. The suspender, which has been cut in two, is a common striped web. The two handkerchiefs are figured silk, half-worn. When they were found, it was evident they had not been long in the water. I have a piece of each garment, and persons who have missed any of their friends mysteriously perhaps might find, upon examination, that which would lead them to know their friend had suffered death from the hands of a murderer. A sample of each I will keep to exhibit through the country, hoping to solve the mystery.

Now for the mysterious visits of Mr. Stephens. About his departure from the second visit, he disclosed certain things, which I will give according to my information. He said he had been informed by certain convicts, then in the New York State Prison at Auburn, that they had murdered two men in the said swamp, and had concealed their bodies. One they had stripped; the other, left his clothing upon him. They stated that the murdered men were travelling in a buggy, and that they (the murderers) stopped the buggy, presented their pistols, forced them into the woods, where they shot one, and stabbed and butchered the other. Not far from the same place, a hat was found with a bullet-hole in it, but no sign was left upon the body found which would indicate that he had been brought to his death by a ball, which also goes farther to prove the probability of the murder of two men. They buried them, as they state, about one-half mile apart, strip ping the clothes off from one, which they took along with them in the buggy, and made their way to the Maumee river. Not thinking it politic to cross at the toll-bridge, they went up to the ford, near Fort Meigs, and found the river not in a fording state. They tied stones to the clothes and threw them in the river, where they were afterward found, and crossed the bridge to the north side of the river, went below Toledo, took the buggy to pieces, sank it and the harness in the river, and took the horse out back of Manhattan and killed it. In the early part of the summer following two men were arrested near Geneseo, New York, for committing burglary. Apprehension of another attack almost forbids me giving their names, while duty doubly nerves me to speak and let the public know that Wyatt, alias Newell, or North, and Head, his accomplice in the burglary at Geneseo, are the two murderers who gave Mr. Stephens his information, and caused his visit to ascertain the truth of such horrid deeds. Other circumstances leave no doubt resting with the people of this part that the same two men, Wyatt and Head, murdered John Parish, of Hancock county, while attempting to arrest them for horse-stealing. A small explanation of this fact I will make. It will be remembered by many that Wyatt attempted to make his escape from the Auburn prison, and when Gordon, the man he afterward murdered, told the keepers, he was searched, and upon his person a letter was found, which letter contained no names of men or places, nor was it directed; but from the purport, it was evidently written for the purpose of sending to Ohio, for it stated that he dare not venture back, as the people would recognise him as the murderer of a certain officer who had made an attempt to arrest him. The reader will also recollect that Wyatt, under the name of Newell, resided in Toledo in the commencement of 1844 until April 1st, 1844, when he left Toledo, and was not heard of until Mr. Stephens' revelation. I would say, in conclusion, so far as this statement may have a tendency to excite the citizens to their duties, relative to those mysterious murders, that I hope those concerned in ferreting out the particulars hereafter will not have a malignant feeling for any stranger who may come among them to assist, not for honour or profit, as, undoubtedly, so far as this mysterious affair is concerned, some of the principal workers have made the two latter-mentioned their object. I believe this, so far, to be the most correct account of those mysterious murders, and if it is thought by any concerned that a more able report can be given, come out and do your duty.

J. H. GREEN.

This article is introduced for several purposes—all of which we consider of importance to substantiate the facts we have laid before them. Those murders, near Perrysburgh, were committed by Wyatt and Head, his colleague, who is now in the State Prison at Auburn, New York. After the controversy had taken place, I availed myself of the opportunity to search into facts concerning Wyatt, and found, in addition to those set forth in the preceding letter, the following:—Wyatt, alias Robert Henry North, was hired as a stage-driver near Chillicothe, Ohio, in the latter part of 1838, but decamped in a short time afterwards with a horse belonging to another man, and made his way to Portsmouth, Ohio; where he was taken and carried back to Chillicothe, tried, and convicted to serve three years in the Ohio Penitentiary. In 1841 he was released. He then left for Missouri, where he again got into difficulty, which detained him until 1843. He told me he was tried for his life in St. Louis, convicted, got a new trial, and was acquitted. If he was, it was under a different name from any above mentioned, and the murder he was tried for must have been Major Floyd. But I do not believe he was one of those tried, and acquitted, as he professed to be. He then made his way across the country to Louisville, Kentucky. From there to a town called Mount Gilead, in Ashland county, Ohio, where he went to work at the business of tailoring, a trade he had learned in the Ohio State Prison. In a short time after he arrived there, he married a very respectable lady, with whom, for the short period they lived together, he led a very disagreeable life. In the latter part of 1843, or the beginning of 1844, he left for Toledo, Ohio, where he hired out, and lived up to the time spoken of in the preceding letter, and where he committed the crimes referred to in the same. After which, he made his escape to the state of New York, in company with the notorious villain, Head, where they committed a burglary, and were sentenced to the Auburn State Prison from Geneseo. When Wyatt arrived at the penitentiary, he was recognised by an old companion who had served in the Ohio Penitentiary, by the name of Gordon. Gordon gave information to the keepers, of Wyatt's having served a time in the penitentiary in Ohio. Wyatt became enraged, and despairing of any chance of a pardon, being sentenced, I think, for fourteen years, he tried to effect his escape, but was detected and severely punished. He then swore vengeance against Gordon, whose time was nearly expired; and on Saturday, the 15th of March, 1845, he secreted about his person one-half of a pair of shears, given him to work with in the tailor's shop, which he reserved until the next day, (Sabbath, the 16th,) and as the prisoners were marching to their cells from their dinners, stabbed Gordon in the right side, immediately below the ribs. The instrument passed towards his spine, through one of the main arteries, killing him almost instantly, and for this last deed he was hanged.

Finally, let me say to those who may be anxious to know more of the history of this unfortunate man, and of his crimes, that I have looked with great anxiety for the third letter, spoken of in my second to the Christian Advocate and Journal. That the mystery of their not appearing has been no fault of mine. I wrote four letters, and but two appeared. Whether they were detained by the false and garbled statements which have been set forth by the Rev. O.E. Morrill, or whether they have ever been received, I am unable to say. However, I have written twice to Dr. Bond, and, as yet, I have not been able to learn by what authority they have been detained. But should I have them returned, the public may be welcome to them for their worth.

Since the execution, we learned from those present, that Wyatt was taken from his cell, faint from the loss of blood he had shed a few days before, in his attempt to commit suicide. When seated in his chair, under the gallows, he made remarks like the following: "I have lived like a man, I will die like a man. I am not afraid to die. I am about to enter eternity, and appear before my God. My conduct has been misrepresented—men have sworn falsely against me—I cannot and will not forgive them—I am not the man I have been represented to be—I did not commit the murder charged upon me in Ohio. I am thankful to the sheriff and his family for their kindness." He manifested no religious penitence to the last. He died an unbeliever.

---

In conclusion, I would say to those who have perused this work, so full of strange and startling incidents, let not their mysterious and dark character cause you to doubt of their truth. Recollect that there are strange events in the life of every man, many of which he cannot fathom; and were the whole circumstances of your own life disclosed, it is not impossible that many of them would exceed belief. Horrible as is the picture of depravity here exhibited, the half has not been told, nor would I reveal one iota more than I deemed necessary to awaken the public attention to a sense of their danger, and a corresponding sense of their duty. Reader, you may be standing upon the edge of a precipice, though you know it not. Fathers, your sons may frequent these haunts of vice, and be entangled in the snares of the destroyer. Wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, lend us your aid to save those you love from destruction. You need not be ignorant, that around you are hundreds of individuals who live in affluence upon the spoils of their industry. It is not gamblers that support gaming. If the merchant, and lawyer, and tradesman, and the man of fortune did not supply them with the material, their profession would die. In all my works I have shown how gambling lends to, and is connected with, all other crimes; and I beseech you, as you love your families, yourselves, and our common country, that you lend your aid and influence to abate this evil. This vast conspiracy against your lives and fortunes, which I have here developed, is no chimera. Its workings are everywhere felt, though the machinery is unseen. I have no object but your good in making this disclosure; and should it meet the eye, as I have no doubt it will, of some one not a stranger to its crimes, I beseech him to consider his ways. Why should he live a curse to the earth—a destroyer of his kind—a blot upon creation—a dishonour to his Maker? Heaven and earth are equally ready to receive the returning prodigal. The only danger—the only disgrace is to continue where you are. In behalf of our Maker, in behalf of humanity, in behalf of all that is noble and virtuous, I beseech you to turn, why will ye die?

---

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Daily Sun.

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

Dr. Johnson says that the gambler is no better than a robber, because he acquires property without an equivalent. The whole gist of the argument lies here. You strip a man of fortune, or tear from his hands the earnings of a long life, and give him in return—nothing! Mr. Freeman says, in answer to this—yes, you give him the chance of robbing you! And he goes so far in his sophistry, as to contend that if a man attempts to rob you on the highway, you have a right to rob him! Such is the language of the gambler, on the rule of right, who wanting a principle of virtue, resorts to every extravagant theory, to justify his violations of the first law of nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Deception and lying are their common attributes.

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

---

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

[Law of Pennsylvania for the Suppression of Gambling, drafted by J. H. Green.]

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in General Assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That if any person shall keep a room, building, arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, to be used or occupied for gambling, or shall, knowingly, permit the same to be used or occupied for gambling; or if any person, being the owner of any room, building, arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, shall rent the same to be used or occupied for gambling, the persons so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars; and if the owner of any room, building, arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, shall know that any gaming-tables, apparatus, or establishment is kept or used in such room, building, arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, for gambling, and winning, betting, or gaining money, or other property, and shall not forthwith cause complaint to be made against the person so keeping or using such room, building, arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, he shall be taken, held, and considered to have knowingly permitted the same to be used and occupied for gambling.

Sect. 2. If any person shall keep or exhibit any gaming-table, establishment, device, or apparatus to win or gain money, or other property of value, or to aid, assist, or permit others to do the same; or if any person shall engage in gambling for a livelihood, or shall be without any fixed residence, and in the habit or practice of gambling, he shall be deemed and taken to be a common gambler, and upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned and kept at hard labour in the penitentiary not less than one, nor more than five years, and be fined five hundred dollars, to be paid into the treasury of the county where such conviction shall take place, for the use of common schools therein, to be divided among the accepting school districts in such county, in proportion to the number of taxable inhabitants in each district.

Sect. 3. If an affidavit shall be filed with the magistrate before whom complaint shall be made of an offence against any provision of this act, stating that the affiant has reason to believe, and does believe, that the person charged in such complaint has upon his person, or at any other place named in such affidavit, any specified articles of personal property, or any gaming-table, device, or apparatus, the discovery of which might lead to establish the truth of such charge, the said magistrate shall, by his warrant, command the officer, who is authorized to arrest the person so charged, to make diligent search for such property and table, device, or apparatus; and if found, to bring the same before such magistrate, and the officer so seizing shall deliver the same to the magistrate before whom he takes the same, who shall retain possession, and be responsible therefor until the discharge, or commitment, or letting to bail of the person charged; and in case of such commitment, or letting to bail of the person so charged, such officer shall retain such property, subject to the order of the court before which such offender may be required to appear, until his discharge or conviction. And in case of the conviction of such person, the gaming-table, device, or apparatus shall be destroyed, and the property shall be liable to pay any judgment which may be rendered against such person; and after the payment of such judgment and costs, the surplus, if any, shall be paid to the use of the common schools aforesaid, and in case of the discharge of such person by the magistrate, or court, the officer having such property in his custody shall, on demand, deliver it to such person.

Sect. 4. If any person called to testify on behalf of the state before any justice of the peace, grand-jury, or court, upon any complaint, information, or indictment, for any offence made punishable by this act, shall disclose any fact tending to criminate himself in any manner made punishable by this act, he shall thereafter be discharged of and from all liability to prosecution or punishment for such matter or offence.

Sect. 5. It shall be lawful for any justice of the peace, chief magistrate of any municipal incorporation, or judge of any court of Common Pleas, upon complaint upon an oath, that any gaming-table, establishment, apparatus, or device is kept by any person for the purpose of being used to win or gain money or other property, by the owner thereof, or any other person, to issue his warrant, commanding any sheriff, or constable, to whom the same shall be directed, within the proper jurisdiction, after demanding entrance to break open and enter any house or other place wherein such gaming establishment, apparatus, or device shall be kept, and to seize and safely keep the same, to be dealt with as hereinafter provided.

Sect. 6. Upon return of said warrant executed, the authority issuing the same shall proceed to examine and inquire touching the said complaint, and if satisfied that the same is true, he shall order the officer so seizing such gaming establishment, apparatus, or device, forthwith to destroy the same; which order the said officer shall proceed to execute in the presence of said authority, unless the person charged as keeper of said gaming establishment, apparatus, or device, shall, without delay, enter into a recognisance in the sum of six hundred dollars, with sufficient sureties, to be approved by said authority, for the appeal of said complaint to the Court of Common Pleas, next to be held in the proper county, conditioned that the defendant will appear at the next term of the court to which he appeals, and abide the order of said court, and for the payment of the full amount of the fine and all costs, in case he shall be found guilty of the offence charged, and judgment be rendered against him in said court.

Sect. 7. The officer taking such recognisance shall return the same to the clerk of the court to which said appeal is taken forthwith, and such clerk shall file the same in his office, and the complaint shall be prosecuted in such court, by indictment, as in other criminal cases; and upon conviction thereof, the appellant shall be fined not more than fifty dollars, and shall pay the costs of prosecution; and such gaming establishment, apparatus, or device shall be destroyed.

Sect. 8. If any person or persons shall, through invitation or device, persuade or prevail on any person or persons to visit any room, building, arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, kept for the use of gambling, he or they shall, upon conviction thereof, be held responsible for the money or properties lost by such invitation or device, and fined in a sum not less than fifty, and not more than five hundred dollars.

Sect. 9. It shall be the duty of all sheriffs, constables, and all prosecuting attorneys to inform and prosecute all offenders against this act, and upon refusal thereof, they shall pay a fine of not less than fifty, nor more than five hundred dollars.

Sect. 10. This act shall be given in charge to the Grand Jury, by the President Judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions in the respective counties.

Sect. 11. This act shall take effect on the first day of July next.

[Law of Ohio for the suppression of Gambling, drafted by J. H. Green.]

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That if any person shall keep a room, building, or arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, to be used or occupied for gambling, or shall, knowingly, permit the same to be used or occupied for gambling; or if any person, being the owner of such room, building, arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, shall rent the same to be used or occupied for gambling, the persons so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not less than fifty dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars; and if any owner of any room, building, arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, shall know that any gambling-tables, apparatus, or establishment, is kept or used in such room, building, arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, for gambling, and winning, betting, or gaining money, or other property, and shall not forthwith cause complaint to be made against the person so keeping or using the room, building, arbour, booth, shed, or tenement, he shall be taken, held, and considered to have knowingly permitted the same to be used and occupied for gambling.

Sect. 2. If any person shall keep or exhibit any gaming-table, establishment, device, or apparatus to win or gain money, or other property of value, or to aid or assist, or permit others to do the same; or if any person shall engage in gambling for a livelihood, or shall be without any fixed residence, and in the habit or practice of gambling, he shall be deemed and taken to be a common gambler, and upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned and kept at hard labour in the penitentiary not less than one, nor more than five years, and be fined five hundred dollars, to be paid into the treasury of the county where such conviction shall take place, for the use of common schools therein.

Sect. 3. If an affidavit shall be filed with the magistrate before whom complaint shall be made of an offence against any provisions of this act, stating that the affiant has reason to believe, and does believe, that the person charged in such complaint has upon his person, or at any other place named in such affidavit, any money, or any specified articles of personal property, or any gaming-table, device, apparatus, the discovery of which might tend to establish the truth of such charge, the said magistrate shall, by his warrant, command the officer, who is authorized to arrest the person so charged, to make diligent search for such money or property, and table, device, or apparatus; and if found, to bring the same before such magistrate—and the officer seizing the same, shall retain possession thereof, subject to the order of the magistrate before whom he takes the same, until the discharge, or commitment, or letting to bail of the person charged; and in case of such commitment, or letting to bail of the person so charged, such officer shall retain such property, subject to the order of the court before which such offender may be required to appear, until his discharge or conviction. And in case of the conviction of such person, the gaming-table, device, or apparatus shall be destroyed, and the money and other property shall be liable to pay any judgment which may be rendered against such person; and in case of the discharge of such person by the magistrate, or court, the officer having such property in his custody, shall, on demand, deliver it to such person.

Sect. 4. If any person called to testify on behalf of the state before any justice of the peace, grand-jury, or court, upon any complaint, information, or indictment, for any offence made punishable by this act, shall disclose any fact tending to criminate himself in any matter made punishable by this act, he shall thereafter be discharged of and from all liability to prosecution or punishment for such matter of offence.

Sect. 5. It shall be lawful for any justice of the peace, chief magistrate of the municipal incorporation, or judge of any court of common pleas, upon complaint on oath, that any gaming-table, establishment, apparatus, or device is kept for the purpose of being used to win or gain money or other property, by the owner thereof, or any other person, to issue his warrant, commanding any sheriff, constable, or marshal of any municipal corporation to whom the same may be directed, within the proper jurisdiction, after demanding entrance, to break open and enter any house or other place where such gaming establishment, apparatus, or device shall be kept, and to seize and safely keep the same, to be dealt with as hereafter provided.

Sect. 6. Upon the return of said warrant executed, the authority issuing the same shall proceed to examine and inquire touching the said complaint, and if satisfied the same is true, he shall order the officer so seizing such gaming establishment, apparatus, or device, forthwith to destroy the same; which order the said officer shall proceed to execute in the presence of said authority, unless the person charged as keeper of said gaming establishment, apparatus, or device, shall, without delay, enter into a recognisance in the sum of two hundred dollars, with sufficient sureties, to be approved by said authority, for the appeal of said complaint to the Court of Common Pleas, next to be held in the proper county, conditioned that the defendant will appear at the next term of the court to which he appeals, and abide the order of such court, and for the payment of the full amount of the fine and all costs, in case he shall be found guilty of the offences charged, and judgment be rendered against him in said court.

Sect. 7. The officer taking such recognisance shall return the same to the clerk of the court to which said appeal is taken forthwith, and such clerk shall file the same in his office, and complaint shall be prosecuted in such court, by indictment, as in other criminal cases; and upon conviction, the appellant shall be fined not more than fifty dollars, and shall pay the costs of prosecution; and such gaming establishment, apparatus, or device shall be destroyed.

Sect. 8. It shall be the duty of all sheriffs, constables, marshals of incorporated cities, towns, and boroughs, and of all prosecuting attorneys, to inform and prosecute all offences against this act.

Sect. 9. This act shall be given in charge to the Grand Jury, by the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in the respective counties.

Sect. 10. This act shall take effect on the first day of March next.

Elias F. Drake,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Seabury Ford,
Speaker of the Senate.

Jan 17, 1846.

During the three evenings of the debate the Lecture-room of the Museum was crowded with a most respectable audience; and thousands must have read the reports given by the different Newspapers on the following mornings. Throughout the community there was considerable excitement, and we have no doubt that good has already resulted. The evils of gambling are now familiar to many who never previously thought upon the subject; and the excuses and defences urged for participating in the vice have been stripped of their fallacious guises. For this work we owe many thanks to the conductors of the public press who have come forth ably and willingly to our assistance.

But we trust that the immediate advantages from the discussion are not the only ones. It will be perceived from the reports given, that we met with no common opponent. Mr. Freeman is perhaps not excelled, if he has an equal, among gamblers, for talent, learning, and, what is more rare, candour and honesty of character. From a lecture which he has since delivered, we learn that he was on a professional visit to Philadelphia, where he had bought some implements for gambling and was about to return to the South, when his attention was arrested by a notice in a paper that Mr. Green was to give a lecture in the Museum on the following evening. For some years he had formed a resolution that if ever he had an opportunity of hearing him, he would embrace it, and he now concluded that he would stay another day for that purpose. He did so, attended his lecture, and from antipathy to himself and the course he was pursuing, was induced to send the challenge to the Sun newspaper which led to the debate in the preceding pages. It is not improbable that while thinking on the points he proposed to defend, his naturally acute mind perceived their fallacy, as there was a gradual shifting of his position from the subject of the original challenge, till on the last evening of the debate he ended with the astonishing announcement that on the Tuesday following he would deliver a lecture against gambling in the same place. Since then, he has delivered several lectures on the same subject, has taken the temperance pledge, been admitted into one of the divisions of the Sons of Temperance, and promises fair to be an efficient labourer in the cause of truth and virtue. Like Paul, he seems to have been arrested midway in his career, and by the power of conscience compelled to build up what he once exerted himself to destroy. May God prosper him in his labours, and give him grace to continue unto the end.

[Recommendation.]

Cincinnati, July, 1843.

We, the undersigned, believing that Mr. J. H. Green's proposed publication ["The Arts and Miseries of Gambling">[ will be eminently useful in counteracting one of the most pernicious and demoralizing vices of the age, take great pleasure in recommending it to the patronage of the public.

Rev. CHARLES ELLIOTT,
Editor of the Western Christian Advocate.
Rev. L.L. HAMLINE,
Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church.
D.K. ESTE,
Judge of the Superior Court, Cin. Ham. Co.
Rev. JAMES P. KILBRETH.
SAMUEL WILLIAMS.
JOHN McLEAN,
Judge of the United States Court.
Rev. W.H. RAPER.
THOMAS J. BIGGS,
President of the Cincinnati College.
SAMUEL W. LYND, D.D.
Pastor of the Ninth Street Baptist Church.
Hon. JACOB BURNET.
Rev. JOHN F. WRIGHT.
H.E. SPENCER,
Mayor of Cincinnati.

---

LOTTERIES.

This is as deceptive, and as base a business, as was ever introduced into any country. The apparent respectability of it, and of the men who carry it on, is calculated to remove the scruples many might otherwise have to patronizing it. The facility with which it can be patronized, without the liability of exposure, and the promises of sudden gain so artfully held out, are inducements not easily resisted by a money-loving people, totally ignorant of the odds against them in the game they play.

All other games generally require the personal attention of the players who patronize them; but this is a game at which any one can play, and need never be seen, even by those against whom he may be playing. Thousands of persons, who stand high in the estimation of their neighbors for good conduct; men who would not, on any account, be found at a gambling-table, will patronize lotteries. The ease with which it can be done, without exposure, enables them to gratify, to the full extent of their means, their passion for this base species of swindling. In many of our large cities, numerous well-dressed young men are constantly engaged in vending tickets through the streets, or from house to house, and they can be bought as privately as the buyer may wish, or he may send his servant for them. Thus it is that a man may gamble as extensively as he pleases in lotteries, without his proceedings being at all likely to become public.

In my description of lotteries, I shall confine myself to the lottery scheme before us; because it will serve as an example of all others, and because the reader will be better able to comprehend explanations of this system than if I were to write of some scheme not here inserted.

By a reference to the tables of tickets, it will be seen that there are fifteen packages of whole tickets, as many of halves, and thirty packages of quarter tickets. Each package contains all the numbers, from one up to seventy-eight, without a repetition of any one of them. The tickets found in these tables are all that are intended for any one drawing; and every successive drawing is but another edition of the same tickets, all arranged in the same order, and with the same combination numbers; but they have a different class number on them. The proprietors of a lottery furnish the printer with a copy of these tables, arranged in a blank book, and this book is called the scheme-book, from which as many as may be ordered from time to time are printed.

The arranging of the class numbers is a matter of fancy, as to what they shall be; their only use being to determine to what particular drawing any particular ticket belongs, in order that a ticket which proves to be a blank may not, at some future drawing, be handed in for a premium, on account of containing some of the numbers then drawn.

Drawing of Lottery Tickets.

The Drawing. There are several methods of conducting the drawing; but that which is most commonly used is as follows:—

There is a hollow wheel, as represented in the plate; then there are seventy-eight small tin tubes, scarcely half an inch in diameter, and about three inches in length; these are for holding the numbers, from one to seventy-eight; each number is on a separate piece of paper, which is rolled up and put into a tube; these tubes, when the numbers have been placed in them, are all put into the wheel, and a person is selected to draw out one at a time from the wheel, which is opened, and cried aloud, for the information of those present who may be interested. The number is registered, for the future guidance of the lottery-dealer, in determining what he shall pay those who may hold one or more of the numbers so drawn. After this, the wheel is again turned, so as to mix well the numbers contained in it, and a second is drawn; and the same proceedings are gone over with, until twelve numbers are drawn, and registered in the order in which they are drawn. Sometimes thirteen will be drawn, it being customary, on many occasions, to draw one number for every six contained in the wheel; but I cannot give this as a universal rule, because I have often found it deviated from. Sometimes little boys are selected to draw the numbers from the wheel—to give the impression that every possible step has been taken to render the management as fair as possible; but in this there is also much deception.

Swarms of domestic servants, day labourers, and the most poor and needy persons daily visit these worse than gambling shops, where they risk their little all, and get nothing in return but the delightful anticipation of being rich when the "drawing" takes place.

True it has been the case that prizes have been drawn, and trumpeted forth to the world, as inducements for others to buy. Having known how some of these prizes have sometimes been obtained, will it be too much to suppose that others are obtained in like manner? that is by the proprietors of lotteries being swindled through the unfaithfulness of their agents. A case came to my knowledge of a man who drew a capital prize; and the mode of operation, by which it was effected, was as follows: An agent, who was stationed in a town some distance from the principal establishment, made two confidants, who, doubtless, readily acted with him from hope of gain. One of these was the post-master of the town, and the other an acquaintance, a patron of the lottery. The duty of the agent was to transmit to the principal office all unsold tickets, by the first mail that left after the known hour of drawing. This mail also conveyed the lists of the drawing; but, in a regular manner of proceeding, they would not have been accessible to the agent before the departure of the stage with his unsold tickets. By making a confidant of the post-master, however, he received the lists as quick as possible after the mail arrived, and before it had been assorted. He then examined his unsold tickets, and if any considerable prize remained, he would take it from among the unsold tickets, and despatch the remainder to the principal office, and give the prize to his other confidant; each one giving out that the ticket had been sold to him; and accordingly the prize would be claimed and paid, although fraudulently obtained. In this particular case, the capital prize was drawn, and it appeared that the ticket-holder appropriated all the money to his own use, as he was known to buy much property shortly afterwards. It is believed also, by those who were acquainted with the incident, that he never divided with the rascally agent; and thus was the cheater cheated, who, in his wrath, let out some of the secrets of the manner in which the prize was obtained.

This same man has since met with reverses of fortune, and would now, I believe, find it difficult to raise money sufficient to purchase a ticket even of a low price.

Among the many cases of lottery swindling, every body has heard of the great Louisiana real estate lottery, in which the prizes were to have been the St. Charles Hotel, the Verandah, the St. Charles Theatre, the Bank, the Arcade, and other magnificent buildings in New Orleans. It is quite needless to say any thing of this, as the public has been pretty well enlightened in regard to it, through the public journals of the day.

The following is a copy of a handbill issued by the proprietors of the lottery immediately after a drawing, for the information of ticket-holders, and all others interested:—

Drawing of the Lottery.

The following are the numbers which were this day drawn from the seventy-eight placed in the wheel, viz.:—

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
20	51	61	24	74	77	46	36	69	29	26	3

and that the said tickets were drawn in the order in which they stand: that is to say, No. 20 was the first that was drawn; No. 51 was the 2d; No. 61 was the 3d; No. 24 was the 4th; No. 74 was the 5th; No. 77 was the 6th; No. 46 was the 7th; No. 36 was the 8th; No. 69 was the 9th; No. 29 was the 10th; No. 26 was the 11th; No. 3 was the 12th, and last.

Those tickets entitled to the 110 highest prizes were drawn in the following order:—

1	2	3	$30,000	7	8	9	$5,000
4	5	6	10,000	10	11	12	2,367	20

Those 6 tickets having on them the

2 3 4

3 4 5

5 6 7

6 7 8

8 9 10

9 10 11 } each 1,500

Those 100 tickets having on them the

1 2 4	1 4 7	1 7 9	2 3 11	2 6 10
1 2 5	1 4 8	1 7 10	2 3 12	2 6 11
1 2 6	1 4 9	1 7 11	2 4 5	2 6 12
1 2 7	1 4 10	1 7 12	2 4 6	2 7 8
1 2 8	1 4 11	1 8 9	2 4 7	2 7 9
1 2 9	1 4 12	1 8 10	2 4 8	2 7 10
1 2 10	1 5 6	1 8 11	2 4 9	2 7 11
1 2 11	1 5 7	1 8 12	2 4 10	2 7 12
1 2 12	1 5 8	1 9 10	2 4 11	2 8 9
1 3 4	1 5 9	1 9 11	2 4 12	2 8 10
1 3 5	1 5 10	1 9 12	2 5 6	2 8 11	} each 1,000
1 3 6	1 5 11	1 10 11	2 5 7	2 8 12
1 3 7	1 5 12	1 10 12	2 5 8	2 9 10
1 3 8	1 6 7	1 11 12	2 5 9	2 9 11
1 3 9	1 6 8	2 3 5	2 5 10	2 9 12
1 3 10	1 6 9	2 3 6	2 5 11	2 10 11
1 3 11	1 6 10	2 3 7	2 5 12	2 10 12
1 3 12	1 6 11	2 3 8	2 6 7	2 11 12
1 4 5	1 6 12	2 3 9	2 6 8	3 4 6
1 4 6	1 7 8	2 3 10	2 6 9	3 4 7

All others with three of the drawn numbers on, (being 110) each	300
Those 66 tickets having on them the 1st and 2d drawn numbers, each	100
Those 66 tickets having on them the 2d and 3d, each	80
Those 66 tickets having on them the 3d and 4th, each	50
Those 66 tickets having on them the 4th and 5th, each	40
Those 132 tickets having on them the 5th and 6th, or 6th and 7th, each	30
All others with two of the drawn numbers on, (being 3960,) each	20
And all tickets having one, only, of the drawn numbers on, each, (being 25,740,)	10

Now, let us spend a few moments in examining this bill, and we shall see how much truth there is in it. It says, that the ticket having on it the three first drawn numbers will be entitled to the capital prize of $30,000. Now, in the whole scheme before us, there is no such ticket. The combination, 20, 51, 61, is not to be found in this arrangement. Consequently, there was no ticket whose numbers entitled it to this prize. Next, the bill says, the ticket having the fourth, fifth, and sixth drawn numbers, which would have been 24, 74, 77, would be entitled to a prize of $10,000. There is no such ticket in the combination. Consequently this also is false. Now, it is evident that the dealers, in publishing this bill, mean to impress the public with the idea, that tickets, containing the necessary numbers to draw these prizes, are in the lottery, and that somebody must, of course, draw them; but it is all false, and a very little investigation will convince any one, that a greater system of deception can hardly exist. Bear in mind, that the bill says these prizes were drawn. The third prize was $5,000, and the ticket which contained the seventh, eighth, and ninth numbers was to draw this prize. These numbers are 36, 46, 69. There is no such combination in the scheme-book—no such ticket was printed or sold. Consequently, here is another falsehood. The same can be said of the fourth prize—the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth numbers—being 3, 26, 29. There is no such combination in the book, and no such prize could be drawn. Of the next six prizes, of $1,500 each, said to have been drawn, there was not a single ticket in the whole scheme which contained the necessary numbers to draw any one of these six prizes!

It is next asserted, that there were in the lottery one hundred tickets, having three drawn numbers, and entitled each to a prize of $1,000. This I have examined, and I find that, instead of being one hundred, there are but two—the first in magnitude being one from package number six, of half tickets, bearing the numbers 20, 36, 51,—these being the first, second, and eighth of the drawn numbers, and would entitle the holder to one half of the $1,000, subject to a deduction of fifteen per cent. The other is a quarter ticket, bearing the numbers 46, 51, 74—from the twenty-seventh package, of quarters—being the second, fifth, and seventh of the drawn numbers, and would entitle the holder of it to one quarter of the $1,000, after deducting the fifteen per cent. But it is well known that, frequently, scarce one half of the tickets of any one class, intended for a particular drawing, are ever disposed of, and are consequently returned to the manager's office, to be destroyed. Then, what guaranty have we that the numbers entitled to the above pitiful prizes were sold? They are as likely to be among the tickets returned unsold, as among those sold. Next, the bill states that there were one hundred and ten others, each having three drawn numbers, and were entitled to a prize of $300 each. By a close investigation, I find but one single ticket of this kind in the whole scheme. This is the ticket in the twelfth package of quarters, bearing the numbers 61, 69, 77; and if it had been sold, it would have entitled the holder to one fourth of the $300, deducting 15 per cent. Next, the bill says, those sixty-six tickets having the first and second drawn numbers, will each be entitled to a prize of $100. In searching for these in the scheme-book, I find but one that bears the first and second numbers; that is, in package fourteen. The ticket having the numbers 20, 51, 66, is the only one having the two first numbers; and if sold, the holder was entitled to one half of the $100, it being a half ticket. Now, the reader may perceive that I have examined and laid open, so that he too may examine, this masterpiece of villany. I find that of the two hundred and eighty-six highest prizes, which, their own handbill states, existed in their lottery, and which, by their own figures, amounted to the enormous sum of $195,967, and, in order to be drawn, only required that the tickets should be bought,—I find, allowing every ticket to have been sold, and afterwards every holder presented his ticket for the sum to which it might be entitled, that of the two hundred and eighty-six said to be in the scheme, there are but five, and these very inconsiderable; and that the greatest amount of these five prizes, without deducting the fifteen per cent, is only $875, instead of the enormous sum of $195,967. Can it be possible that any person will be found to patronize lotteries, after considering these facts?

I pass over those small prizes named after the first sixty-six having the first and second drawn numbers on them, and will prove the balance to be falsehoods, as the greater portion of the first part of the bill is.

In the first place, let us see how many prizes are represented to exist, not to say any thing of the blanks. In counting up the prizes named on this bill, we find them to be 30,316; and I do not think they would pretend to say that more than one half of their tickets were prizes. Then we will say that they had an equal number of blanks. This would carry their scheme up to over sixty thousand tickets; and even if they were all prizes, and no blanks, (which they do not pretend,) who cannot see the extreme improbability of their disposing of 30,316 tickets in one week? for it must be remembered that these were all of one class, and for one particular week's drawing. But the last witness, whose overwhelming testimony will settle the question, is their own scheme-book, of which an accurate copy is here given, and which shows the number of tickets, for any one drawing, to be but 1,560, the half of which, by great exertion, they might succeed in selling; each successive drawing being another edition of these same combinations, with a different class number on them. Now, let me ask, where are their 30,316 prizes to come from? What a scheme of deception do we here behold! and one, too, that has been so long submitted to and patronized by the public of this and other countries.

Another method of still further swindling the buyers of tickets, is much practised in some parts of the country. The agents who sell the tickets are authorized to insure them. When a man buys one, the price, perhaps, might be ten dollars. The seller, if he has been authorized, will say, "Now, sir, for ten dollars, I will insure your ticket to draw a prize." This is enough for the buyer to have his ticket insured to draw a prize, and possibly the capital prize: he pays an additional fee, and the agent forwards the numbers of all the tickets, so insured, to the office where the drawing is to be held; and there they manage to have these tickets contain one (seldom more) of the drawn numbers. This entitles the buyer to receive back the price of his ticket, after taking out 15 per cent.; and as it was not a total blank, the insurer is safe, and retains the sum paid for insurance. The buyer remains swindled out of the insurance, and 15 per cent, of the cost. These swindling shops are numerous, and are sometimes called policy offices.

We sincerely hope that our readers will examine with some attention the developments we have made in relation to the deceptive schemes of the lottery managers; for we feel that they cannot fail to convince every man of common sense, who has a particle of moral principle and moral honesty left, that he who encourages this basest of all swindling, by purchasing tickets, is not alone an enemy to himself and family, but he countenances a species of gambling that is extensively mischievous and ruinous, and has for its victims many of our best citizens, young and old; while, at the same time, he unintentionally throws a veil over the villanous deeds of the lottery gambler and his unprincipled, as well as his inexperienced supporters. We once more invite our readers to examine our statements with attention.

The following tables represent, completely, the entire contents of a lottery dealer's scheme-book, made for the guidance of the printer, in printing tickets. At the close of the tables is represented a ticket, with its class and combination numbers.

1	2	3	4	5	6
1	2	3	4	5	6
1 27 53	1 28 55	1 29 54	1 30 56	1 31 57	1 32 58
2 28 54	2 29 56	2 30 55	2 31 57	2 32 58	2 33 59
3 29 55	3 30 57	3 31 56	3 32 58	3 33 59	3 34 60
4 30 56	4 31 58	4 32 57	4 33 59	4 34 60	4 35 78
5 31 57	5 32 59	5 33 58	5 34 60	5 35 61	5 36 77
6 32 58	6 33 60	6 34 59	6 35 61	6 36 62	6 42 71
7 33 59	7 34 61	7 35 60	7 36 62	7 37 63	7 43 70
8 34 60	8 35 62	8 36 61	8 37 63	8 38 64	8 44 69
9 35 61	9 36 63	9 37 62	9 38 64	9 39 65	9 45 68
10 36 62	10 37 64	10 38 63	10 39 65	10 40 66	10 46 67
11 37 63	11 38 65	11 39 64	11 40 66	11 41 67	11 37 76
12 38 64	12 39 66	12 40 65	12 41 67	12 42 68	12 38 75
13 39 65	13 40 67	13 41 66	13 42 68	13 43 69	13 39 74
14 40 66	14 41 68	14 42 67	14 43 69	14 44 70	14 40 73
15 41 67	15 42 69	15 43 68	15 44 70	15 45 71	15 41 72
16 42 68	16 43 70	16 44 69	16 45 71	16 46 72	16 27 57
17 43 69	17 44 71	17 45 70	17 46 72	17 47 73	17 28 56
18 44 70	18 45 72	18 46 71	18 47 73	18 48 74	18 29 55
19 45 71	19 46 73	19 47 72	19 48 74	19 49 75	19 30 54
20 46 72	20 47 74	20 48 73	20 49 75	20 50 76	20 31 53
21 47 73	21 48 75	21 49 74	21 50 76	21 51 77	21 47 65
22 48 74	22 49 76	22 50 75	22 51 77	22 52 78	22 48 66
23 49 75	23 50 77	23 51 76	23 52 78	23 30 53	23 49 64
24 50 76	24 51 78	24 52 77	24 27 53	24 29 54	24 50 63
25 51 77	25 52 53	25 27 78	25 28 54	25 28 55	25 51 62
26 52 78	26 27 54	26 28 53	26 29 55	26 27 56	26 52 61

The above lottery schemes were accurately copied from the scheme-book of a lottery dealer in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and may be considered a fair specimen of lottery combinations generally. The tables are for a 78 numbered lottery, every three perpendicular lines of figures containing a package, and each package all the numbers, from 1 to 78, inclusive; and there are also 26 tickets in each package.

7	8	9	10	96	97
7	8	9	10	11	12
1 34 59	1 60 78	1 61 64	1 35 36	1 38 39	1 41 43
2 36 60	2 61 77	2 62 65	2 37 38	2 40 49	2 42 45
3 35 61	3 62 76	3 63 66	3 39 40	3 41 50	3 44 47
4 37 62	4 63 75	4 29 78	4 41 42	4 42 51	4 46 49
5 38 63	5 64 74	5 28 77	5 43 44	5 43 52	5 48 51
6 49 74	6 65 73	6 27 76	6 45 46	6 44 53	6 50 53
7 50 75	7 66 72	7 30 50	7 47 48	7 45 54	7 52 55
8 51 76	8 67 71	8 31 51	8 49 50	8 46 55	8 54 57
9 52 77	9 68 70	9 32 52	9 51 52	9 47 56	9 56 59
10 27 78	10 53 69	10 33 53	10 53 54	10 48 57	10 58 61
11 28 53	11 27 52	11 34 54	11 55 56	11 58 67	11 60 63
12 29 54	12 28 51	12 35 55	12 57 58	12 59 68	12 62 65
13 30 55	13 29 50	13 36 56	13 59 60	13 60 69	13 64 67
14 31 56	14 30 49	14 37 57	14 61 62	14 61 70	14 66 69
15 32 57	15 31 48	15 38 58	15 63 64	15 62 71	15 68 71
16 33 58	16 32 47	16 39 59	16 65 66	16 63 72	16 70 73
17 48 73	17 33 46	17 40 60	17 67 68	17 64 73	17 72 75
18 47 72	18 34 45	18 41 67	18 69 70	18 65 74	18 74 77
19 46 71	19 35 44	19 42 68	19 71 72	19 66 75	19 76 78
20 45 70	20 36 43	20 43 69	20 73 74	20 27 76	20 35 40
21 44 69	21 37 59	21 44 70	21 75 76	21 28 77	21 34 39
22 43 68	22 38 58	22 45 71	22 77 78	22 29 78	22 33 38
23 42 67	23 39 57	23 46 72	23 27 28	23 30 34	23 32 37
24 41 66	24 40 56	24 47 73	24 29 30	24 31 35	24 31 36
25 40 65	25 41 55	25 48 74	25 31 32	25 32 36	25 27 29
26 39 64	26 42 54	26 49 75	26 33 34	26 33 37	26 28 30

At the beginning of the first package you will see the numbers 1, 27, 53; they are placed on one ticket; and so with each succeeding three numbers through the whole scheme.

98	99	100		101	101
13	14	15	00	1	1
1 45 44	1 62 70	1 27 78		1 2 53	1 2 60
2 46 47	2 63 71	2 28 77		3 4 54	3 6 61
3 48 49	3 64 72	3 29 76		5 29 55	4 7 62
4 50 51	4 65 73	4 30 75		6 30 56	5 52 63
5 52 53	5 66 74	5 31 74		7 31 57	8 51 64
6 54 55	6 52 75	6 32 73		8 32 58	9 50 65
7 56 57	7 53 76	7 33 72		9 33 59	10 49 66
8 58 59	8 54 77	8 34 71		10 34 60	11 48 67
9 60 61	9 55 78	9 35 70		11 35 61	12 47 68
10 62 63	10 56 67	10 36 69	Here ends Fifteen Packages of Whole Tickets	12 36 62	13 46 69
11 64 65	11 57 68	11 37 68		13 37 63	14 45 70
12 66 67	12 58 69	12 38 67		14 38 64	15 44 71
13 68 69	13 59 61	13 39 66		15 39 65	16 43 72
14 70 71	14 51 60	14 40 65		16 40 66	17 42 73
15 72 73	15 27 39	15 41 64		17 41 67	18 41 74
16 74 75	16 28 40	16 42 63		18 42 68	19 40 75
17 76 77	17 29 41	17 43 62		19 43 69	20 39 76
18 43 78	18 30 42	18 44 61		20 44 70	21 38 77
19 27 42	19 31 43	19 45 60		21 45 71	22 37 78
20 28 41	20 32 44	20 46 59		22 46 72	23 36 53
21 29 40	21 33 45	21 47 58		23 47 73	24 35 54
22 30 39	22 34 46	22 48 57		24 48 74	25 34 55
23 31 38	23 35 47	23 49 56		25 49 75	26 33 56
24 32 37	24 36 48	24 50 55		26 50 76	27 32 57
25 33 36	25 37 49	25 51 54		27 51 77	28 31 58
26 34 35	26 38 50	26 52 53		28 52 78	29 30 59

There are, in these schemes, 15 packages of whole tickets, each containing 26, which make an aggregate of 390, and the same number of halves, which, if added to the former, will make 780; also, 30 packages of quarters, making, in all, 1560. These comprise the whole of the combinations here given, and are intended for one particular drawing, constituting one class. For each successive drawing, another edition of the same combinations are offered for sale, only with different class numbers.

103	104	105	106	107	108
3	4	5	6	7	8
1 3 61	1 3 65	1 4 66	1 4 67	1 5 68	1 5 69
2 4 62	2 41 66	2 42 67	2 5 68	2 6 69	2 6 70
5 6 63	4 42 67	3 43 68	3 45 69	3 7 70	3 7 71
7 8 64	5 43 68	5 44 69	6 46 70	4 45 71	4 8 72
9 31 65	6 44 69	6 45 70	7 47 71	8 46 72	9 48 75
10 32 66	7 45 70	7 46 71	8 48 72	9 47 73	10 49 76
11 33 67	8 40 71	8 47 72	9 49 73	10 48 74	11 50 73
12 34 68	9 39 72	9 48 73	10 50 74	11 49 75	12 51 74
13 35 69	10 38 73	10 49 74	11 51 75	12 50 76	13 52 78
14 36 71	11 37 74	11 50 75	12 52 76	13 51 77	14 31 77
15 37 70	12 36 75	12 51 76	13 29 77	14 52 78	15 32 68
16 38 72	13 35 76	13 52 77	14 30 78	15 30 67	16 33 67
17 39 73	14 34 77	14 41 78	15 31 66	16 31 66	17 34 66
18 40 74	15 33 78	15 40 65	16 32 65	17 32 65	18 35 65
19 41 75	16 32 53	16 28 64	17 33 64	18 33 64	19 36 64
20 42 76	17 31 54	17 29 63	18 34 63	19 34 63	20 37 63
21 43 77	18 30 55	18 30 62	19 35 62	20 35 62	21 38 62
22 44 78	19 29 56	19 31 61	20 36 61	21 36 61	22 39 61
23 45 53	20 28 57	20 32 60	21 37 60	22 37 60	23 40 60
24 46 54	21 52 58	21 33 59	22 38 59	23 38 59	24 41 59
25 47 55	22 51 59	22 34 58	23 39 58	24 39 58	25 42 58
26 48 56	23 50 60	23 35 57	24 40 57	25 40 57	26 43 57
27 49 57	24 49 61	24 36 56	25 41 56	26 41 56	27 44 56
28 50 58	25 48 62	25 37 55	26 42 55	27 42 55	28 45 55
29 51 59	26 47 63	26 38 54	27 43 54	28 43 54	29 46 54
30 52 60	27 46 64	27 39 53	28 44 53	29 44 53	30 47 53

The venders of lottery tickets possess an immense advantage over the buyer, which is mostly in the extreme improbability of a prize of any considerable amount being drawn. The numbers 1 to 78 are capable of making 76076 combinations on what I may term the increasing ratio—that is, the second larger than the first, and the third larger than the second, in arithmetical progression; as, 5, 10, 15, &c.

109	110	196	197	198	199
9	10	11	12	13	14
1 6 70	1 6 71	1 7 72	1 7 73	1 8 74	1 8 75
2 7 71	2 7 72	2 8 73	2 8 74	2 9 75	2 9 76
3 8 72	3 8 73	3 9 74	3 9 75	3 10 76	3 10 77
4 9 73	4 9 74	4 10 75	4 10 76	4 11 77	4 11 78
5 10 74	5 10 75	5 11 76	5 11 77	5 12 78	5 12 74
11 32 75	11 33 76	6 12 77	6 12 78	6 13 73	6 13 72
12 33 76	12 34 77	13 33 78	13 52 72	7 14 72	7 14 73
13 34 77	13 35 78	14 34 53	14 51 71	15 45 70	15 46 71
14 35 78	14 36 70	15 35 54	15 50 70	16 46 71	16 47 70
15 36 69	15 37 69	16 36 55	16 49 69	17 47 69	17 48 69
16 37 68	16 38 68	17 37 56	17 48 68	18 48 68	18 49 68
17 38 67	17 39 67	18 38 57	18 47 67	19 49 67	19 50 67
18 39 66	18 40 66	19 39 58	19 46 66	20 50 66	20 51 66
19 40 65	19 41 65	20 40 59	20 45 65	21 51 65	21 52 65
20 41 64	20 42 64	21 41 60	21 44 64	22 52 64	22 45 64
21 42 62	21 43 63	22 42 61	22 43 61	23 44 63	23 44 61
22 43 63	22 44 62	23 43 62	23 42 62	24 43 62	24 43 60
23 44 60	23 45 61	24 44 63	24 41 63	25 42 61	25 42 63
24 45 61	24 46 60	25 45 64	25 40 60	26 41 60	26 41 62
25 46 59	25 47 59	26 46 65	26 39 59	27 40 59	27 40 58
26 47 58	26 48 58	27 47 66	27 38 58	28 39 58	28 39 59
27 48 57	27 49 56	28 48 67	28 37 57	29 38 57	29 38 56
28 49 56	28 50 57	29 49 68	29 36 56	30 37 56	30 37 57
29 50 55	29 51 55	30 50 69	30 35 55	31 36 55	31 36 54
30 51 54	30 52 54	31 51 70	31 34 54	32 35 53	32 35 55
31 52 53	31 32 53	32 52 71	32 33 53	33 34 54	33 34 53

In the following combinations there are but 1560, where there might be 76076; and if this latter number were printed and sold, some one must hold the three first drawn numbers, every ticket-holder having one chance out of 76076 of drawing the capital prize. But, in this combination, if a man were to purchase the whole of the tickets, being 1560, there would still be 49 chances against his holding the three first numbers, to one for it. As there are no two tickets holding the same three numbers, of course but one can hold the three first, which is the prize.

200	206	201	202	203	204
15	00	1	2	3	4
1 9 76		1 9 77	1 10 77	1 10 78	1 11 21
2 10 77		2 10 78	2 11 78	2 11 77	2 12 22
3 11 78		3 11 76	3 12 53	3 12 76	3 13 23
4 12 75		4 12 74	4 13 54	4 13 75	4 14 24
5 13 74		5 13 75	5 14 55	5 14 74	5 15 25
6 14 73	Here ends Fifteen Packages of Half Tickets. The following Packages are Quarters.	6 14 72	6 15 56	6 15 72	6 16 26
7 15 72		7 15 73	7 16 57	7 16 71	7 17 27
8 16 71		8 16 70	8 17 58	8 17 70	8 18 28
17 52 70		17 51 71	9 18 59	9 18 69	9 19 29
18 51 69		18 50 69	19 52 60	19 36 68	10 20 30
19 50 68		19 49 68	20 40 72	20 37 67	31 41 51
20 49 67		20 48 67	21 50 62	21 38 66	32 42 52
21 48 66		21 47 66	22 49 63	22 39 65	33 43 53
22 47 65		22 46 65	23 48 64	23 40 64	34 44 54
23 46 64		23 45 64	24 47 65	24 41 62	35 45 55
24 45 63		24 44 61	25 46 66	25 45 63	36 46 56
25 44 62		25 43 62	26 45 67	26 43 60	37 47 57
26 43 61		26 42 63	27 44 68	27 44 61	38 48 58
27 42 60		27 41 60	28 43 69	28 42 59	39 49 59
28 41 59		28 40 59	29 42 70	29 46 58	40 50 60
29 40 58		29 39 58	30 41 71	30 47 57	61 67 73
30 39 57		30 38 57	31 51 61	31 48 56	62 68 74
31 38 56		31 37 56	32 39 73	32 49 55	63 69 75
32 37 55		32 36 55	33 38 74	33 50 54	64 70 76
33 36 54		33 35 53	34 37 75	34 51 53	65 71 77
34 35 53		34 52 54	35 36 76	35 52 73	66 72 78

By a little investigation, any one may discover that his chance for drawing a prize, even of a trifling amount, is extremely small. By the following method any one may ascertain the number of combinations which any given number will produce, as in the present case, 78 × 77 × 76 = 456456 ÷ 6 = 76076, the number of combinations of three numbers each; the 78 multiplied by 77, and the product by 76, and that product divided by 6 gives the number of combinations of three numbers each, which the numbers from 1 to 78 will produce, no two combinations containing the same three numbers.

205	206	207	208	209	210
5	6	7	8	9	10
1 12 23	1 13 25	1 14 27	1 15 29	1 16 31	1 17 33
2 13 24	2 14 26	2 15 28	2 16 39	2 17 32	2 18 34
3 14 25	3 15 27	3 16 29	3 17 31	3 18 33	3 19 35
4 15 26	4 16 28	4 17 30	4 18 32	4 19 34	4 20 36
5 16 27	5 17 29	5 18 31	5 19 33	5 20 35	5 21 37
6 17 28	6 18 30	6 19 32	6 20 34	6 21 36	6 22 38
7 18 29	7 19 31	7 20 34	7 21 35	7 22 37	7 23 39
8 19 30	8 20 32	8 21 33	8 22 36	8 23 38	8 24 40
9 20 31	9 21 33	9 22 35	9 23 37	9 24 39	9 25 41
10 21 32	10 22 34	10 23 36	10 24 38	10 25 40	10 26 42
11 22 33	11 23 35	11 24 37	11 25 39	11 26 41	11 27 43
34 45 56	12 24 36	12 25 38	12 26 40	12 27 42	12 28 44
35 46 57	37 49 61	13 26 39	13 27 41	13 28 43	13 29 45
36 47 58	38 50 62	40 53 66	14 28 42	14 29 44	14 30 46
37 48 59	39 51 63	41 54 67	43 55 67	15 30 45	15 31 47
38 49 60	40 52 64	42 55 68	44 56 68	46 57 68	16 32 48
39 50 61	41 53 65	43 56 69	45 57 69	47 58 69	49 59 69
40 51 62	42 54 66	44 57 70	46 58 70	48 59 70	50 60 70
41 52 63	43 55 67	45 58 71	47 59 71	49 60 71	51 61 71
42 53 64	44 56 68	46 59 72	48 60 72	50 61 72	52 62 72
43 54 65	44 55 66	45 47 73	49 61 73	51 62 73	53 63 73
44 55 66	46 58 70	48 61 74	50 62 74	52 63 74	54 64 74
67 71 76	47 59 72	49 62 75	51 63 75	53 64 75	55 65 75
68 72 75	48 60 71	50 63 76	52 64 76	54 65 76	56 66 76
69 73 78	73 75 77	51 64 77	53 65 77	55 66 77	57 67 77
70 74 77	74 76 78	52 65 78	54 66 78	66 67 78	58 68 78

296	297	298	299	300	301
11	12	13	14	15	22
1 18 35	1 19 37	1 20 39	1 21 41	1 22 43	1 23 45
2 19 36	2 20 38	2 21 40	2 22 42	2 23 44	2 24 46
3 20 37	3 21 39	3 22 41	3 23 43	3 24 45	3 25 47
4 21 38	4 22 40	4 23 42	4 24 44	4 25 46	4 26 48
5 22 39	5 23 41	5 24 43	5 25 45	5 26 47	5 27 49
6 23 40	6 24 42	6 25 44	6 26 46	6 27 48	6 28 50
7 24 41	7 25 43	7 26 45	7 27 47	7 28 49	7 29 51
8 25 42	8 26 44	8 27 46	8 28 48	8 29 50	8 30 52
9 26 43	9 27 45	9 28 47	9 29 49	9 30 51	9 31 53
10 27 44	10 28 46	10 29 48	10 30 50	10 31 52	10 32 54
11 28 45	11 29 47	11 30 49	11 31 51	11 32 53	11 33 55
12 29 46	12 30 48	12 31 50	12 32 52	12 33 54	12 34 56
13 30 47	13 31 49	13 32 51	13 33 53	13 34 55	13 35 57
14 31 48	14 32 50	14 33 52	14 34 54	14 35 56	14 36 58
15 32 49	15 33 51	15 34 53	15 35 55	15 36 57	15 37 59
16 33 50	16 34 52	16 35 54	16 36 56	16 37 58	16 38 60
17 34 51	17 35 53	17 36 55	17 37 57	17 38 59	17 39 61
52 61 70	18 36 54	18 37 56	18 38 58	18 39 60	18 40 62
53 62 71	55 63 71	19 38 57	19 39 59	19 40 61	19 41 63
54 63 72	56 64 72	58 65 72	20 40 60	20 41 62	20 42 64
55 64 73	57 65 73	59 66 73	61 67 74	21 42 63	21 43 66
56 65 74	58 66 74	60 67 74	62 68 73	64 69 74	22 44 65
57 66 75	59 67 75	61 68 75	63 69 76	65 70 75	67 71 75
58 67 76	60 68 76	62 69 76	64 70 75	66 71 76	68 72 76
59 68 77	61 69 77	63 70 77	65 71 78	67 72 77	69 73 77
60 69 78	62 70 78	64 71 78	66 72 77	68 73 78	70 74 78

Lottery-dealers are aware of the great odds against the buyers, and are very cautious in keeping all the secrets of a fraud to themselves, by which they are robbing the public continually. But it shall not be the fault of the writer of these pages if their swindling machinations are longer concealed from the community. Thousands upon thousands of dollars are expended annually in lottery tickets in this country; and how very seldom is it that you hear of a capital prize having been drawn! If there should chance to be a prize of any magnitude awarded to a ticket-holder, it is trumpeted from one end of the Union to the other, by those most interested in lottery speculations, stimulating others to try their luck, and by that means making their very losses minister to their gain; for, in all likelihood, months and years may elapse before another large prize will be drawn from the same lottery.

302	303	304	305	306	307
17	18	19	20	21	22
1 24 47	1 25 49	1 26 51	1 12 24	1 13 27	1 14 39
2 25 48	2 26 50	2 27 52	2 13 25	2 14 28	2 15 38
3 26 49	3 27 51	3 28 53	3 14 26	3 15 29	3 16 37
4 27 50	4 28 52	4 29 54	4 15 27	4 16 30	4 17 36
5 28 51	5 29 53	5 30 55	5 16 28	5 17 31	5 18 35
6 29 52	6 30 54	6 31 56	6 17 29	6 18 32	6 19 34
7 30 53	7 31 55	7 32 57	7 18 30	7 19 33	7 20 33
8 31 54	8 32 56	8 33 58	8 19 31	8 20 34	8 21 32
9 32 55	9 33 57	9 34 59	9 20 32	9 21 35	9 22 31
10 33 56	10 34 58	10 35 60	10 21 33	10 22 36	10 23 30
11 34 57	11 35 59	11 36 61	11 22 34	11 23 26	11 24 29
12 35 58	12 36 60	12 37 62	23 49 66	12 24 25	12 25 28
13 36 59	13 37 61	13 38 63	35 50 65	37 51 65	13 26 27
14 37 60	14 38 62	14 39 64	36 51 64	38 52 66	40 53 78
15 38 61	15 39 63	15 40 66	37 52 67	39 53 67	41 54 77
16 39 62	16 40 64	16 41 65	38 53 69	40 54 68	42 55 76
17 40 63	17 41 65	17 42 67	39 54 68	41 55 69	43 56 75
18 41 64	18 42 66	18 43 68	40 55 70	42 56 70	44 57 74
19 42 65	19 43 67	19 44 69	41 56 71	43 57 71	45 58 73
20 43 66	20 44 68	20 45 71	42 57 72	44 58 72	46 59 71
21 44 67	21 45 69	21 46 70	43 58 73	45 59 73	47 60 72
22 45 68	22 46 70	22 47 72	44 59 74	46 60 74	48 61 70
23 46 69	23 47 71	23 48 73	45 60 75	47 61 75	49 62 69
70 73 76	24 48 72	24 49 74	46 61 76	48 62 76	50 63 68
71 74 77	73 76 77	25 50 75	47 62 77	49 63 77	51 64 67
72 75 78	74 75 78	76 77 78	48 63 78	50 64 78	52 65 66

It will be seen by the lottery combinations we present, how infinitely disproportionate are the chances in this species of gambling—how vastly the odds bear against the purchaser of tickets, and what mischievous results must of necessity spring from a vile system of frauds, perpetrated, as it is, by the sanction of law, and the tolerance of custom.

308	309	310	396	397	398
23	24	25	26	27	28
1 18 53	1 19 53	1 20 53	1 21 53	1 22 45	1 23 46
2 19 54	2 20 54	2 21 54	2 22 54	2 23 43	2 24 45
3 20 55	3 21 55	3 22 55	3 23 55	3 24 44	3 25 55
4 21 56	4 22 56	4 23 56	4 24 56	4 25 56	4 26 56
5 22 57	5 23 57	5 24 57	5 25 57	5 26 57	5 27 57
6 23 58	6 24 58	6 25 58	6 26 58	6 27 58	6 28 58
7 24 59	7 25 59	7 26 59	7 27 59	7 28 59	7 29 59
8 25 60	8 26 60	8 27 60	8 28 60	8 29 60	8 30 78
9 26 61	9 27 61	9 28 61	9 29 61	9 30 61	9 31 77
10 27 62	10 28 62	10 29 62	10 30 62	10 31 62	10 32 76
11 28 63	11 29 63	11 30 63	11 31 63	11 32 63	11 33 75
12 29 64	12 30 64	12 31 64	12 32 64	12 33 64	12 34 74
13 30 65	13 31 65	13 32 65	13 33 65	13 34 65	13 35 73
14 31 66	14 32 66	14 33 66	14 34 66	14 35 66	14 36 72
15 32 67	15 33 67	15 34 67	15 35 67	15 36 67	15 37 71
16 33 68	16 34 68	16 35 68	16 36 68	16 38 71	16 38 70
17 34 69	17 35 69	17 36 69	17 37 69	17 37 70	17 39 69
35 44 70	18 36 70	18 37 70	18 38 70	18 39 69	18 40 68
36 45 71	37 45 71	19 38 71	19 39 71	19 40 68	19 41 67
37 46 72	38 46 72	39 46 72	20 40 72	20 41 72	20 42 66
38 47 73	39 47 73	40 47 73	41 47 73	21 42 73	21 43 65
39 48 74	40 48 74	41 48 74	42 48 74	46 51 74	22 44 64
40 49 75	41 49 75	42 49 75	43 49 75	47 52 75	47 51 63
41 50 76	42 50 76	43 50 76	44 50 76	48 53 76	48 52 62
42 51 77	43 51 77	44 51 77	45 51 77	49 54 77	49 53 61
43 52 78	44 52 78	45 52 78	46 52 78	50 55 78	50 54 60

All the combinations used in this lottery have been given, as also the number that might be made; and, of course, the less the dealer in lotteries makes, the greater the chance in his favor, and the less in favor of the buyer. The figures heading the classes of combinations, on each page, are class-numbers, and those below the first figures, and immediately above the columns, are placed there to indicate the number of packages.

399	400
29	30
1 24 53	1 25 53
2 25 54	2 26 54
3 26 55	3 27 55
4 27 56	4 28 56
5 28 57	5 29 57
6 29 58	6 30 58
7 30 59	7 31 59
8 31 60	8 32 60
9 32 61	9 33 61
10 33 62	10 34 62
11 34 63	11 35 63
12 35 64	12 36 64
13 36 65	13 37 65
14 37 66	14 38 66
15 38 67	15 39 67
16 39 68	16 40 68
17 40 69	17 41 69
18 41 70	18 42 70
19 42 71	19 43 71
20 43 72	20 44 72
21 44 73	21 45 73
22 45 74	22 46 74
23 46 75	23 47 75
47 50 76	24 48 76
48 51 77	49 51 77
49 52 78	50 52 78

Here ends the Thirty Packages of Quarters.

MARKED CARDS. See Green on Gambling.

The above are specimens of patterns of playing cards, that the reader may rely upon the gambler's knowing by their back as well as the generality of amusement players know by their face. The same may be said of all the patterns spoken of and presented to the view of the reader on another page of this work.

This Ticket will entitle the holder to one QUARTER of such Prize as may be drawn to its Numbers, if demanded within twelve months after the Drawing. Subject to a deduction of Fifteen per cent: Payable forty days after the Drawing.
For A. BASSFORD & CO., Managers.
Covington, 1841. QUARTER.

[This plate represents a lottery ticket with the numbers placed upon it. The numbers seen upon its face are of the same order as those found upon every ticket when sold, and are used to designate one ticket from another, and by comparing them with the numbers at the head of any of those packages of combinations, on another page, you will see the manner in which they are arranged, and the great advantage in favor of the managers.]