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.