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.