The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-01-28


ESPECIAL REPORT FOR THE EvENNe TELEGRAPH
',Proutde things honest ,a Ae sight of all men,
Rom. All IL.
Wha. is Gambling? 1t is playing for money,
OF other stake, whether the game be one of
skill or purely of chance. Is such playing
honest or dishonest? There are several ways
of parting with property recognized among
men as honest, namely, by gllt, by sale or
exchange, and by bequest. gift or bequest
may be procured through fraud or deceit, and
dishonesty may be practised in buying or selling.
But in themselves considered giving and buy
ing land selling are falr and proper transac-
tions Gambling is something entirely different
from both giving and buying and selling. II
is not giving; so far is the loser in the game
from q benevolent intention towards the win
per. that he regards him as mis- antagonist, and
engages in the game for the avowed purpose Of
stripplpg the said antagonist and enriching
himself II is not matter of purchase and
SALE for the winner gives nothing and
proposes TO give nothing, in exchange
for the stake he carries OFF. A giH blesses both
him that gives and him that taxes. 1t yields
the siver the luxury Of conscious benevolence,
and the receiver the scarcely inferior luxury of
gratitude. A genuine, hearty gift has beauty
and sweetness about it, 1t tells of friendship
ofIove, or of goodness. We show our presents
with sort OF happy pride; and we think with
pleasure of what we have given away. When
we have given for anything an equivalent IN
money or property, we say we have bought it;
and when we regard money or property as the
product of our honest labor, we say we have
earned it, In both of these words, "bought and
'earned, Vt there is pure and pleasant ring-they
imply right and justice. But in the acquisition
of money by gambling the case is quite different
The winner cannot say IL bought it," or II
earned it, or at was given to me;" he says, II
ICON it.n And that means that he gave no
equivalent for it; that he from whom he took
1t parted with it most unwillingly, and so 1ar
from giving 1t, characterized it as lost"
But the question is whether or not gambling
is honest. We do not deny that q bet may be
fairly made and fairly carried out, nor that Il
game OF cards may be fairly played, even where
q regular gambler is one of the players. That
is, there may be no fraud used by either party
in the bet or game; but is there not question
lying back OF the mere manner In (which gam
bling may be done? The real question Is,
Whether gambling Is not dishonest even when
fairly done? We think it is. The most that can
be laid Tor the right Of the winner to keep the
money won, is that the loser;went into the game
fully, aware of the chances, and would him
~'t haye kept the stakes had he been successful.
Be- -tS only saying that the two parties iu
But this Il beforehand to the chances of
me esme agreSS gS tbo, n loss of the loser was in
sense, voluntary. Mere agrc I'm ooreo 70
cannot make wrong right. Two m u" Say II 10
feht a duel, aud one is killed; will we -, tba
ali right because the seconds examined W"
weapons, and regulated the whole affair accoru
ing to the rules OF honor? DO the rules OF
honor however punctlhously guarded ana oD'
served take from the soul OF the survivor the
guilt OF murder, or from the soul OF the dead
man the guilt of suicide? Is not the quit en-
hanced by the very fact OF the cooi, dellOerate
agreement of the parties to ''set their lVes upon
throW?n All Christian civilization answers,
Certainly Or, take the lower case OF two
bulies engaging in a regular hstlcun tof the
dirty honor of the championship OF the prize
ring. They agree to be beaten each just as
much as his antagonist is able to beat him.
But does the mere voluntarlness OF the suuggle
make their bruising OF one another rlght
Has not each done the other wrong in every
injury infiotedS Could any agreement give
them q right to spill each others blood and
bruise each others faces? You answer, "No;
they are a hundred told more wicked for the
brutal agreement than II they had fallen upon
each other in momeutot passion, and injured
one another against the convictions OF then
cooler judgment"
Now will not this logic apply equally well to
gambling? Why not? Have we any more right
10 iriure a man with his consent in his property
than in his person2 If a man cannot give q
duehst moral right to kill him; If one bully
cannot give another moral right to kick anc
cuff him, to break limb or knock out an eye
or tooth, can one gambler give another rlgh'
to rob him? IL is clear. therefore, tnat however
the parties gambling may consent to the rule
of the game the gamblers gains are dishonesty
gotten. They are neither earned, nor secured b.
other eQuiValent they are not gLUen 10 him, ant
the fact that by the rules of the game it wa
agreed that either should take the other
money if he could, only makes the wrong tn
greater by proving that it was deliberate.
We may be told that the equivalent rendere
by the successful gambler to his victim is tn
chance to become winner. But whatever els
this may be, it is certainly not an equivalent
An equivalent is that which man recetUeS 10
his money, and the loser receives nothing TO
his. By the very terms of the game, the lose
agrees to part with his money without an equ
Palent, and the winner to take II without maxim
a return. That is the meaning of having
chance 1t is to agree to be injured ourselve
or to injure another. Indeed, each one, know
ing that he may be either winner or loser, col
sents both to iniure and to be injured. Tt
chance, therefore, so far from being the loser
equivalent, is q direct violation OF the la
which demands an equivalent. Indeed, 1t
only chance, so far as the two players are col
cerned as it respects the law which requires
not to lniure our neighbor, 1t is no chance
ALL Whichever wins, justice is violated an
robbery is committed.
This has been the common opinion in all ag
and nations. Gambling has usually been ass
ciated with great crimes against the peace al
purity of society. II has been supposed to mai
way for duelling and suicide, and we know tn
both OF these have frequently resulted from
Gamblers have almost always been regarded
infamous quite as much so as countertelters
burglars. Nearly all nauous, ancient al
modern, have found II necessary TO pass la
for the prevention OF gambling. In ancle
Rome the law at one time went 80 tar as 10 co
fscate the gambling and everything
il. If any one maltreated the keeper OF a ga
bling-house, the abused man had no recourse
law. He was regarded as common enemy.
the Eastern empire, at one time, any money !
IL -. waA In and