{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_60005/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_60005","id":"gutenberg_60005","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60005","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Gambling"],"text":"Gambling:\n\n    Or, Fortuna, her Temple and\n    Shrine. The True Philosophy\n    and Ethics of Gambling. By\n    James Harold Romain.\n\n\n  [Illustration]\n\n\n  CHICAGO:\n  THE CRAIG PRESS.\n  1891\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1891.\n\n  JAMES HAROLD ROMAIN.\n\n\n\n\nPublisher\u2019s Note to the Public.\n\n\nAmerica is free and her people boast of her freedom in every realm\nof thought and every department of activity. Her pride is a form of\ndiscussion from which no man is excluded because of the opinions he\nmay advocate. We declare a man should be heard in the very face of\nprejudice or passion.\n\nMr. Romain\u2019s book, in our judgment, is entitled to publication for\nother reasons than those above mentioned. It is replete with learning,\nand original in conception. The philosophy is broad and the tone\ndignified. Patient research is manifest in every page. Every branch of\nknowledge has been made to contribute its force to the argument. The\nwork is a mine of information in political speculation, social science\nand moral philosophy. Mr. Romain is obviously in sympathy with the\nwidest possible circle of culture. For that reason, if for no other,\nwhat he has to say is entitled to a respectful consideration. His\nbook is unique in design and wrought out with vigor. His appeal is to\nphilosophy, science and history; not to idle curiosity, purposeless\ngossip, or the unimportant \u201cpersonal equation\u201d to which others have\nbeen so prone.\n\nIn the interest of fair play, but, confessedly, with no sympathy\nfor gambling, the book is offered to the people to decide as to the\ncorrectness of its conclusions.\n\n        ADAM CRAIG, Publisher.\n\n\n\n\n                         This book is dedicated\n                                 To the\n                       Hon. John Cameron Simonds,\n\n                             by the author,\n                      as a token of esteem for his\n                 fair-mindedness and sense of justice.\n               Although that gentleman is not a gamester,\n                   nor in sympathy with the pursuit,\n             yet the author desires thus to acknowledge his\n           indebtedness to him for many valuable suggestions\n                    in the preparation of this work.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nTwo doughty knights, clad cap-a-pie in burnished mail, once journeyed\nforth in search of martial adventure. Their noble steeds all\ncaparisoned for war, both wandered up and down through the world,\ndefending the fair and protecting the weak. Betimes they chance to\nmeet where stood in majestic beauty a bronze statue of victory. In her\nright hand the goddess clasped a sword, while in graceful pose her left\nrested upon an \u00e6gis richly wrought in the precious metals. Approaching\nfrom opposite directions, to one warrior the shield appeared as of\ngold, while to the other it was of silver. Low were bowed their\ncrested helms in courtly salutations.\n\n\u201cComely, Sir Knight,\u201d said one, \u201ccomely and noble is this figure.\u201d\n\n\u201cYea, thou hast spoken truly,\u201d was the reply.\n\n\u201cPrecious, very precious,\u201d rejoined the first, \u201cmust be yon golden\ntarge.\u201d\n\n\u201cNay, Sir Knight, it is of silver, I trow.\u201d\n\n\u201cBy my lady, thou liest,\u201d quickly came the hot retort.\n\nThen, prancing chargers well in hand, with lances lowered to deadly\nlevel, they prepared for the \u201cwager of battle.\u201d Both were unhorsed\nin the onslaught. Regaining an upright posture, with swords drawn to\nrenew the duel, each observed that his reverse of the shield was what\nthe other had contended for. Moral: It is wise to look first upon both\nsides of the subject.\n\nNot so, it is evident, has it been with books heretofore devoted to\na discussion of gambling. Their authors professed an exposition of\ngaming in the interest of morality. Well may some of the books be read\nfor their wealth of information and excellent diction. Some have been\nearnest, in places eloquent, and often suggestive. Vivid and dramatic\nare the descriptions of a passion that has possessed the world in all\nages; yet, that the various assaults were conceived in wisdom, or that\nthey have resulted in permanent good, I am constrained to deny.\n\nTrue, I believe with Sir Walter Raleigh, that out of history may be\ngathered a policy no less wise than eternal; \u201cby the comparison and\napplication of other men\u2019s forepassed miseries with our own like errors\nand ill-deservings.\u201d\n\nBut why did it not occur to these writers that circumstances should\nnot be recorded merely because they have happened; that events deserve\nmemorial only because they illustrate some great principle; because\nsome inference is to be drawn from them, which may increase the\nhappiness or enlarge the powers of man? That it did not, we must\ninfer from the pages they have given to the world. Cicero declared\nthat \u201cHistory is the light of truth.\u201d In vain, however, do we look for\na consideration of causes in any history of gambling. \u201cHistories,\u201d\nsaid Carlyle, \u201care as perfect as the historian is wise.\u201d Is that book\nwise wherein no adequate remedy is suggested for the evil it depicts?\nAlthough interesting, such a work is but a chronicle devoid of moral\npurpose. It is clear, to dwell upon the follies of man will not cure\nthem; that it will not strengthen humanity merely to portray their\nweaknesses. The passion our author would combat is rooted in the soul.\n\n   \u201cWhose powers at once combat ye, and control,\n    Whose magic bondage each lost slave enjoys.\u201d\n\nHow would you extirpate the evil, if such it is? Expose a folly, you\nmay say, and wisdom will turn from it. You would have us believe,\nperhaps, that:\n\n   \u201cWisdom from heaven received her birth;\n    Her beams transmitted to the subject Earth.\u201d\n\nAnd yet\n\n   \u201cThis great empress of the human soul\n    Does only with imagined power control,\n    If restless passion, by rebellious sway,\n    Compels the weak usurper to obey.\u201d\n\nSo far as the history of gambling has ignored causes and neglected\nremedies, it is incomplete. That it is deficient in both is my reason\nfor this book. Some one should begin the subject where other authors\nhave deserted it.\n\nI have long made a study of gaming in all its aspects and relations;\naiming, the while, at breadth, impartiality and thoroughness. At first\nmy reading was not conducted with a view to authorship. I desired\ninformation for its own sake. As a gamester, I sought the philosophy of\ngaming.\n\nWhat is chance? How far does it influence all mankind and circumscribe\ntheir efforts? What is gambling, in the broadest sense of the term?\nIs gaming wrong _per se_: i.e., absolutely vicious? Where in human\nnature is the passion grounded? Why does the propensity exist? Is it\nan inevitable tendency of human nature? What is morality? Wherein\ndoes the gambler differ from other men? How should his occupation be\ndistinguished from business generally? How far may the conduct of an\nindividual be dictated by society? How may the essentially punitive be\ndistinguished from that which is not so? What are the true limits of\nState power in relation to appetites and propensities? Are sumptuary\nlaws effectual? Does history, as the philosophy of example, justify\nsuch enactments? Can the law eradicate innate tendencies? Can character\nbe transformed by statute? Is it possible to legislate morality into\nmankind? What should be the policy of statesmen and reformers in the\nrealm of morals? If it is not possible to extirpate the passions by\nlaw, how may they be regulated, directed, educated and purified?\n\nSuch were the problems that confronted my understanding. Each and\nall were resolved to the best of my knowledge and capacity. I make my\nobservations public in the interests of fair play and common sense. I\nam at least entitled to the literary chances of a reading age.\n\nI have dallied with fickle fortune for years. As gamester, I\nanticipated prejudices against the pursuit. My deductions are amply\nfortified, therefore, from the mature studies of great and wise men.\nI did not expect my book to stand unsupported. It is substantiated,\nthroughout, by the teachings of profound and impartial philosophers.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                          Page\n  PUBLISHER\u2019S NOTE,                                          3\n\n  DEDICATION,                                                5\n\n  PREFACE,                                                   7\n\n  INTRODUCTION,                                             19\n\n  THE WORSHIP OF FORTUNA,                                   27\n\n  WHAT IS TRUTH; OR, THE PHILOSOPHER\u2019S STONE?               46\n\n  THE DESTINIES; OR, THE REIGN OF LAW,                     103\n\n  LEGISLATIVE EXORCISM; OR, THE BELIEF IN WORD-MAGIC,      139\n\n  \u201cTHE KING IS DEAD--LONG LIVE THE KING!\u201d,                 211\n\n\n\n\nIntroduction.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nA traveler once sought to explore an unknown country. Compass he had\nnot, and both chart and guide were wanting. In the distance a mountain\nloomed above the plain. To its summit our traveler made his way. From\nthence he beheld the region stretching away in all directions. The land\nhe would traverse the eye could now sweep from center to circumference.\nIt was not possible to know the landscape in detail, but the relative\nproportions, distances and boundaries were unfolded at his feet. So,\nwhen properly conceived, with the introduction to a book. A perspective\nof the topic is conducive to a better understanding of its scope and\npurpose. My object is to sustain the following propositions:\n\n_First._--Men have gambled in all ages of the world. That they will\ncontinue to do so is a reasonable presumption. To gamble would seem\ninstinctive--inherent in the souls of mankind and fostered by the\nvery nature of their environment. History reveals that all alike are\npossessed by this subtle passion--male and female, young and old, good\nand bad, wise and unwise, rich and poor, the exalted and the lowly. In\nevery century may be seen a motley throng kneeling in devotion at the\nfeet of Fortuna. Eagerly about her shrine press the mighty concourse\nof emperors, kings, chieftains, statesmen, ecclesiastics, savants,\nphilosophers, poets, soldiers and the wayfaring. Now and ever will\nmankind court the mysterious and uncertain.\n\n_Second._--To define a wager is to defy intolerance of opinion.\nTruth is not absolute but relative. It is not to be established _ex\ncathedra_. Moralists are not in a position to denounce gambling _per\nse_. They are not yet agreed upon the unconditioned principles of\nright and wrong. Before it can speak with authority, moral philosophy\nmust find an ultimate, self-evident and irrefragable foundation.\nThat it is essentially criminal or necessarily vicious to invoke a\nchance has never been demonstrated. To live is to gamble. We all wager\nin one way or another. Luck is appealed to in every department of\nhuman activity. Everywhere uncertainty is the rule and certainty the\nexception. In the business world vast realms are specifically founded\nupon the doctrine of chances. If absolutely wrong, then gambling should\nbe discountenanced in all persons under every circumstance. In whatever\nguise it should be condemned as a principle. Until this has been done\nsociety is not in a position to punish in one person what it permits\nor commends in another. In its treatment of gambling the law is now\ninconsistent, unjust and hypocritical.\n\n_Third._--Man is the creature of circumstances. Society is an organism\nconditioned by its environments. Every nation must complete a cycle of\ninfancy, youth, manhood and old age. Briefly, history is a science--an\nunbroken chain of causes and effects throughout the ages. Volition,\nso-called, is delusive and shadowy--more apparent than real. At best,\nwe but yield to the greatest pressure of temperament or motive. Human\nnature, in a word, is the result of inevitable tendencies. The passions\nare inherent and cannot be violently uprooted. Character is innate and\nnot subject to arbitrary reform by extrinsic force. Here, as elsewhere,\nevolution is the law of existence. While our appetites and propensities\nmay be educated, they can never be obliterated. Social and political\nphilosophy have repeatedly deduced these truths from the history of\nman. In the field of reform officialism has been repudiated by the\ngreatest thinkers. Legislation, therefore, should conform to the light\nof experience and the dictates of science. _Ergo_: in the future, as\nin the past and present, the gaming passion will everywhere assert\nitself, despite repressive legislation, however severe.\n\n_Fourth._--Sumptuary statutes are futile and impertinent. They are\nto-day and ever have been indefensible and impolitic. Such laws are\nan infringement upon individual rights and an insult to human nature.\nOfficious and pharisaical legislation in the province of morals and\ntaste should be abandoned once and forever. _Per se_, to gamble is\nneither a sin nor a crime. For the law to punish the practice is futile\nand unwarranted.\n\n_Conclusion._--An enlightened age demands the overthrow of an effete\nadministrative policy. In the realm of morals, let that be wisely\nguided which the law cannot prevent. Gambling, with certain conditions,\nshould be licensed and placed under the surveillance of a police.\n\n\n\n\nThe Worship of Fortuna.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nThe Worship of Fortuna.\n\n\nReader, in imagination go backward with me more than 20 centuries.\nEnter with me the magnificent and imposing Temple of Fortuna, in old\nPr\u00e6neste. We are within the portico of that stately hemicycle. Far\nabove is the marble dome, and about us cluster the snowy columns. As\nit is early morn, flamens and virgins are assembled inside the sacred\nprecincts. They are grouped about the flaming tripod, and the robes of\npurple and white blend in harmony of color. The sanctuary is redolent\nwith burning incense. A golden image of the goddess, in heroic mould,\nflashes back the rays of sunlight that penetrate the inner shadows. A\nsolemn chant entrances the ear, and our eyes turn to the westward.\nBefore us expands the Campagna, ninety miles in length and twenty-seven\nin breadth. The undulating plain stretches away in all directions\nuntil it sinks into the sea; thickly studded is the superb picture\nwith prosperous cities and \u201cevery rood of ground maintains its man.\u201d\nEverywhere is presented an appearance of comfort and rich cultivation.\nYonder, Mount Albanus towers to a height of 3,000 feet above the sea.\nLooming majestically above its topmost peak is the Temple of Jupiter\nLatiaris. The grandeur of mighty Rome is at our feet, a splendid and\nstupendous panorama of temples, amphitheatres, basilicas, palaces,\ncircuses, baths, arches and aqueducts. Such was the spot dedicated to\nFortuna by the ancient Pr\u00e6nestians. She was more deeply enshrined in\ntheir hearts than Olympian Jove himself.\n\nPr\u00e6neste flourished before the birth of Christ or the glory of Rome.\nThe noble city occupied a projecting point or spur of the Apennines\nand was distant from Rome, due east, about twenty-three miles. Above\nits walls towered the Temple of Fortuna. The Temple proper was circular\nin form and crowned the summit of a hill more than 2,400 feet above the\nMediterranean level. Standing out boldly against the sky, its majestic\noutlines were visible from a great part of Latium. As extended by\nSulla, the sanctuary occupied a series of six vast terraces, which,\nresting on gigantic substructions of masonry, and connected with each\nother by grand staircases, rose one above the other on the hill, in the\nform of a pyramid. Closely associated with the ritual of the Temple\nwere the \u201cPr\u00e6nestine Lots,\u201d or Sortes Pr\u00e6nestin\u00e6, and in existence\nat the beginning of the Christian era. Constantine, and subsequently\nTheodosius, suppressed the oracle. Its celebrity is attested by Lucan,\nHorace and Ovid. Cicero speaks of the great antiquity and magnificence\nof this shrine. Numerous were the great men who petitioned the\nPr\u00e6nestine Fortuna for assistance. Of the number may be mentioned\nTiberius, Domitian and Alexander Severus. Even Sulla sought to\npropitiate the goddess before engaging in his successful wars with\nMithridates.\n\nPlutarch tells us of Timotheus, the Athenian, son of Conon, who, \u201cwhen\nhis adversaries ascribed his successes to his good luck, and had a\npainting made representing him asleep, and Fortune by his side, casting\nher nets over the cities, was rough and violent in his indignation at\nthose who did it, as if, by attributing all to Fortune, they had robbed\nhim of his just honors; and said to the people, on one occasion, at\nhis return from war: \u2018In this, ye men of Athens, Fortune had no part!\u2019\nA piece of petulance which the deity played back upon Timotheus; who,\nfrom that time, was never able to achieve anything that was great.\u201d\n\n\u201cSylla,\u201d he continues, \u201con the contrary, not only accepted the credit\nof such divine favors with pleasure, but gave the honor of all to\nFortune. He once remarked: \u2018that of all his well-advised actions, none\nproved so lucky in the execution, as what he had boldly enterprised,\nnot by calculation, but upon the moment.\u2019 He gave Fortune a higher\nplace than merit, and made himself \u2018entirely the creature of a superior\npower.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe Goddess of Chance, or Good Luck, actually existed in the\nimagination of the ancients. Chapman writes:\n\n                      \u201cThe old Scythians\n    Painted blind Fortune\u2019s powerful hands with wings,\n    To show, her gifts come swiftly and suddenly,\n    Which, if her favorites be not swift to take,\n    He loses them forever.\u201d\n\nTemples to Fortuna (the Greek Tyche) dotted the sunlit landscape from\nThebes to Rome. She was adored by the Etrurians as Nortia. Originating\nnear Mount Parnassus, her worship gradually extended into all parts of\nGreece and Italy. Antium, an opulent and powerful city of Latium, was\nonce celebrated for its splendid temple of Fortune.\n\nHistory discloses not a period, however remote, when Fortuna was not\na favorite with the Latins. Numa Pompilius daily prostrated himself\nbefore her altar, and the ceremonial received a new impetus from his\npious grandson, Ancus Martius. Servius Tullius ascribed his power\nand success to the gods. Especially did he assume the protection of\nFortuna. Two temples were erected to her by this great king, one in the\nForum Boarium and the other on the Tiber. By some it is said that the\nedifices were respectively dedicated to Bona Fortuna and Fors Fortuna.\nYet another gorgeous structure afterward graced the Quirinal.\n\nPrecisely when the mythological system lost its influence is not\nknown. It is not true, however, as was once generally believed, that\nimmediately after the birth of Jesus the oracles were forever hushed.\nWhile, long prior to that event, many fanes had been deserted, yet\nothers continued to flourish for at least two centuries thereafter.\nBefore the Christian era, Mythology had been repudiated by Philosophy\nand Science. To the learned it was at best but expressive of the\nprinciples back of natural phenomena. Only because it was largely\nidentified with the state, did it receive the support of politicians.\nYielding to the spirit of Christianity, the Olympian deities departed\nwith the decline of Rome as a pagan power.\n\nOf all the shining throng that beautified the Pantheon, Fortuna alone\nrefused to abdicate a sovereignty she would exercise to the end of\ntime. True, the exquisite forms in which she had charmed the eye\nwere destroyed and her temples razed with the earth; yet has Fortuna\ncontinued her uninterrupted sway over the hearts of men. Sanctuaries\nand statutes were not necessary to her supremacy in the world. She was\nenshrined in the soul--her worship instinctive in the very nature of\nhumanity. Where is the epoch of Christendom in which an innumerable\nmultitude have not worshiped this imperial goddess? Among her devotees\nmay be included men famous in every department of life: politics,\nstatesmanship, war, eloquence, philosophy, science, art, literature\nand the liberal professions. A review of the brilliant procession is\nprofoundly suggestive.\n\nGreat Cyrus, who founded the Persian monarchy; Darius, who originated\ncentralized imperialism and reduced it to a system; Artaxerxes\nThird, the greatest administrator of remote antiquity; Miltiades,\na name associated with the glories of Marathon, once designated\n\u201cfreedom\u2019s best and bravest friend;\u201d Themistocles, to whom may\nbe fairly ascribed the victory at Salamis; Simonides, gentle and\npatient, the poet of nationality and patriotism; Aristophanes, the\ngreat father, and Menander, the acknowledged master of Greek comedy;\nPericles, the \u201cOlympian Zeus of oratory,\u201d a great statesman and one\nof the most remarkable characters of Greece; Plato, whose name is\nsynonymous with all that is most exalted in idealism; Xenophon, a\nfriend and pupil of Socrates, and to whom the world is indebted for\n\u201cMemorabilia,\u201d \u201cAnabasis,\u201d and \u201cCyrop\u00e6dia;\u201d Demosthenes, known to\noratory as the \u201cgreatest Hellenic star;\u201d Isocrates, his contemporary,\nthe distinguished rhetorician; Philip of Macedon, the famous father of\na more famous son; great Alexander, \u201cChild of Zeus,\u201d \u201cSon of Peleus,\u201d\nfamiliar to every schoolboy as the greatest of military conquerors.\n\nIn the resplendent story of Rome are Scipio Africanus, a military\ngenius, and the conqueror of Hannibal; Cornelius Sulla, the great\ngeneral, sagacious politician, accomplished scholar, \u201cone of the most\nremarkable figures of all time;\u201d Julius C\u00e6sar, equally pre\u00ebminent in\nstatecraft, war and letters; Marc Antony, brave and generous; Lepidus,\nnot the least of the second great triumvirate; Augustus, than whom a\nmore consummate ruler and prudent statesman never lived; Tiberius, a\nwriter of Greek odes and an orator at nine years of age; in battle he\nrepeatedly worsted the Parthians, Cantabrians, Dalmatians, Pannonians\nand Illyrians; Domitian, conspicuous for his piety, who enforced the\nlaws against adultery and other gross forms of immorality; Titus,\nbewailed at his death as \u201cthe love and light of the human race;\u201d\nHadrian, just, liberal, valorous and energetic; Nerva, humane and\nprogressive; Trajan, indomitable and heroic; Alexander Severus, a\nvirtuous prince, a student of Christianity, and the friend of Paulus\nand Ulpian; Sallust, distinguished in Latin literature for power and\nanimation; Livy, the man of beautiful genius; the graceful Catullus;\nexquisite Horace and facile Ovid.\n\nAmong the Germanic peoples, Eugene of Savoy, a memory cherished by\nAustria, who lived but for glory, and raised the Hapsburg arms to a\nprestige unequaled before or since; Wallenstein, bold, imperious and of\nversatile ability in civil and military affairs.\n\nIn Italy, the Abbes Ruccellai and Frangipanni, pious and charitable;\nReni Guido, who painted the marvellous \u201cCrucifixion of St. Peter\u2019s,\u201d\nand the \u201cAurora.\u201d In art, he expressed a most refined and fervent\nspiritualism.\n\nThe Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Charles of France, distinguished,\nrespectively, as \u201cThe Wise,\u201d \u201cThe Beloved,\u201d and \u201cThe Victorious;\u201d\nCharles VIII., who, with but 9,000 soldiers, defeated an Italian\narmy of 40,000 men; Louis XI., ever admirable for his administrative\ntalent, a friend of the middle classes, he restrained a turbulent and\noppressive nobility; Louis XII., of France, a \u201cfather of the people;\u201d\nLouis XIII., distinguished for valor and martial ability; Louis XIV.,\nbetter known to the world as \u201cThe Great,\u201d and to his country as\nDieu-donne--\u201cGod-given;\u201d the amiable and picturesque Henry of Navarre,\nthe champion of Protestantism and protector of the Huguenots; Philibert\nde Chalon, fertile and resolute; Bertrand du Guesclin, \u201cking of the\ntournament,\u201d the \u201chero of heroes;\u201d Cond\u00e9 and Turenne, both profound and\nalert; Marshall Saxe, energetic and courageous; Napoleon Bonaparte, a\ntitanic genius of transcendent powers, king of kings, \u201cthe astonishment\nand terror of the world;\u201d Ney, bravest of the brave, the victor of\nElchingen, Mannheim and Moskva; Murat, \u201cthe Gold Eagle,\u201d a truly wise\nking, and the greatest cavalry leader of his time; Richelieu, greatest\nstatesman of the 17th century; Mazarin, brilliant in ministerial\npolicy, and the wise architect of peace at Westphalia; Mirabeau, a man\nof gigantic thoughts and deeds--the mental Colossus of his age--\u201can\nintellectual Hercules;\u201d Talleyrand, unexcelled in diplomacy and eminent\nas a financier; Thiers, equally able in politics and literature; M.\nSallo, counselor to the Parliament of Paris, and Mathieu Mole, at one\ntime the Premier-President of that body; Moli\u00e8re, the inimitable;\nCorneille, creator of French tragedy; Rotrou, his master; and\nRacine; Montaigne, the essayist, extraordinary for his learning and\nsound reason; Paschasius Justus, an erudite and excellent physician;\nRousseau, apostle of universal happiness, and unrivaled in the\nliterature of France for the subtle eloquence of his style; Voltaire,\nworld-famous Sage of Ferney, the \u201csovereign writer of his century;\u201d\nRen\u00e9 Descarte, deservedly exalted in philosophy and mathematics; the\ndelightful poets, Voiture and Coquillart, with the renowned Cardinals\nD\u2019Este and De Medicis.\n\nFair Albion comes into the story with \u201cLion-Hearted\u201d Richard, the\nincomparable knight-errant; Edward I., unequaled in his century as\nwarrior and ruler; Edward III., who befriended literature and art,\nand espoused the cause of progress; his son, the Black Prince, \u201cmost\nglorious star of chivalry;\u201d Henry VIII., a foe to papacy, and for a\ntime the most popular monarch in English history; \u201cYe Merrie King\nCharles;\u201d Duke of Marlborough, the brilliant and successful general;\nArthur Wellesley, \u201cThe Iron Duke,\u201d venerated and beloved; Horatio\nNelson, of magnificent exploits and stupendous victories, who said:\n\u201cWhere anything great is to be done, there Providence is sure to\ndirect my steps;\u201d unrivaled was he in daring resource and skill; Sir\nCharles Napier, conqueror of Sinde and the \u201cacknowledged hero of a\nfamily of heroes;\u201d Dan Chaucer, \u201cthat first sweet warbler\u201d of English\nverse, philosopher, politician and poet; Marlowe, the mightiest of\nShakespeare\u2019s pioneers; Shakespeare, himself, \u201csweet swan of Avon,\u201d\nmyriad-minded and wondrous; \u201crare\u201d Ben Jonson; Raleigh, a universal\ngenius--\u201cthe glass of fashion and mould of form;\u201d Surrey, polished and\nchivalric; John Dryden, of whom Dr. Johnson said: \u201cAs Augustus was\nto Rome, so was Dryden to English literature. He found it brick and\nleft it marble;\u201d Dr. Tobias Smollett, who wrote \u201cHumphrey Clinker;\u201d\nFielding, the frank and manly author of \u201cTom Jones;\u201d sweet Oliver\nGoldsmith, in letters perspicuous, vivacious, and graceful; Halifax,\n\n   \u201cJotham of piercing wit and pregnant truth,\n    Endued by nature and by learning taught\n    To move assemblies;\u201d\n\nthe first Marquis of Anglesey, high-spirited and impetuous, a dashing\ngeneral of cavalry; that best of Irish Viceroys, Frederic Howard, Earl\nof Carlisle; Lord Bolingbroke, accomplished and eloquent; Shaftesbury,\nthe incorruptible statesman, upright judge and friend of religious\nfreedom; Horace Walpole, of whom Macaulay said, that his writings \u201cwere\namong the delicacies of intellectual epicures;\u201d Dr. Dodd, divine,\nauthor, editor and chaplain of the king; George Selwin, the celebrated\nconversational wit; Sir Philip Francis, immortal as \u201cJunius,\u201d and a\n\u201cfriend of the people;\u201d the artistic Farquhar; courtly Waller; elegant\nDorset; charming Sedley; and scholarly Congreve; jolly Dick Steele, a\nmaster of classical prose; Charles James Fox, of whom James Mackintosh\nsaid: \u201cHe is the most Demosthenian speaker since Demosthenes;\u201d\nSheridan, \u201ccapable of the grandest triumphs in oratory,\u201d and noted for\nhis sparkling wit and exquisite songs; Wilberforce, who dedicated his\nlife to a struggle for the abolition of the slave-trade; Edward Gibbon,\nthe historian, splendid, imposing and luminous; Ponsonby, once speaker\nof the Irish House of Commons; Dr. Colton, author of \u201cLacon;\u201d William\nPitt, of dauntless spirit and unimpeachable integrity; and Lord Byron,\na poet famed for his passionate eloquence and pathetic gloom.\n\nFortuna may proudly enumerate her great votaries in America: Aaron\nBurr, Edgar Allan Poe, William Wirt, Luther Martin, Gouverneur\nMorris, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, General Hayne, Sam Houston,\nAndrew Jackson, Generals Burnett, Sickles, Kearney, Steedman, Hooker,\nHurlbut, Sheridan, Kilpatrick, Ulysses S. Grant, George D. Prentiss,\nSargeant S. Prentiss, Albert Pike, A.\u00a0P. Hill, Beauregard, Early;\nBen Hill, Robert Toombs, George H. Pendleton, Thaddeus Stevens,\nGreen of Missouri, Herbert and Fitch of California, \u201cJerry\u201d McKibben,\nJames A. Bayard--father of the recent Secretary of State--Benjamin F.\nWade, the lamented Broderick, John C. Fremont, Judge Magowan, Charles\nSpencer, Fernando Wood and his brother Benjamin, Colonel McClure,\nSenator Wolcott, Senator Pettigrew, Senator Farwell, Matthew Carpenter,\nThomas Scott, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Hutchinson of Chicago, and Pierre\nLorrillard. Names might be extended indefinitely. Enough have been\nmentioned to illustrate how the gambling habit permeates all ranks of\nsociety in the United States.\n\nWith the conclusion of our retrospect, we may well exclaim: What is the\nnature of a passion so inveterate and general: of a propensity that\ndominates all mankind alike, whether noble or mean, wise or foolish,\nstrong or weak? \u201cIs there a remedy?\u201d propounds the philosopher. The\nlegislator asks, \u201cWhat is my duty?\u201d\n\n\n\n\nWhat is Truth?\n\nor,\n\nThe Philosopher\u2019s Stone.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nWhat is Truth; or, the Philosopher\u2019s Stone?\n\n\nIn medi\u00e6val romance the Alchemist is a familiar figure--with flowing\nrobe and skull-cap, in the midst of crucibles and alembics. This period\nof the world did not present a feature more weird and picturesque:\na body of learned but misguided men, professing the \u201cchemistry of\nchemistries.\u201d With eagerness and devotion they vainly sought for a\nprinciple that could indefinitely prolong human life and transmute\nthe baser metals into gold and silver. Although centuries have\nelapsed since Gebir and Paracelsus, yet the \u201cphilosopher\u2019s stone\u201d is\na desideratum. Of the Alchemists it has been quaintly said by Percy,\n\u201cthat their respective histories were accurate illustrations of the\ndefinition which describes Alchemy as an Art without principle, which\nbegins in falsehood, proceeds in labor, and ends in beggary.\u201d\n\nForcibly suggestive is this picture of moral philosophy and\nphilosophers. From the remotest ages certain men have arrogated to\nthemselves a knowledge in the realm of ethics much superior to their\nbrethren. It was manifested by the \u201cgnomic\u201d poetry of Greece, more than\n700 years B.\u00a0C., and in the oracular sayings of the so-called \u201cseven\nsages\u201d of antiquity. To this day a similar class of wiseacres may be\nfound in all parts of the earth. The moralists, however, search not\nfor the universal medicine or an irresistible solvent. Such persons\nadmit the \u201cgrand elixir\u201d is a delusion; and yet, their ambition is\nmore daring and presumptious. They would \u201cbe as gods, knowing good and\nevil.\u201d \u201cGold is but dross,\u201d they exclaim, \u201cour quest is for _necessary_\nmoral truth. We seek _immutable_ righteousness.\u201d Long ago was Alchemy\nabandoned as futile. Not so the egotistic dogmatism of the moral\nphilosophers: with them self-conceit has remained incorrigible, from\nSocrates and Plato, through Kant and Hegel, to Martineau and Janet.\nIn vain, their assumptions have been repeatedly demolished and their\ndeductions refuted. Unmindful are they, also, of the irreconcilable\nconflict of \u201cschools\u201d--the hopeless contradiction of \u201csystems.\u201d\nFully one hundred great thinkers, first and last, have asserted the\ndiscovery of indubitable \u201cgood.\u201d But no two of them all agreed upon\nthe infallible line of distinction between what \u201cought to be\u201d and\nits opposite. In fact, every individual of the number represents a\ndifferent scheme. All moral philosophers asseverate the necessity for\nan authoritative standard of right and wrong--for some peremptory\nand incontestable guide to human conduct. Otherwise, they admit, one\nopinion is no more acceptable or commanding than another.\n\nSome affirm the existence of an innate faculty, the unerring dictates\nof which are defended. But Bentham (a great jurist) denounced the\n\u201cmoral sense\u201d man as a bully who would brow-beat others into accepting\nhis verdict. All such appeals were described by him as sheer \u201c_ipse\ndixitism_: as a fraud by which incompetent philosophers would palm\ntheir own tastes and fancies upon mankind.\u201d \u201cOne man,\u201d wrote Bentham\nof Shaftesbury, \u201csays _he_ has a thing made on purpose to tell _him_\nwhat is right and what is wrong; and that it is called _moral sense_:\nthen he goes to work at his ease and says such and such a thing is\nright, and such and such a thing is wrong. Why? \u2018Because _my_ moral\nsense tells me it is.\u2019\u201d Of the inner-capacity-philosopher, Hazlitt\nremarked that \u201chis excessive egotism filled all objects with himself.\u201d\nTo Crabbe, \u201che was a self-conceited man, who pretends to see through\nintuition what others learn by experience and observation; to know in\na day what another wants years to acquire; to learn of himself what\nothers are contented to get by means of instruction.\u201d\n\nArchdeacon Paley, again, ridiculed as worthless a \u201cmoral sense\u201d which\nman may disregard if he chooses. What is an _authority_, said Paley,\nmerely felt in the individual consciousness: a personal whim, the mere\naccident of individuality. What, he asks, is the authority of another\u2019s\nconscience to me? What, indeed, _is_ my conscience, and _why_ is it an\nauthority to myself? We can never know whether it is \u201ca real angel with\nflaming sword, or a scare-crow dressed up by the moral philosophers.\u201d\nDid the \u201cmoral sense\u201d exist, should we not see a universal evidence\nof its influence? Would not men exhibit a more manifest obedience\nto its supposed dictates than they do? Would there not be a greater\nuniformity of opinion, as to the rightness or wrongness of opinions, as\nto the rightness or wrongness of actions? \u201cWe should, not, as now, find\none man or nation considering as a virtue what another regards as a\nvice--Malays glorying in the piracy abhorred by civilized races--a Thug\nregarding as a religious act that assassination at which a European\nshudders--a Russian piquing himself on his successful trickery--a red\nIndian in his undying revenge--things which with us would hardly be\nboasted of.\n\n\u201cAgain, if this moral sense exist and possess no fixity, gives\nno uniform response, says one thing in Europe and another in\nAsia--originates different notions of duty in each age, each race,\neach individual, how can it afford a safe foundation for a systematic\nmorality? What can be more absurd than to seek a definite rule of right\nin the answers of so uncertain an authority?\u201d\n\nCan it be fairly said, my reader, that such men are in a position to\njudge the gambler, or to denounce his vocation? May not the gamester\nask of this sect: By what authority do you pronounce judgment, \u201cout\nof hand,\u201d upon me and mine? Where is your standard--authentic,\ndeterminative, undeniable, irrefutable? Am I subject to the dominion of\nyour conscience? In my opinion, gaming is not a sin. In what is your\njudgment superior to mine? Moreover, I defy you to demonstrate a wager\nis wrong, _per se_. If you find this impossible, I am free to repudiate\nyour dogmatism. To know, also, that gaming is not _prima facie_ sinful,\nwe have but to define it.\n\nThe lexicographers define a gamester as \u201cone who plays for money or\nother stake;\u201d and gaming \u201cto be the use of cards, dice, or other\nimplement, with a view to win money, or other thing, wagered upon the\nissue of the contest.\u201d Is this a description of anything forbidden\nby the decalogue? Where, in the old or new testament, is a similar\ntransaction denounced as a sin? But, it may be said, perhaps, the\nforegoing definition does not suffice for moral consideration: it\nignores the element of chance, which enters more or less into all\ngames. This would imply that it is immoral to invoke a fortuity. Is it?\n\nHere, the great Jefferson may be quoted with propriety: \u201cIt is a common\nidea that games of chance are immoral. But what is chance? Nothing\nhappens in this world without a cause. If we know the cause, we do not\ncall it chance, but if we do not know it, we say it was produced by\nchance. If we see a loaded die turn its lightest side up, we know the\ncause, and that it is not an effect produced by chance; but whatever\nside an unloaded die turns up, not knowing the cause, we say it is the\neffect of chance. Yet, the morality of the thing cannot depend on our\nknowledge or ignorance of its cause. Not knowing _why_ a particular\nside of an unloaded die turns up, cannot make the act of throwing, or\nof betting on it, immoral. If we consider games of chance immoral, then\nevery pursuit of human industry is immoral, for there is not a single\none that is not subject to chance; not one, wherein you do not risk a\nloss for the chance of some gain.\u201d\n\nIn \u201cParadise Lost,\u201d Milton declares:\n\n   \u201cNext him, high arbiter,\n    _Chance_ governs all!\u201d\n\nAnd of mankind we read in Ecclesiastes that \u201ctime and _chance_\nhappeneth to them\u201d--mankind. (9:11). Among the Hebrews, property was\ndivided and disputes were decided, \u201cby lot.\u201d The custom is mentioned\nby Solomon, Matthew and Luke. (Prov. 16:33; Matt. 27:35; Luke 10.)\nFurthermore, this mode of appeal to destiny is sanctioned, yea, even\nprescribed, by the Bible. According to Leviticus, Aaron was commanded\n\u201cto take the two goats, and present them before the Lord, at the door\nof the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall _cast lots_\nupon the two goats; one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the\nscape-goat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord\u2019s lot\nfell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot\nfell to be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the Lord,\nto make an atonement with him and to let him go for a scape-goat into\nthe wilderness.\u201d (16:7, 8, 9.)\n\n_Thus was chance invested with the sanctity of a religious observance._\n\nMoses was instructed that the \u201cPromised Land\u201d should be divided\namong the Hebrews \u201cby lot.\u201d The method is described in Numbers:\n\u201cNotwithstanding, the land shall be divided by lot, according to the\nnames of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit. According to\nlot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few.\u201d\nThis direction was followed to the letter by \u201cEleazar, the priest, and\nJoshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of\nthe children of Israel;\u201d for we are told in Joshua, that \u201cBy lot was\ntheir inheritance; as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses, for the\nnine tribes and for the half tribe.\u201d (Josh 14:1, 2; 18:6.)\n\n_Luck, then, decided the tenure of the tribes in Canaan--a title\ndictated by Divinity._\n\nJoshua determined, by lot, that it was Achan, of the tribe of\nJudah, who had taken \u201cthe accursed thing\u201d and thus brought upon\nIsrael the disaster at Ai. (Josh. 7:14.) During the great battle\nof Michmash-Aijalon, Saul said unto the Israelites: \u201cCursed be the\nman that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on my\nenemies.\u201d\n\nUnmindful of this oath, wild honey was eaten by his son, in a moment\nof extreme hunger. No one would divulge that the king\u2019s adjuration had\nbeen disregarded by the beloved Jonathan. \u201cTherefore, Saul said unto\nthe Lord God of Israel, give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan were\ntaken: but the people escaped. And Saul said, Cast lots between me and\nJonathan, my son. And Jonathan was taken.\u201d (1 Sam. 14:40, 42.)\n\n_By lot, likewise, the question of \u201cministry and apostleship\u201d was\ndecided against Justus and in favor of Matthias._ (Acts 1:26.)\n\nBriefly, if the Bible is a divine production, how can appeals to\nchance be stigmatized as vicious or irreligious? Also, it is not to\nbe denied that chance, or casualty, enters very largely into every\ndepartment of human action. Men are compelled to take ventures every\nday; the engineer faces them; so does the sea captain; the same may be\nsaid of the doctor, the surgeon, the lawyer and the banker. A merchant\nencounters all the risks of trade; the hostility of the elements and\nthe bankruptcy of others. The rains may rot or the drouths destroy the\ncrops of the farmer. And almost, in the words of Ben Jonson, throughout\nthe world,\n\n   \u201cAll human business, fortune doth command,\n    Without all order, and with her blind hand,\n    She, blind, bestows blind gifts, that still have nurst,\n    They see not who nor how.\u201d\n\nThe politician, too, might say with Macbeth: \u201cIf chance will have me\nking, why, chance may crown me.\u201d War is a mighty game between giants.\nIn truth, of Napoleon the poet has said:\n\n   \u201cWhose game was empires, and whose stakes were thrones,\n    Whose table, earth; whose dice, were human bones.\u201d\n\nBeyond this, even our laws and institutions appeal to chance. In the\nUnited States Senate, whom, respectively, of two members--elected at\nthe same time--shall serve for the long and short term, is decided by\nlot. The law recognizes that even property may be thus divided. \u201cWhen\nan estate is apportioned into three parts, and one part is given to\neach of three persons; the proper way is to ascertain each one\u2019s part\nby drawing lots.\u201d Thus is the rule stated by Bouvier and Wolff. The\nIllinois Statutes, for the regulation of elections, enact that \u201cwhen\ntwo or more persons receive an equal and the highest number of votes\nfor an office to be filled by the county alone, that county clerk shall\nissue a notice to such persons of such tie vote, and require them to\nappear at his office, on a day named in the notice, within ten days\nfrom the day of election, and determine by lot which of them is to be\ndeclared elected. On the day appointed the clerk and other canvassers\nshall attend, and the parties interested shall appear and determine by\nlot which of them is to be declared elected.\u201d Similar laws exist in\nother states.\n\nSome moralists admit the validity of a transaction, notwithstanding it\nmay depend upon chance. They will concede there is no intrinsic wrong\nin any species of game, unless there exists an inequality of chance or\nskill. Not so, thought Paley, the Christian philosopher, whose name is\na household word for purity, zeal and power. He said: \u201cWhat some say of\nthis kind of contract, that one side ought not to have any advantage\nover the other, is neither practical nor true. This would require\nperfect equality of skill and judgment, which is seldom to be met with.\nI might not have it in my power to play with fairness a game of cards\nonce in a twelvemonth, if I must wait till I meet with a person whose\nart, skill and judgment are neither greater nor less than my own. Nor\nis this equality requisite to the justice of the contract. One man\nmay give to another the whole of the stake if he chooses, and the\nother may justly accept it if it be given him; much more, therefore,\nmay one give another an advantage in the chance of winning the whole.\nThe only proper restriction is, that neither side have an advantage\nby means of which the other is not aware. The same distinction holds\nof all transactions and proceedings into which chance enters; such as\ninsurance, and speculations in trade or in stocks.\u201d\n\nIn this connection, with what force could be quoted the sweet Nazarene\nin His parable of the vineyard laborers: \u201cFriend, I do thee no wrong;\ndidst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go\nthy way; I will give unto this last even as unto thee. _Is it not\nlawful for me to do what I will with mine own?_\u201d (Matt. 20:13, 14, 15.)\n\nHere the mathematicians attempt to rescue moral philosophy. They would\ndemonstrate the improbability of luck. If asked how it happened that\na man won a hundred thousand dollar prize, while his neighbor drew a\nblank, the mathematician might tell you it was chance; that there was\na necessity for the prize to fall somewhere, and that he who had the\nmost chances was the most likely to obtain it. Such caviling could be\ndismissed with the answer: You acknowledge the necessity of a prize\nfalling _somewhere_, then why not to me. Surely my chances are as good\nas my neighbors\u2019, perhaps more so. It may be; and what may be may be\nnow. \u201cThere is no prerogative in human hours.\u201d \u201cThere is a tide in the\naffairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.\u201d\n\nNo intelligent gambler is a believer in \u201cluck\u201d as _a personal quality_.\nHe recognizes the phenomena of chance. _How_ they will operate is not\nknown to the mathematician more than to him; the \u201cchances\u201d may result\nfavorably or unfavorably for a gambler; the law may so work as to\nbenefit him, or it may not. Whether \u201cchance\u201d or \u201cluck,\u201d is immaterial\nto the issue.\n\nBut seriously, for what do these aspirants contend? A method of\nreasoning from the happening of an event to the _probabilities_ of one\nor another cause; that the possible combinations in a pack of cards,\nor a handful of dice, may be computed, even when the question involves\nthe chances of a thousand dice, or a thousand throws of one die. In\nits very nature this is a vain-glorious pretension, and upon what is\nit based? An _hypothesis_ presenting the necessity of one or another\nout of a certain number of consequences. In other words, _given_ an\nevent as having happened, and which _might_ have been the consequence\nof either of several causes, or explicable by either of several\n_hypotheses_, the probabilities can be _inferred_.\n\nIn this way is the philosophy of supposition substituted for that of\ncaprice. We are asked by the mathematician, at the very outset, to\nassume something he has not proved, and which is not susceptible of\nproof. We are required to take for granted the imaginary premises\nupon which his argument depends. Is this not the acme of intellectual\naudacity? But having yielded his antecedent proposition, what is the\nresult? A bare probability--a mere likelihood of the occurrence of any\nevent.\n\nSo much for the boasted \u201cDoctrine of Chances.\u201d Besides, I assert that\nevery premise of the mathematician has been refuted by my experience\nas a gamester. In the proper place, I could disprove his every theory\nwith a fact. For example: De Morgan and Proctor tell us that it is not\nprobable seven could be thrown ten successive times, with a pair of\ndice. We are told, on good authority, that in 1813, a Mr. Ogden wagered\n1,000 guineas that his opponent would not perform this feat. That\ngentleman threw seven _nine times_ running.\n\nHowever, the mathematicians are not concerned with the right or wrong\nof play for money. They seek to demonstrate the inequalities of chance,\nhoping thus to dissuade humanity from its pursuit. Their efforts are\nidle. \u201cThe proverb which advises us to throw a sprat to catch a whale,\nshows that mankind consider a chance of a gain to be a benefit for\nwhich it is worth while to give up a proportionate certainty.\u201d These\ngentlemen have extended their conjectures to the risks of loss or gain\nin general commerce; the probable continuity of life and duration of\nmarriage; the contingencies in political results and the verdicts of\njuries; the distributions of sex in births, and even the probability of\nerror in any opinion that may be generally received. In fact, should\ntheir guesses be heeded by the world, enterprise and hope would depart.\n\nAnother class of moralizers reject and deride the idea of \u201cinnate\nnotions.\u201d Truth, they maintain, is not to be found in worn out\nabstractions and moral senses, which are the weak reproductions of\nmaterial organisms. In ethics, if they are to be followed, we must\nset out with the convictions that our materials are relative and not\nabsolute, and that our highest moral conceptions must partake of the\nsame character. As stated by Posnett, systems of ethics, more or less\nperfect in their day, have vanished in the progress of society and\nmind. Systems of ethics, whether we see or care to see it, are gliding\nfrom amongst us at this moment, while others, \u201cwith strange faces are\ngrowing familiar by the slowness of their approach.\u201d\n\nTo illustrate from Chenebix: Nothing can appear more definite than\nvirtue; yet, in Asia, the term may denote submission; in Europe and\nAmerica, resistance; to Mussulmans war; to Christians, peace. Honor,\ntoo, which its votaries describe as one and incorruptible, assumes\nvarious significations. In some countries it prescribes revenge for\nan injury received; in others, forgiveness. Here, the violation of\nfemale chastity is a disgrace, elsewhere it is a duty. To a Mussulman\nthe eating of pork is \u201cvile and unclean: fills his soul with aversion,\nrepugnance, disgust. To this habit their antipathy is deep and\nintuitive. To the natives of Western India, eating beef is sacrilegious\nand revolting. In Spain, any other worship than that established by\nthe Catholic church is impious and in the highest degree offensive\nto God. The people of all Southern Europe regard a married clergy as\nirreligious, indecent, unchaste, gross and disgusting. Wherever the\nPuritans have been sufficiently powerful they have endeavored to put\ndown all public, and nearly all private amusements: music, dancing, the\ntheatre and public games.\u201d\n\nThis denomination, strange as it may seem, also urge upon mankind\nwhat, in their opinion, is the \u201ctrue moral rule\u201d--the correct standard\nof right. It is that which is established by authority, custom, or\ngeneral consent. A variable and doubtful criterion, this, one would\nnaturally suppose. How severely has it been treated by Spencer and\nCarpenter. Right and wrong are not _essentially_ different. All\nmoral distinctions are a matter of arbitrary establishment by the\n\u201cpowers that be.\u201d That which is statutory, customary, fashionable, or\ngenerally habitual, is fit and proper. Conduct is purely a question of\nmajority and might. Place gambling in the ascendant to-morrow and it\nwould be just; or, as the major part of humanity, gamesters would be\nrespectable; for an opinion commonly accepted is the correct opinion.\nWith this as a guide, can the state hold the gamester reprobate?\n\nSociety keeps changing its sentiments with the centuries. Absolutely,\nwe can never know when it is right or when it is wrong. The outlaw\nof one era is the idol of another. Servetus was immolated by the\nCalvinists, to-day he is a martyr to conscience. Bruno was burned as a\nheretic, now he is the hero of philosophy and science.\n\nGalileo and Roger Bacon were once execrated by the church--their bones\nlie in unknown and unhonored graves. We regard them as brave pioneers\nof human thought. The formerly despised and hunted Christians are\nbecome the greatest power on earth. The Jew money-lender of the \u201cdark\nages\u201d (whom such as Front-de-B\u0153uf once tortured with impunity) is the\nRothschild of our century--\u201cthe guest of princes and the instigator of\ncommercial wars.\u201d Shylock is now an influential and courted capitalist.\n\u201cAll the glories of Alexander do not condone, in our eyes, for his\ncruelty in crucifying the brave defenders of Tyre, by thousands, along\nthe sea-shore; and if Solomon, with his thousand wives and concubines,\nwere to appear in London or New York to-morrow, even the most frivolous\ncircles would be shocked, and Brigham Young, by contrast, seem a\ndomestic model.\u201d\n\nFrom C\u00e6sar we learn that the Suevi held their lands in common; that\nprivate property in the soil did not obtain with the Gauls and Germans.\nThe same is true of the North American Indians and some of the Pacific\nIslanders. It is conceded, moreover, that communistic principles were\ngenerally prevalent in the earliest ages of the world. Then, any\nattempt at exclusive individual possession of land or chattel would\nhave been deemed a theft.\n\nThe medi\u00e6val ideal was an ascetic and monastic life. To-day, millions\nregard such a course as unwise, if not wicked. Poverty, heretofore\nesteemed as the badge of honor and dignity, is by our era adjudged\noffensive. Nomadism prevailed in a former age. Now gypsies and tramps\nare the outcasts of society. Regarding marriage, public opinion has\nvaried through all phases, without attaining finality. In earliest\ntimes how indiscriminate is the tie--the monstrous relation of brother\nand sister being the rule, rather than the exception. Polygamy\nprevails with one people and polyandry among another. In India and the\nOrient a wife is hidden from the dearest friend, while in Africa a\nchief will put his mate to bed with a guest. In Japan young women, even\nof good birth, \u201care free in their intercourse with men, till they are\nmarried; at Paris they are free after.\u201d\n\nIn ancient Greece and Rome, again, marriage was not the highest\nconception, and largely \u201ca matter of convenience and housekeeping.\u201d\nWives were little, if any better, than slaves. The class of women\nknown as Hetairai (concubines and mistresses) were openly honored and\ntrusted by both political and social leaders. The name of Aspasia is\nclosely associated with that of Pericles. Theodota was the intimate of\nSocrates. Diotima has been immortalized in the \u201cSymposium\u201d of Plato.\n\nThe splendid ideal of our century is the monogamic state--\u201cthe\ngreat theme of romantic literature, and the climax of a myriad\nnovels and poems.\u201d In classic Greece the idealistic model was male\nfriendship--comradeship. We have its type in the heroic figures of\nHarmodius and Aristogiton. The Theban Legion, or \u201cSacred Band,\u201d\nexemplified the principle. No man might enter without his lover.\nAlthough annihilated at the battle of Ch\u00e6ron\u00e6a, it was never\nvanquished. The literature of Greece and Rome illuminate this exalted\nsentiment. The writings of Pliny the younger, Cicero and Lucian, are\nworthy of especial mention. Many sweet and noble friendships are\nembalmed in the poetry of Hellas and Latium; Demetrius and Antiphilus;\nDamon and Pythias; Phocion and Nicoles; Glaucus and Diomedes; Philades\nand Orestes; Cicero and Atticus; Socrates and Alcibiades; Lucilius and\nBrutus; Tiberius Gracchus and Blossius; Caius Gracchus and Licinus.\n\nSuicide was not thought unworthy by the ancients. It was resorted to\nby Anthony, Brutus, Cassius, Cato, and Zeno. To-day, the attempt\nis a crime, and its consummation a disgrace. In Europe and America\nit is _felo-de-se_. Infanticide is common in many parts of Asia and\nAfrica. To-day the feudal baron would be adjudged a freebooter; the\nknight-errant a brawling vagabond. A nineteenth century man may\nbeat his wife within an inch of her life, and get but three months.\nFor stealing a suit of clothes he would be \u201csent up\u201d for years. So\n\u201cgambling on \u2019change is now respectable enough, but pitch and toss for\nhalfpence is low, and must be dealt with by the police. We know that\nwhen questions connected with life contingencies were first considered,\nit was regarded as most deliberate gambling to be in any way concerned\nin buying or selling such articles as annuities, or any interests\ndepending upon them.\u201d The age boasts of an advance in the humanities;\nand yet, public opinion permits extravagance and selfishness in the\nrich while the poor are starving. Our educated classes, generally,\napprove the vivisection of animals. In ancient Egypt it would have\nbeen stigmatized as the most abominable of crimes.\n\nFrom age to age, likewise, law represents the code of the dominant or\nruling class--at all times only valid because it is the code of those\nin power. How often used by \u201cauthority\u201d for selfish purposes, may be\nread on every page of history. Monarchy, absolute or limited, is a\nsynonym for injustice. Feudalism is another term for murder, rapine\nand extortion. In Spain, the lands of nobles were long exempted from\ndirect taxation. For centuries the Hungarian turnpikes were free to the\naristocracy. Prior to the revolution in France, all burdens of state\ndevolved upon the lower classes. Less than two centuries ago Scotch\nlairds exported their peasantry into slavery. Students will recall the\n\u201cBlack Act\u201d of George I., and the \u201cInclosure Laws\u201d of England. Until\nquite recently, slavery existed in Europe and America; nor has the\ninstitution wholly disappeared from the earth. Legislation is mainly\nin the interest of the wealthy and powerful. Congress and legislatures\nare making the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Government is\nlargely devoted to the creation and upholding of corporations,\ntrusts, monopolies, subsidies and extortionate tariffs. What care the\npoliticians for manhood? Wealth is their God.\n\n\u201cLet your rule be the greatest happiness to the greatest number,\u201d\ninterposes another authority. But are men agreed in their definition\nof \u201cgreatest happiness?\u201d Different notions of it are entertained in\nall ages, amongst every people, by each class. \u201cTo the wandering gypsy\na home is tiresome, whilst a Swiss is miserable without one. Progress\nis necessary to the Anglo-Saxons; on the other hand, the Esquimaux are\ncontent in their squalid poverty, have no latent wants, and are still\nwhat they were in the days of Tacitus. An Irishman delights in a row,\na Chinaman in ceremonies and pageantry, and the usually apathetic\nJavanese gets vociferously enthusiastic over a cock-fight. The heaven\nof the Hebrew is a city of gold and precious stones, with an abundance\nof corn and wine; that of the Turk, a harem peopled by Houris; that\nof the American Indian, a happy hunting-ground; in the Norse paradise\nthere were to be daily battles, with magical healing of wounds. It was,\nseemingly, the opinion of Lycurgus, that perfect physical development\nwas the chief essential to human felicity; Plotinus, on the contrary,\nwas so purely ideal in his aspirations as to be ashamed of his body. To\na miserly Elwes, the hoarding of money was the only enjoyment of life;\nbut the philanthropic Day could find no pleasurable employment, save in\nits distribution.\u201d\n\nFrancis, Duke of La Rochefoucault, likened the soul of man unto a\nmedal, so constructed that it may represent either a saint or a devil.\nMontaigne, also, said the soul of man was double-faced; the inner\nbeamed upon self-love, while the outer wore a mask. Voltaire was a\nscoffer: a master of satire, who ridiculed without mercy every human\nweakness. In \u201cZadig\u201d and \u201cMicromegas\u201d he mocked the ignorance and\nself-conceit of mankind. His \u201cMemnon,\u201d the \u201cWise Memnon,\u201d who, in the\nmorning, foreswore all women, made a vow of temperance, renounced\ngaming and quarreling, and determined never to be seen at court, was,\nbefore the night of the same day, cheated and robbed by a female, got\ndrunk, gamed, quarreled with his most intimate friend, and made a visit\nto court, where everyone laughed at him. The moral of \u201cCandide, or\nthe Optimist,\u201d is, as interpreted by Smollett, that nothing is more\nabsurd than the exercise of human reason; that nothing is more futile\nand frivolous than the cultivation of philosophy; that mankind are\nsavages, who devour one another. This is cynicism, pure and simple. I\ncannot endure a creed so ghastly: a philosophy that suspects Socrates\nof incontinence, charges Epicurus with prodigality, accuses Aristotle\nof covetousness, and can say of Seneca that \u201che had but the single\nvirtue of concealing his vices.\u201d Horace took a more charitable view\nof the moral philosophers, and ascribed their weakness to inability\nrather than hypocrisy. The poet says that men \u201cupon the stage of\nthis world are like a company of travelers whom night has surprised\nas they are passing through a forest; they walk on, relying upon the\nguide, who immediately misleads them through ignorance. All of them\nuse what care they can to find the beaten path again; everyone takes\na different path, and is in good hopes his is the best; the more they\nfill themselves with these vain imaginations the farther they wander;\nbut though they wander a different way, yet it proceeds from one and\nthe same cause; \u2019tis the guide that misled them, and the obscurity of\nthe night hinders them from recovering the right road.\u201d\n\nIn truth, the mind of man, unaided by Divine light, is not able to\ndetermine what is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. In the realm of\nmorals, man is to be guided only by the decrees of God, if known. For\nthose who recognize the Bible as His word, the way is clear. Aside from\nthis, the path is dark and uncertain. But nowhere in either the Old or\nNew Testament, is gambling forbidden. Not a word did Moses or Jesus\nutter against it, as a general principle, or in any of its particular\nforms. What is commanded by God is our only test of right and wrong.\nTheology is of man, and yet it is a fact that gambling, in itself, is\nnot inconsistent with the profession of any creed in Christendom. The\nablest theologian cannot successfully challenge this proposition.\n\nFor the sake of argument, heretofore, I have granted the moral freedom\nof man. The fact is, I deny his \u201cliberty,\u201d save in the most restricted\nsense. I am convinced every action is determined by the resultant force\nof conflicting motives. However, the possible autonomy of man is not\nnecessary to a consideration of what it is right or best to do. It is\nonly when we ask about the conduct of man, in his relation to the law,\nthat it is important to know whether he could have done otherwise. I\nreserve the topic for a subsequent chapter.\n\nBe this as it may, certain conclusions are obvious to the impartial\nobserver. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to draw a strict\nboundary between the virtues and vices. Courage should not be carried\nto the point of rashness. Timidity is the abuse of prudence. Generosity\ncan degenerate into improvidence. Reverence might merge into credulity\nand superstition. Arrogance is the extreme of self-respect. Chastity\nis overdone by the monastic. Some writers, in fact, deny a fixed line\nbetween the virtuous and vicious passions; this class boldly maintain\na place for both vices and virtues. Hatred may be just and anger\nmagnificent. Although out of place in a drawing-room, obstinacy is a\nvirtue on the field of battle. Love is divine and lust monstrous. Are\nthey not yoke-fellows? Reformers, so called, are impossible without\nstupid candor and impassive bluntness. Timidity, on the other hand, is\nthe defect of a sensitive temperament. Sensuality underlies the domain\nof art, painting, sculpture and music.\n\nThis is suggested by Plato in the \u201cPh\u00e6drus\u201d--an allegory of the soul,\nwherein the spirit of man is depicted as a chariot to which are\nattached a white and black horse. The first typifies our higher and the\nlatter our lower passions.\n\nMr. Lecky writes in his \u201cHistory of Morals,\u201d that in society certain\ndefects necessarily accompany certain excellencies of character. He\nremarks, \u201cHad the Irish peasants been less chaste they would have\nbeen more prosperous.\u201d \u201cHabitual liars and habitual cheats have been\nindustrious, amiable and prudent.\u201d \u201cCivilization is not favorable to\nself-sacrifice, reverence, enthusiasm or chastity.\u201d He declares of the\ngambling table, \u201cthat it fosters a moral nerve and calmness scarcely\nexhibited in equal perfection in any other sphere--a fact which Bret\nHarte has finely illustrated in his character of Mr. John Oakhurst, in\nthe \u2018Outcasts of Poker Flat.\u2019\u201d\n\nThis thought is boldly illustrated by Mandeville, in his \u201cFable of the\nBees:\u201d\n\n   \u201cThese were called knaves, but, bar the name,\n    The grave industrious were the same:\n    All trades and places knew some cheat,\n    No calling was without deceit.\n\n    The root of evil, avarice,\n    That damn\u2019d, ill-natured, baneful vice,\n    Was slave to prodigality,\n    _That noble sin_; whilst luxury\n    Employed a million of the poor,\n    And odious pride a million more:\n    Envy, itself, and vanity\n    Were ministers of industry,\n    Their darling folly, fickleness,\n    In diet, furniture and dress,\n    That strange, ridiculous vice, was made\n    The very wheel that turned the trade.\u201d\n\nThe author of this unique production announced that his main design\nwas to indicate the impossibility of enjoying all the most elegant\ncomforts of life \u201cthat are to be met with in an industrious, wealthy\nand powerful nation, and at the same time be blessed with all the\nvirtue and innocence that can be wished for in a golden age; from\nthence to expose the folly and unreasonableness of those that, desirous\nof being an opulent and flourishing people, are wonderfully greedy\nafter all the benefits they can receive as such, are yet always\nmurmuring against those vices and inconveniences, that from the\nbeginning of the world to the present day, have been inseparable from\nall the kingdoms and states that ever were formed for strength, riches\nand politeness.\u201d\n\n\u201cTo do this, I first slightly touch upon some of the faults and\ncorruptions the several professions and callings are generally charged\nwith. After that I show that those very vices of every particular\nperson, by skillful management, were made subservient to the grandeur\nand worldly happiness of the whole. Lastly, by setting forth what\nof necessity must be the consequence of general honesty, virtue,\ninnocence, content and temperance, I demonstrate that if mankind could\nbe cured of the failings they are naturally guilty of, they would\ncease to be capable of being raised into such vast, potent, and polite\nsocieties, as they have been under the several commonwealths and\nmonarchies that have flourished since creation.\u201d\n\nNot yet, then, have we found the human standard by which the gambler is\nto be denounced.\n\nGamblers are accused of avarice, and an inordinate desire for wealth.\nAs a rule, the gamester is not penurious. A miserly or covetous grasp\nof money is inconsistent with his vocation. Concede the accusation, and\nis he alone? Is he more greedy of gain than other men? History refutes\nthe charge. Money is the god of the world. Get enormous wealth is the\ncry, no matter how; no matter how many impoverished widows and squalid\norphans are crying out to heaven, day and night, against you; and such\nslavish adulation as the world knows not beside are yours. The passion\nfor wealth increases gradually, as its end is achieved, the world over.\nIts effects are manifest wherever men strive for gold.\n\n   \u201cGold! gold! gold! gold!\n    Bright and yellow, hard and cold,\n    Molten, graven, hammered, rolled;\n    Heavy to get, and light to hold;\n    Hoarded, bartered, bought and sold;\n    Stolen, borrowed, squandered, doled;\n    Spurned by the young, but hugged by the old\n    To the very verge of the church-yard mould,\n    Price of many a crime untold;\n    Gold! gold! gold! gold!\u201d--_Thomas Hood._\n\nThe _morale_ of gambling is not to be determined by political economy,\nwhich is not a part of moral philosophy. It is not founded on the\nimperations of duty, but upon the adequate footing of desirableness of\nself-interest. In the language of Prof. Perry: \u201cOne word circumscribes\nthe field of morals, ought. One word defines the field of economy,\nexpediency.\u201d So far as it is a science, political economy is cold\nand selfish; \u201cbudded on monopoly values.\u201d Judged by such a standard,\ngambling would be right, if expedient.\n\nYes, but is not gambling a destructive luxury? Is it not a wasteful\nexpenditure of money? I answer, what is luxury, and is it always\nan evil? Roscher well says: \u201cThe idea conveyed by the word is an\nessentially relative one.\u201d Every individual calls all expenditure with\nwhich he chooses to dispense, a luxury. The same is true of every age\nand nation. \u201c\u2019Tis a word without any specific idea,\u201d wrote Voltaire,\n\u201cmuch such another expression as when we say Eastern and Western\nhemispheres: in fact, there is no such thing as East and West; there is\nno fixed point where the earth rises and sets; or, if you will, every\npoint on it is, at the same time, East and West. It is the same with\nregard to luxury; for either there is no such thing, or else it is\nin all places alike.... Do we understand by luxury the expense of an\nopulent person? Must he, then, live like the poor, he whose profusion,\nalone, is sufficient to maintain the poor? Expensiveness should be the\nthermometer of a private person\u2019s fortune, as general luxury is the\ninfallible mark of a powerful and flourishing empire.... Money is made\nfor circulation. He who hoards it is a bad citizen, and even a bad\neconomist. It is by dissipating it we render ourselves useful to our\ncountry and ourselves.\u201d David Hume also thought the word of uncertain\nsignification. He said: \u201cThe bound between virtue and vice cannot here\nbe exactly fixed, more than in other moral subjects. To imagine that\nthe gratification of any sense, or the indulging of any delicacy, is\nof itself a vice, can never enter into a head that is not disordered\nby the frenzies of enthusiasm. These indulgences are only vices,\nwhen they are pursued at the expense of some virtue, as liberality\nof charity; in like manner as they are follies, when a man ruins his\nfortune and reduces himself to want and beggary.\u201d Again, William\nRoscher, the political economist, was of opinion that \u201cprodigality is\nless odious than avarice; less irreconcilable with certain virtues;\u201d\nand that \u201cprodigality, directly or indirectly, increases the demand for\ncommodities.\u201d We know the Epicureans and Stoics were reproached with\nbeing bad citizens, because their moderation was a hindrance to trade.\nGambling is no more a luxury than many other practices of mankind. Some\npersons may prefer it as a pastime to any other form of luxury. Who is\nto decide a question of taste and expense but the individual concerned?\nOne man indulges lavishly in pictures, books, and clothes; another is\nprodigal in the matter of tobacco and liquors; a third delights in the\nexcitement of chance. All these inclinations are luxurious. Which is\npreferable to each, is not for society to determine in one case, more\nthan in the others. In a word, the phases of luxury are so variable and\nextensive that it is equally unjust and impracticable for the state to\ndiscriminate unfavorably.\n\nThe gambler is said to be idle and non-productive: that a _quid pro\nquo_ is not given for what he receives. What is meant here by idleness\nand non-production? Does it signify that _labor_ is the proper basis of\nexchangeable value: the _only_ just source of what is called wealth?\nIf so, the condemnation includes all who obtain wealth without working\nfor it. Suppose it be admitted that _service_ is the one equitable\ntitle to property. What, then, of _assumed_ rights, in the form of\nprofits, dividends, rent and interest? If _true_ wealth is the outcome\nof physical labor, are not banker, broker, middleman, landlord,\ncapitalist, gentleman of leisure and gambler on the same footing.\n\nBishop Jewel once said: \u201cIf I lend \u00a3100, and for it covenant to receive\n\u00a3105, or any other sum greater than was the sum I did lend, this is\nthat we call usury: such a kind of bargaining as no good man, or godly\nman, ever used.\u201d Many contend that interest contributes nothing to\nthe support of society, but is a tax on labor. Those who receive it\nare said to be extortioners who live on the gains of other people.\nChrist, Buddha, Zoroaster, and Mahomet all put usury in the category of\nforbidden sins.\n\nIt is discountenanced by Ezekiel, Moses, David, Aristotle, Cato, St.\nBasil, Masse, Bacon, Buxton, Dr. Wilson and Fenton. Ricardo, the great\neconomist, was of the opinion that rent is not a creation of wealth,\nand adds nothing to the necessaries, conveniences and enjoyments of\nsociety. Adam Smith, the father of political economy, considered rent\nas a monopoly price paid for the use of land. Were this true, the owner\nof a house, when it had paid for itself, could rightfully charge for\nits use, the cost of his labor in transferring it to you, and the\namount of wear and tear.\n\nIt is said of the gambler that he is not a man of equivalents. But,\nif wealth is to be a question of exact equality in values and labor,\nthen must business generally be condemned. The great legists, Pomponius\nand Paulus, unblushingly said, that \u201cIn buying and selling, a man has\na natural right to purchase for a small price what is really more\nvaluable, and to sell at a high price what is less valuable, and for\neach to overreach the other.\u201d Harsh as this may seem, it but voiced the\nprinciples of trade in every age of the world. \u201cTrade is war,\u201d said the\nancient proverb; \u201cand as a nail between the stone joints, so does sin\nstick fast between buying and selling.\u201d Business is advantage-taking\nerected into a system. Get as much more than you give as is possible.\nA thing is worth what it will bring. You may rightfully take from\nanother what he is compelled to yield. Exchange is not a rendering of\nequivalent for equivalent; but an effort to get the largest possible\namount of another\u2019s property, or services, for the least possible\nreturn. In business, justice and mercy are daily displaced by extortion\nand mastership: \u201cthe producing classes are vassal to the speculating\nclasses; the creators of wealth to its stealthy possessors.\u201d\n\nThe Christian Fathers deprecated trade. \u201cTo seek to enrich one\u2019s self\nis in itself unjust,\u201d said Clement; \u201csince it aims at appropriating\nan unfair share of what was intended for the common use of men.\u201d \u201cIf\ncovetousness is removed,\u201d argued Tertullian, \u201cthere is no reason for\ngain, and, if there is no reason for gain, there is no need of trade.\u201d\nJerome taught that \u201cas the trader did not himself add to the value of\nhis wares, therefore, if he gained more for them than he paid, his gain\nmust be another\u2019s loss.\u201d To Augustine, \u201cbusiness in itself is an evil,\nfor it turns men from seeking true rest, which is God.\u201d Aquinas decided\n\u201cthat to buy a thing for less, or sell a thing for more than its value\nis, in itself, unallowable and unjust.\u201d\n\nIt has been estimated by Bastiat, Karl Marx and Nordau, that laborers\nare unjustly deprived of the value of four days labor in each week.\nTerrible is the injustice to wage-earners, the world over, if the\ndeductions of Carpenter and Godwin are to be accepted. \u201cBehold the\nhire of the laborers which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and\nthe cries of them are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.\u201d\nProudhon and Spencer have revealed the \u201ceconomic\u2019s lies\u201d of modern\nsociety. \u201cThe great game of the business world is the game of getting\non,\u201d wrote John Ruskin; \u201cnot of everybodies getting on, but of somebody\ngetting on. What to one family is the game of getting on, to one\nthousand families is the game of not getting on. Nay, you say, they\nhave all their chance. Yes, so has every one in a lottery, but there\nmust always be the same number of blanks. Ah! but in a lottery it is\nnot skill and intelligence that take the lead, but blind chance. What\nthen! do you think the old practice that they should take who have the\npower, and they should keep who can, is less iniquitous when the power\nhas become the power of brains instead of fist?\u201d\n\nIs this a world of equivalents in labor? What is the ratio of riches\nawarded to those who toil? In 1860, the net average income was but\nthree per cent. Yet, for that year the income of bare money (which\nneeds no food, clothing or shelter), was all the way from five to\nthirty per cent. In England 30,000,000 people are taxed that interest\nmay be paid to 300,000. In 1870, the interest on the national debts of\nthe world amounted to $1,700,000,000. This rate in nine years would\nabsorb a sum equal to the entire property of this country in 1870. We\nare informed that trade is annually taxed (interest on capital) about\n$200,000,000, for which not one dollar of actual service is rendered.\nIs interest on \u201cwatered\u201d stock any better than theft?\n\nA world of equivalents, indeed! In our cities five per cent of the\npopulation own more property than ninety-five per cent; and twenty per\ncent of the nation own more than the remaining eighty per cent. At the\npresent rate of increase, within thirty years, 100,000 persons will own\nfour-fifths of all the property in the United States. In twenty-five\nyears the number of our people who own their homes has decreased from\nfive-eighths to three-eighths. In New York City more than 1,100,000\npersons are dwelling in tenement houses. \u201cIn 1889, the farm mortgages\nin the western states amounted to _three billion four hundred and\ntwenty-two million dollars_.\u201d In England, to-day, there are less than\n30,000 landed proprietors--one-half of the country is owned by 150\nmen. Twelve men own one-half of Scotland. The working classes of the\nUnited Kingdom own but a thirtieth part of the total real and personal\nproperty.\n\nStrictly considered, two things are said to be equivalent when they\nare \u201cequal in value.\u201d Generally speaking, however, interchanges are\nseldom, if ever, \u201calike in worth.\u201d The equality of labor for labor does\nnot occur once in millions of times. \u201cValue\u201d is an indefinite term.\nInto \u201cworth\u201d enters such intangible qualities as whim, caprice, taste,\nfancy, ambition, pride, habit, desire, appetite, passion and amusement.\nExact and utilitarian standards would destroy _belle lettres_ and the\nfine arts; dissipate recreation and the amenities of life. Are there\nprecise \u201cwork-a-day\u201d equivalents for literature, music, sculpture,\npainting; for the opera, the theatre, the salon, the club-room? Gaming\nis an amusement for many persons. Thousands enjoy the excitements of\nchance. It stimulates their spirits above the cares and drudgery of\nexistence. Such men prefer a game to either book, piano or cigar. With\nthem it is not a question of utility but of diversion. Is the value of\nentertainment to be measured in muscle or metal?\n\nWherein, essentially, does gaming differ from speculation or insurance?\nAll have their foundation in chance. Contingencies and uncertainties\nenter into each as a consideration for investment. A gamester bets upon\nthe turn of a card, or the cast of a die. The speculator purchases\nin anticipation of contingent advance in the price of a commodity. A\ncorporation indemnifies an individual, conditionally, against possible\ndeath or loss by fire. In neither instance can the result be foretold:\nthe gamester may or may not win, the speculator may or may not realize\na profit, the assured may or may not forfeit his life policy, or lose\nby fire. In every transaction, fortuity is the controlling element;\nif for this reason any one is invalid or immoral, so are the others.\nLarge sums have been won and lost at cards. Many fortunes had their\norigin in speculation: also, it has been productive of widespread\ndisaster, distress and despair. Insurance companies have benefited\nthousands of widows and orphans. Innumerable are the families upon whom\nindigence has fallen through the forfeiture of policies. Forfeited\npremiums to the amount of millions are now invested in palatial\nstructures throughout the civilized world. Analysis might show in\ngaming, speculation and insurance, that at least the equities and\nethics are even.\n\nView the subject as we may, ye gamester, \u201cwhere is thine accuser?\u201d To\nall men he can say: \u201cHe that is without sin among you, let him first\ncast a stone.\u201d\n\nNow, some one may ask: \u201cIs not gambling immoral to the extent it may\ninduce a reliance upon chance for a livelihood, instead of patient\nindustry.\u201d I might reply: \u201cWhat is industry, as known to political\neconomy; and what proportion of the world\u2019s wealth is a result of\ndirect personal exertion?\u201d But, generally, men are rational creatures,\nand do not depend upon games of chance for a living. The credulous\nmen are relatively few who rely entirely upon the outcome of chance\nin games as a business; and those few are at least on a par in wisdom\nand ethics with the millions who gamble in future prices of stocks,\ngrain, and other commodities. \u201cAh! but you forget,\u201d rejoins my critic,\n\u201cthat in other pursuits a man produces something by his industry, or\ncontributes to that result indirectly, whereas in gambling nothing is\nproduced.\u201d I consider this erroneous, in the face of social experience,\nas has been indicated heretofore. It may be as soundly said, that a\n\u201cman has no right to invest his money in cattle, or lands, or bonds,\nunless his labor is put in with it. A man buys a horse and hires him to\nhis neighbor. Is he entitled to the money his horse earns for him? He\ninvests in bonds at fifty cents on the dollar. Does he not hope they\nwill appreciate in value, until they are worth dollar for dollar? He\npays $1000 for a piece of land. In two or three years, perhaps, his\nneighbors have invested around him, and have improved their properties,\nand he finds that his land will sell for $2000. His labor did not\ncontribute to that result. He risked his capital exactly as he would\nhave done in a game of chance.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nThe Destinies;\n\nor,\n\nThe Reign of Law.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nThe Destinies; or, The Reign of Law.\n\n\nOn one occasion, an aged scholar soliloquized as follows: \u201cHomer was\nat the same time beggar and poet: his mouth more often filled with\nverses than with bread. Plautus turned a mill that he might live.\nMenander, Cratinus and Terrence were drowned; Empedocles lost in the\ncrater of Mount Etna; Euripides and Heraclitus torn to pieces by dogs;\nHesiod, Archilochus and Ibychus, murdered. Sappho threw herself from\na precipice. Condemned by a tyrant, respectively, Seneca, Lucan, and\nPetronius Arbiter, cut their veins and bled to death. Poison terminated\nthe lives of Socrates, Demosthenes and Lucretius.\n\n\u201cIn Plutarch, we read of \u2018two eminent persons, whose names were Attis,\nthe one a Syrian, the other of Arcadia, both were slain by a wild\nboar; of two, whose names were Acteon, one was torn to pieces by his\ndog, the other by assassins; of two famous Scipios, one overthrew\nthe Carthagenians in war, the other totally destroyed them; four of\nthe most warlike commanders of antiquity had but one eye--Philip,\nAntigonous, Hannibal and Sertorius.\u2019\n\n\u201cPaul Borghese, a writer of rhythmic verse, died of starvation. Tasso,\nhimself the most amiable of poets, lived like a pauper, and passed away\nin an asylum. Bentivoglio, a creator of classic comedies, in the misery\nof his old age, was refused admittance to an hospital he had founded.\nCervantes died of hunger, and Camoens ended his days in an almshouse.\nThe body of Vaugelas was disposed of to surgeons that his debts might\nbe paid. Spencer was forsaken and neglected in his old age. Decker,\nCotten, Savage and Lloyd breathed their last in jails.\n\n\u201cMight not these men have said, \u2018Who can shut out fate?\u2019 Were they the\nsport of circumstances, or could circumstances have been made their\nsport? Was each independent of fatality? Was he free from destiny; or,\nwas he subject to an unalterable course--an invincible necessity?\u201d\n\nThe query of this venerable sage has been that of civilized man in\nevery age. Coming into the world with the dawn of philosophy, it will\nremain until the veil of Isis is uplifted. Profoundest wisdom has ever\ntaught the subordination of man to a higher law, by which his career is\nlargely determined from the beginning. Investigation will disclose that\nsuch, to-day, is the real opinion of a vast majority of mankind.\n\nThe thought was ascendant in the literature and religion of the ancient\nGreeks. Their Moira was a personification of law; the Goddess of\nDestiny, who assigned to everyone his fate, or \u201cshare.\u201d At the birth\nof man she spun the thread of his future life, pursued his footsteps,\nand directed the consequences of his actions, according to the decrees\nof Zeus. By some she was conceived as a fatal divinity, who directed\nhuman affairs in such a manner as to restore the right proportions or\nequilibrium, wherever it had been disturbed; who measured out happiness\nand unhappiness, and allotted losses and sufferings to him who was\nblest with too frequent gifts of Fortune, to the end he might be\nhumbled into acknowledging the existence of bounds beyond which human\nhappiness cannot proceed with safety.\n\nTo Homer she was not an absolute sovereign of both heaven and earth, to\nwhom even the gods must bow; but merely apportioned the fate of men, as\ncounseled by Deity. In the theology of Hesiod there were three: Clotho,\nthe spinning fate; Lachesis, who assigned to man his fate; and Atropo,\nwho decreed a fate that could not be avoided. This conception answered\nto the Teutonic Norns, or Weird Sisters. What was to the earlier poets\nof Greece a person, \u00c6schylus apprehended as a principle; a law for\nboth gods and men; an over-ruling, ever-present, inevitable necessity,\nagainst which it is vain to contend, and from which it is hopeless to\nescape. \u201cHis characters are pre-determined parricides, murderers and\nadulterers.\u201d For instance, the destiny of the pious Amphiaraus led him\nto that death his wisdom foresaw; fate impelled him to the society his\njudgment forbade. Good Eteocles, too, lies under the band of fate, but\nseeks not to avert the doom. \u201cStern, uncompromising, he will meet the\nman he must slay, by whom he must himself fall.\u201d The inexorable destiny\nof \u00c6schylus was to Sophocles and Plato an ordering of the divine will.\n\nTwo great schools of philosophy divided the educated opinion of classic\nGreece and Rome. The tenets of both were fatalistic in tendency. What\nwas to the Epicurean a \u201cchance\u201d appealed to the Stoic as \u201claw.\u201d Man,\ntaught Epicurus, is a mere buffet of a blind fatality. The phenomenon\nof life, said Stoicism, is governed with iron sway by an imminent\nnecessity of reason. \u201cMan should be free from passion,\u201d preached\nZeno, \u201cunmoved by joy or grief, and submit without complaint to the\nunavoidable power by which all things are governed.\u201d\n\nBuddhism is the doctrine taught by Gautama, the Hindoo sage, in the\nsixth century, B.\u00a0C.; now the belief of a greater part of central and\neastern Asia and the Indian Islands. In this creed, fatality is a\ncardinal principle. Sir Edwin Arnold has designated it \u201cThe Light of\nAsia.\u201d The great religion of Brahma, also, teaches that everything\nis subject to a divinely appointed necessity. It boasts a philosophy\nthat was the admiration of Bruno, Schelling, Hegel, and Draper. Manes\ndeclared that the moral universe was controlled by two supreme\nprinciples; one the author of all good, the other the author of all\nevil. The highest conception of Mohammed is an arbitrary and inexorable\nlaw. In the Koran we read: \u201cNo man can anticipate or postpone his end.\nDeath will overtake us, even in lofty towers. From the beginning, God\nhath settled the place in which each man shall die.\u201d The Persian poet\nsings: \u201cThe destinies ride their horses by night. No man can by flight\nescape his fate. Whether asleep in bed or in the storm of battle, the\nangel of death will find thee.\u201d \u201cI am convinced,\u201d saith Ali, \u201cthat the\naffairs of men go by divine decree, and not by our administration.\u201d\n\nIn the philosophy of Solomon, as recorded in Ecclesiastes, we read:\n\u201cThe thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is\ndone is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the\nsun.... To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose\nunder the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to\nplant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill,\nand a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a\ntime to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and\na time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to\nrefrain from embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to\nkeep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a\ntime to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time\nto hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.\u201d\n\nWith Christianity came the dogma of \u201cpredestination\u201d and \u201celection.\u201d\nThis was promulgated, on the very threshold, by Paul, a man of the\nsublimest genius; adorable, venerable and heroic. Thus he addressed\nthe church at Rome: \u201cAnd we know that all things work together for\ngood to them that love God,--to them who are the called according to\nHis purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be\nconformed to the image of his Son, that he might be first born among\nmany brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called:\nand whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them\nhe also glorified. What shall we say to these things? If God be for us,\nwho can be against us?\u201d\n\nThis idea is necessarily involved in the theology of St. Augustine, who\nmaintained that \u201cgrace is effectual from its nature, absolutely and\nmorally, not relatively and gradually.\u201d It remained for John Calvin to\nerect the assertions of Paul into a cognate and masterly system. He\ninsisted upon the purpose of God from eternity, respecting all events.\n\nBriefly, of the religion of the world, to-day, ninety per cent are\npredestinarian in theory or practice, consciously or unconsciously. Of\nChristendom, those who agree with Arminius are in a small minority,\nrelatively:--a minority whose creed involves not only the limitation of\ndivine knowledge, but a paralysis of divine power and the moral chaos\nof a universe. That religion is necessarily puerile and unphilosophic\nwhich attempts to reconcile the omnipotence of God with the freedom\nof man. Either Nature is ordered for the best--so as to produce the\nhighest good; or else, everything is purposeless and for the worst. In\na word, either optimism or pessimism must wholly prevail: logically,\na middle ground is impossible. We must choose between Leibnitz or\nSchopenhauer.\n\nLiterature and religion aside, the greatest intellects have promulgated\na \u201cphilosophy of necessity.\u201d Everything that exists, wrote Oersted in\nsubstance, depends upon the past, prepares the future, and is related\nto the whole. \u201cEverything throughout creation is governed by law:\nbut over most of the tracts that come within the active experience\nof mankind, the governing hand is so secret and remote, that until\nvery large numerical masses are brought under the eye at once, the\ncontrolling power is not detected.\u201d Jonathan Edwards said: \u201cNothing\ncomes to pass without a cause. What is self-existent must be from\neternity, and must be unchangeable; but as to all things that begin to\nbe, they are not self-existent, and therefore must have some foundation\nfor their existence without themselves.\u201d Spinoza urged that \u201cIn no mind\nis there an absolute or free volition; but it is determined to choose\nthis or that by a cause, which likewise has been fixed by another,\nand this again by a third, and so on forever.\u201d Emanuel Kant contended\nthat \u201cevery action or phenomenon, so far as it produces an event, is\nitself an event or occurrence, which pre-supposes another state wherein\nthe cause is to be met with; and thus everything that happens is but\na continuation of the series, and no beginning which occurs of itself\nis possible; consequently, all the actions of the natural causes,\nin the succession, are themselves again effects.\u201d Our own Emerson\nasserted the omnipotence and omnipresence of law: \u201cThat the wilful and\nthe fantastic, the low and the lofty, are encircled by a necessity.\u201d\nWhatever limits us, we call fate. If we are brute and barbarous, the\nfate takes a brute and dreadful shape. If we rise to spiritual culture,\nthe antagonism takes a spiritual form.... The limitations refine as the\nsoul purifies, but the ring of necessity is always perched at the top.\n\nNone greater than these may be found in the noble realm of speculative\nthought. They are unequalled by few, if any. The whole field of modern\nscience, also, is in accord with their deductions: Teaching that nature\nis an inevitable sequence, and that all phenomena, material and mental,\nare linked together by an inevitable connection. In the words of\nHerbert Spencer: \u201cVarious classes of facts unite to prove that the law\nof metamorphosis which holds among the physical forces, holds equally\nbetween them and the mental forces. Those modes of the unknowable\nwhich we call motion, light, heat, chemical affinity, etc., are alike\ntransferable into each other, and into those modes of the unknowable\nwhich we distinguish as sensation, emotion, and thought; these in their\nturns being directly or indirectly re-transferable into the original\nshapes.\u201d\n\nWould you dethrone man, I am asked? No; I surrender to the behests of\nphilosophy as fortified by the deductions of science. Years ago it was\nargued by Comte that, in social order, the higher must subordinate\nitself to the lower. That the organic finds itself controlled and\nlimited by the inorganic world, and man has to work out his destiny in\nsubmission to all the necessities, physical, chemical and vital, which\nare pre-supposed in his existence. \u201cThe higher,\u201d he continued, \u201ccan\novercome the lower only by obedience; if it is to conquer, it must at\nleast \u2018stoop to conquer.\u2019\u201d And as was once stated by Doctor Conolly,\n\u201cAll the superiority of man, all those faculties which elevate and\ndignify him, this reasoning power, this moral sense, these capacities\nof happiness, these high aspiring hopes, are felt and enjoyed and\nmanifested by means of the nervous system. Its injury weakens, its\nimperfections limit, its destruction ends them.\u201d\n\nBut, it may be asked, is not this a denial of \u201cfree-will?\u201d Yes, as\npopularly understood. A \u201cfree-will,\u201d in the metaphysical sense, is\nimpossible. The conception is unknown to the best modern psychology.\nThe abstract will, of certain metaphysicians, is a phantasm.\nIndividual volitions, only, come within our actual experience. They\nhave been generalized, by mental philosophers, into a self-existent,\nself-sustaining, and self-procreating entity. However, an abstraction\nis not an essence. Such men but tell us what a \u201cfree will\u201d should\nbe; that it exists has never been demonstrated. Again, the phenomenon\n\u201cwill\u201d is now known to be transmitted from generation to generation.\nHeredity teaches that its energy and its weakness are connected\nwith certain states of the organism. \u201cWe can no longer doubt the\ntransmission takes place by means of the organs, and, in fact, that\nthe \u2018will\u2019 is physiological.\u201d Moreover, in a philosophical sense, the\nidea is \u201cat war\u201d with a uniform law of cause and effect. Chance events\nare inconceivable in a universe of causation. Freedom of the will,\ntherefore, is a delusion. For ages men believed that the sun revolved\naround the earth, because it seemed to do so. A similar illusion is at\nthe base of our ethical system, since we enjoy only the appearance of\nliberty. \u201cOur apparent freedom consists in the absence of all physical\nrestraints, and in our power to do as we please; but what we please to\ndo depends upon our mental constitution and the circumstances in which\nwe are placed.\u201d The idea was beautifully expressed by Emerson in his\npoem \u201cFate.\u201d\n\n   \u201cDeep in the man sits fast his fate,\n    To mold his fortune, mean or great:\n    Unknown to Cromwell as to me\n    Was Cromwell\u2019s measure or degree;\n    Unknown to him as to his horse,\n    If he than his groom be better or worse,\n    He works, plots, fights in rude affairs,\n    With Squires, Lords, Kings, his craft compares,\n    Till late he learned, through doubt and fear,\n    Broad England harbored not his peer.\n    Obeying time, the last to own\n    The genius from its cloudy throne,\n    _For the prevision is allied_\n    Unto the thing so signified;\n    _Or say, the foresight that awaits,\n    Is the same genius that creates_.\u201d\n\nIn human history, as in physical nature, therefore, every event is\nlinked to its antecedent by an unavoidable connection, and such\nprecedent is connected with an anterior effect; and thus the whole\nwould form a necessary chain, in which, indeed, each man may play his\npart, but can by no means determine what the part shall be.\n\nThe moral actions of men, said Buckle, are the product of their\nantecedents. In other words, when an action is performed, it is\nperformed in consequence of certain motives; those motives are the\nresults of some antecedents; \u201ctherefore, if we were acquainted with\nthe whole of the antecedents and with all the laws of their movements\nwe could with certainty foretell the whole of their immediate results.\nThis great social law is liable to disturbances which trouble its\noperation, without affecting its truth.\u201d\n\nErgo, given any set of circumstances, and nothing could have happened,\nsave that which did happen; and under exactly the same conditions, the\nconduct of men must ever issue in the same results. The past should\nbe dismissed without regrets. Our position, at any time, should be\njudged as it really is, and not for what we vainly suppose it might\nhave been; \u201cfor nothing is more certain than that we could not have\nacted differently in any act of our lives, with the state of mind and\ncircumstances then existing.\u201d\n\nStatistics, likewise, are daily making it evident that the same\nfixed calculable laws exist in the departments of life and mind as\nin physics. \u201cIn individual cases, or in a limited circle, apparent\nuncertainty may exist. Within a given number of cases, however, and a\nlarge field, invariable results may be looked for.\u201d\n\nIn the 12th annual report of William Farr, Esq., to the Registrar\nGeneral of England, we are told \u201cit may be broadly stated that 27 in\n1000 men of the population of the age of 20 and under 60, are suffering\nfrom one kind of disease or another; that several are of long duration,\nthat others are recurrent, and that some are hereditary.\u201d We are\ninformed in a subsequent report of the Registrar himself, that it seems\nto be a \u201claw\u201d one person out of every 45, living at the commencement\nof any year, will die within that year. (The entire system of\ninsurance--life, fire, and marine--is erected on the principle\ncontended for in this chapter. Not only do a certain relative number of\nmen die in each class annually, but the law extends to the number of\npolicies lapsed each year. There seems also to be a periodicity in the\nnumber of fires and marine disasters.)\n\nAccording to Porter and Buckle, even \u201cmarriage is not determined by\nthe temper and wishes of the individual, but by large general facts\nover which individuals can exercise no authority. It is now known\nthat marriages bear a fixed and definite relation to the price of\ncorn.\u201d A century\u2019s experience in England demonstrates that marriages\nare regulated by the average earnings of the great mass of people.\nCheapness of provision and not love regulates the number of nuptials.\nCombe affirms the same striking coincidence in the ratio of births in\nGreat Britain.\n\nAnother singular fact has been deduced from the official reports of\nEngland and France. \u201cEven forgetfulness is under a constant law.\u201d\nBuckle is an authority for the statement that \u201cyear after year, the\nsame proportion of letter-writers forget to direct their letters, in\nsome part; so that for each successive period we can actually foretell\nthe number of persons whose memory will fail them in regard to this\ntrifling occurrence.\u201d\n\nBy the same witness we prove \u201cthe uniform reproduction of crime is\nmore clearly marked, and more capable of being predicted than are\nthe physical laws connected with the disease and destruction of our\nbodies.\u201d Before this, Combe had observed a similar uniformity, under\nsimilar circumstances, of the recurrence of crimes. He perceived in\nhuman conduct the same striking indications of constancy in results,\nas in the prevalence of disease and the endurance of life. Combe said,\nin 1854, in writing by way of comment on a certain report to the\nHouse of Commons: \u201cDuring the five years, ending with the last year\nof an execution, there were committed for the crimes enumerated, 7276\npersons, of whom 196 were executed. During the five years immediately\nfollowing the last execution, there were committed for the same\noffense 7120. Does not this show that these crimes arose from causes\nin themselves permanent, and which punishment does not remove?\u201d Rawson\nalso remarked that the greatest variation which had taken place during\nthree years, in the proportion of any class of criminals, at the same\nperiod of life, had not exceeded a half per cent.\n\nAnd Dr. Brown states (Vol. 8 of the Assurance Magazine), that \u201cin\ntwenty years, the number of persons accused of various crimes in\nFrance, and registered under their respective ages, scarcely varies\nat any age, from year to year, comparing the proportional per cent\nunder each age with the totals.\u201d M. Quatelet deduced from the\nstatistical returns of government in the same country, that for 1826,\n1827, 1828, 1829 and 1830, in each year, there was one person accused\nout of every 4463 inhabitants, and 61 condemned out of every 100\naccused. \u201cIn everything which concerns crime,\u201d observed this greatest\nof statisticians, \u201cthe same numbers re-occur with a constancy which\ncannot be mistaken, and that this is the case, even with those crimes\nwhich seem quite independent of human foresight, such, for instance,\nas murders, which are generally committed after quarrels arising from\ncircumstances apparently casual. Nevertheless, we know from experience,\nthat every year there not only take place the same number of murders,\nbut even the instruments by which they are committed, are employed in\nthe same proportion.\u201d Murder, then, \u201coccurs with as much regularity as\nthe movements of the tides and the rotation of the seasons.\u201d\n\n\u201cSelf-murder,\u201d Buckle observes, \u201cseems to be not only capricious and\nuncontrollable, but also very obscure in regard to proof.\u201d Yet, in\ndifferent countries, for which we have returns, we find, year by year,\nthe same proportion of persons putting an end to their own existence.\nIn London, for example, about 240 persons make away with themselves\nevery year; the annual suicides oscillating, from the pressure of\ntemporary causes, between 266, the highest, and 213, the lowest. In\n1846, which was the great year of excitement--caused by the railroad\npanic--the suicides in London were 266; in 1847 began a slight\nimprovement, and they fell to 256; in 1848 they were 247; in 1849 they\nwere 213; in 1850 they were 229.\n\nIn the \u201cJourney through India,\u201d Heber mentions the vain attempt of\nthe English government to check the frequent suicides by drowning,\ncommitted at Benares; and August Comte has exposed the folly of\nthinking that suicide can be diminished by the enactments of law-givers.\n\nOf this field, Quatelet says, in conclusion: \u201cThe possibility of\nassigning, beforehand, the number of accused and condemned which should\noccur in a country, is calculated to lead to serious reflections, since\nit involves the fate of several thousands of human beings, who are\nimpelled, as it were, by an irresistible necessity, to the bar of the\ntribunal, and towards the sentences of condemnation that there await\nthem. These conclusions flow directly from the principle, already so\noften stated in this work, that effects are in proportion to their\ncauses, and that the effects remain the same, if the causes which\nproduced them do not vary.\u201d\n\nAnother step is needed to complete our argument in this branch. Actions\nare the production of motives. Motives are the effects of determinate\nantecedents. Whence these antecedents? They are to be found in the\n\u201cLaw of Heredity.\u201d Reproduction is governed by law, and \u201clike begets\nlike.\u201d To quote from Voltaire: \u201cThe physical, which is \u2018father of the\nmoral,\u2019 transmits the same character from father to son for ages. The\nAppii were ever proud and inflexible; the Catos always austere. The\nwhole line of the Guises were bold, rash, factious, full of the most\ninsolent pride and most winning politeness. From Francis de Guise down\nto that one who put himself at the head of the people of Naples, they\nwere all in look, courage and character above ordinary men. I have\nseen full length portraits of Francis, of Balafre and his son: they\nwere all six feet high, and they all possess the same features--the\nsame audacity on the brow, in the eyes, and in the attitude.\u201d M. Taine\nsees in Lord Byron a true descendant of the Berserkers. To Ribot,\nthe French of the 19th century are the Gauls described by C\u00e6sar and\nStrabo. Amphere writes of the character of the Greeks, that it has\nnot changed; \u201che has now the same qualities, the same defects as of\nold.\u201d The physiology and mentality of parents characterize their\noffspring. The human mind is not a blank at birth. Its capabilities and\ncharacter are inherited. Every possibility of the soul is innate and\nconstitutional from the moment of gestation. Such is the verdict of\nscience substantiated by Ribot, Galton, and Fowler.\n\nThat the peculiar anatomy and physiognomy of races is persistent and\nhereditary, must be admitted. The truth is verified by every-day\nexperience. We see it in the Englishman, the Frenchman, the Spaniard,\nand Scandinavian. The intellectual characteristics of a people are\nlikewise transmitted from generation to generation. The Indian, for\nexample, is ever wild, free, cunning and revengeful. Negroes, on\nthe other hand, are generally timid, garrulous, urbane and polite.\nThe Hebrews, again, are noteworthy for intellectual calibre, the\nacquisitive faculty, and a clannish spirit.\n\nIn the family, likewise, likenesses and stature pass from generation\nto generation. So, also, of size. Fowler found this exemplified\neverywhere. Some of his illustrations were taken from the Websters,\nFranklins, and Folgers. Muscular strength is hereditary, as with the\nDouglas, Fessenden, and Garrish families. Physical deformities and\nexcrescences obey this edict of nature; and it includes disease,\ninsanity, gray hair, premature death, propensities, length of life and\nbeauty. The truth is overwhelming that mental faculties and qualities\ndescend from child to child. These sequences in mental phenomena\noperate through generations upon caution, self-esteem, firmness,\npride, benevolence, and religious feeling. Talent and ability go by\ndescent. Even genius, although akin to divine, is transmissible. \u201cEach\ngeneration,\u201d said Galton, \u201chas enormous power over the natural gifts\nof those that follow.... The results of an examination into the kindred\nof about 400 illustrious men of all periods of history were such, in\nmy own opinion, as completely to establish the theory that genius was\nhereditary.\u201d\n\nNow for my application. Gambling, in some form, is a propensity of the\ngeneral mind: an inclination now hereditary in the race. That such must\nbe the case is clear from Ribot, Maudsley and Da Gama Machado. \u201cThe\ndead rule over the living,\u201d writes Spencer. \u201cPast generations exercise\npower over present generations, by transmitting their nature, bodily\nand mental.\u201d\n\nThe origin and development of gambling were obvious to the eminent\nastronomer, Richard A. Proctor. \u201cBeyond doubt,\u201d he said, \u201cthe element\nof chance which enters into all lives, has had a most potent influence\nin moulding the characters of men. If we consider the multitudinous\nfancies and superstitions of men like sailors, farmers, and hunters,\nwhose lives depend more on chance than those of men in some other\nemployments, and recognize this as the natural effect of the influence\nwhich chance has on their fortunes, we need not consider it strange if\nthe influence of chance, in moulding the minds and characters of our\nancestors during countless generations, should have produced a very\nmarked effect on human nature. An immense number of those from whom\nI inherit descent must, in the old savage days, have depended almost\nwholly upon chance for the very means of subsistence. When, wild in\nwood, the savage ran, he ran on speculation. He might, or he might\nnot, be lucky enough to earn his living on any day, by a successful\nchase, or by finding such fruits of the earth as would supply him\nwith a satisfactory amount of food. He might have much depending on\nchances which he could not avoid risking, as the gambler of to-day has\nwhen he \u2018sees red\u2019 and stakes his whole fortune on a throw of the\ndice or a turn of the cards. We cannot be doubtful about the effects\nof such chance influences even on the individual character. Repeated,\ngeneration after generation, they must have tended to fill men with\na gambling spirit, only to be corrected by innumerable generations\nof steady labor; and, unfortunately, even in the steadiest work, the\nelement of chance enters largely enough to render the corrective\ninfluence of such work on the character of the race much slower than it\nmight otherwise be. Every man who has to work for his living at all,\nevery man who has to depend in any way, on business for wealth, has to\ntrust to chance, in many respects. So that all men, in some degree,\nmore or less, have their characters modified by this peculiarity of\ntheir environment. The inherited tendency of each one of us towards\ngambling, in some one or other of its multitudinous forms, is\nundoubtedly strengthened in this way.\u201d\n\nFirst, we see, it cannot be said that gambling is immoral, sinful, or\nirreligious. Second, it is clear the propensity to gamble is as natural\nas the temperament or complexion. The law can no more destroy the\nnatural inclination of the mind, than it can make \u201cone hair white or\nblack.\u201d If an evil (which in the absolute sense I deny), it is not to\nbe prevented by legislation. It is no more possible, by direct effort,\nto change the gaming proclivity in man than to stem the torrent, or\ncheck the eternal progress of the glacier. The growth of centuries,\ndown it moves through the years in an irresistible march. Absurd seem\nall our demonstrations; how idle, the beating of the air. When one form\npasses away another immediately takes its place. Disappearing here, it\nappears there. Apparently suppressed in one place it breaks out with\nmore vigor in another. Continue it will, and continue it must, whether\npracticed openly or in secret. If it is not the faro-bank or lottery\nit is something worse. If not the gambling-rooms of a Morrissey, a\nDaly, a Pendleton or a Hankins, it will be the mammoth palaces (boards\nof trade and chambers of commerce, so-called), which now are a feature\nof every city in Christendom, and wherein millions upon millions are\nwagered annually upon the very bread and meat wherewith our life is\nsustained; wherein billions are lost and won, sometimes to the injury\nof every department of actual production. There are the open boards of\ntrade, too, wherein the petty transactions aggregate many millions. I\nam told by those who have made it a study for years, that more than\n80 per cent of the transactions on the exchange are fictitious: mere\nbetting on the rise and fall of commodities in price. All authority in\nthis matter is practically powerless. Inclinations will be satisfied,\nand until inclinations change, the demand will be supplied; this,\nmoreover, in the face of laws however stringent, or police supervision\nhowever effective. Such methods are not only ineffective, but\nabsolutely injurious to society. No nation or government has succeeded\nin restricting, limiting, or curing the gambling spirit and practice.\nThat this is true, I call upon every candid and fair-minded man of\nexperience to bear witness. I appeal to lawyers, judges, statesmen,\nscientists, philosophers, and the police and municipal authorities\nthroughout the United States and Europe to corroborate my statement.\nThe sooner this is generally realized, the better for humanity. What\nI have to suggest, instead of the present policy, is reserved for\nconsideration in another place. I may say here, however, that for the\nlaw to punish what it cannot thereby cure is absurd--absurd as is\nevery attempt to accomplish the impossible. Systematic education is\nthe only hope; incessant training the only remedy for appetites and\npropensities; either for their correction, restraint, or subversion.\nIf it had been revealed to man that gambling is a sin, even that\nwould not vitiate our reasoning in this chapter. God, or absolute\nwisdom, should be able to reconcile the existence of an evil with\nHis own Sovereignty. However, this chapter is not concerned with the\nrealities of religion, or the true principles of philosophy. As human\nconceptions, they have been noted as in accord with the teachings of\nscience; to show that the human intellect responds intuitively to what\nare subsequently known as the laws of nature.\n\n\n\n\nLegislative Exorcism;\n\nor,\n\nThe Belief in Word-Magic.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nLegislative Exorcism; or, The Belief in Word-Magic.\n\n\nFor ages, mankind were believers in magic. One of the phases was\nExorcism, or a pretended exercise of supernatural power, through\ncertain words of magic import. \u201cHealing words,\u201d says Van Helmont, \u201cwere\nused against the devil and all diseases.\u201d And it is asserted by the\nZendavesta that \u201cmany cures are performed by words.\u201d That the magic\npower of words was a belief of the Greeks and Romans, is evident from\ntheir literature. Thus it is said of Plotin, that while in Sicily he\ncured Porphyrius of a fever, \u201cby wonder-working words.\u201d We are told how\nOrpheus\u2019 song calmed the storm, and how Ulysses \u201cstopped the bleeding\nof wounds by the use of certain words.\u201d They also tell us, that with\nwords, Cato cured sprains; Marcus Varrus removed tumors; and Servilius\nNovianno restored sight to the eyes. It is gravely stated by Pliny that\nCato did not alone use the words, \u201cmotas, daries, dardaries, astaries,\u201d\nbut likewise a green branch, four or five feet long, which he split in\ntwo, and caused to be held over the injured limb. A similar power was\nascribed to the philosopher, Pythagoras. And if \u201cye olden chronicle\u201d is\nto be credited, the curses of Peter of Amiens and Bernard of Clairvaux,\n\u201cproduced fearful spasms and sufferings, whilst their blessings\nrestored speech to the dumb and health to the sick.\u201d\n\nThe belief in magic is not general in our age of the world. It\nhas gradually retired before the march of reason and the light of\nscientific truth. That all nature, organic and inorganic, animate and\ninanimate, is subject to a universal law of cause and effect, is now\na truism to every educated person. Science has forever destroyed the\ncurative influence of phrases. Reason sternly excludes verbal formul\u00e6\nfrom the realm of physical causation. That any mere words may be used\nagainst disease or injury is now denied by enlightened opinion the\nworld over. In medicine, therefore, Exorcism is a thing of the past.\n\nOne aspect of the superstition still remains, as an obstacle to the\nprogress of humanity; the possibility of legislating morality into\nmen. Law-givers still cling to the power of \u201cexorcism\u201d by statute.\nTheir blind creed is: \u201cbeatification and education by law.\u201d \u201cTo them,\nlaws are the cows, whose teats mankind should suck. To them, men are\nas dough, which their wisdom would knead.\u201d This adoration of the law\nand legislators was systematically inculcated by the 18th century\npublicists: Montesquieu, Robespierre, Rousseau, and St. Just. They\nseem to teach that \u201cthe law cannot come out of us, but must be poured\ninto us.\u201d But, as Erlanger has said with truth, he who undertakes to\ngive institutions to a people must feel within himself the capacity\nto change human nature, to metamorphose every man, to transmute the\nconstitution of each individual, to strengthen them; in one word, \u201che\nmust take from mankind their own powers, and impart to them a foreign\npower.\u201d\n\nStatesmen should recognize with Carpenter, that \u201csociety is the\ngigantic growth of centuries, moving on in a resistless and orderly\nmarch, with the precision and fatality of an astronomic orb.\u201d The huge\nbeing marches on with elephantine tread. The liberal sits on its front\nand the conservative on its rear; but both are swept along, whether\nthey will or not, and both are shaken off ere long, inevitably, into\nthe dust. One reformer shouts \u201cthis way,\u201d and another cries \u201cthat,\u201d but\ndown comes the great foot and crushes both, indifferently; the man who\nthought he was right, and the man who found he was wrong; crushing,\nalike, him who would facilitate, and him who would impede its progress.\nAt least, it should be kept in mind, \u201cthat laws are made by the people,\nand not the people by the laws.\u201d Modern society is so burdened by\nan enormous and complex overgrowth of law, that the necessity for\nits existence is now a prevailing notion, to the end that men may be\nkept in order: that, without the oppressive institution, people would\nnot follow a systematic life. On the other hand, all observation of\ncivilized races discovers the directly opposite. The instinct of man\nis to regularity of life, and law is but a result or expression of\nthis. \u201cAs well attribute the organization of a crab to the influence\nof its shell, as ascribe the orderly life of a nation to the action of\nits laws.\u201d The law may have a purpose, but to believe it will preserve\norder is illusive. This it certainly does not effect, even with all\nits machinery of police, courts and prisons. Fichte said: \u201cThe object\nof all government is to render government superfluous.\u201d The same\nidea has been expressed by Whitman and Paine. Moreover, \u201cif external\nauthority, of any kind, has a final purpose, it must be to establish\nand consolidate an internal authority. When this process is complete,\ngovernment, in the ordinary sense, is already rendered superfluous.\u201d\n\nThe world has been slow (or loath) to learn the only proper functions\nof government. This must be clear to every reader of Bruce Smith,\nLieber and Dick. In the governments of oriental antiquity, political\nauthority was clothed with a super-eminent and absolute jurisdiction\nover the whole life of its subjects; \u201cthe manners of their subjects,\ntheir rank, their condition, mode of life, and daily occupations, were\nall fixed by the law.\u201d\n\nAnd, in the opinion of Grecian philosophers, the state was everything,\nthe individual nothing. In their judgment, the government should not\npermit any individual to waste his power and energy, nor should he be\nallowed to misdirect it. They insisted the law must first devise the\nmodel of a perfect citizen; and then, by a system of discipline, mould,\nor rather distort, into agreement therewith, the character of every\ncitizen. The powers of state, therefore, should embrace individual\nlife in its entirety; from infancy to mature age, \u201cin all conditions\nand relations, whether domestic, religious, social, industrial or\npolitical.\u201d\n\nSuch teachings had their illustration in the administration of Greek\ngovernments. In Sparta, for example, under the reign of Lycurgus,\nthe citizen belonged to the state, rather than to the family. The\nindividual Athenian did not have a right the Archons were \u201cbound to\nrespect.\u201d Draco punished even laziness with death, and Solon prohibited\ncostly sacrifices at funerals. In Greece, Lycurgus seems to have been\nthe first legislator against luxury. He enacted, for example, that no\nSpartan should own a house, or household article, which had been made\nwith a finer implement than an axe or a saw; and that no cook should\nuse any other spice than salt and vinegar. Our authorities are Ephorus\nand Diogenes Laertius. The sumptuary prohibitions of Solon, according\nto Plutarch, were aimed at the female passion for dress, as well as the\npomp of funerals. He likewise placed surveillance over the luxury of\nbanquets.\n\nThe Dorian races were disposed to austere and rigid habits of life.\nA Laconian could not lawfully attend a drinking entertainment. In\nLaced\u00e6monia, frugality and simplicity were the object of the pheiditia.\nGold and silver were interdicted, and their legislation permitted the\nuse of iron money alone. In Magna Gr\u00e6cia, the Pythagoreans encouraged\nthe sumptuary policy. Zaleucus, the Locrian legislator, enacted that no\nwoman should appear in public wearing gold ornaments, or embroidered\napparel, unless her designs were unchaste.\n\nRoman statesmen were not wiser, in their day, than those of Greece.\nFrom the time of the Kings, they sought by law to regulate luxurious\ntendencies. We find it in the law of the Twelve Tables: \u201cDo not carve\nthe wood which is to serve for a funeral pile. Have no weeping women\nto tear their cheeks; no gold, no coronets.\u201d Certain foreign articles\nof luxury were prohibited about 189 B.\u00a0C. An important part of the\nlegislation of Sulla, C\u00e6sar, Crassus, Antony, Augustus and Tiberius,\nrelated to the expenditures for food, funerals and games of chance.\nSays Plutarch: \u201cThe Romans thought the liberty ought not to be left\nto each private citizen to marry at will, to choose his manner of\nlife, to make feasts; in short, to follow his desires and his tastes,\nwithout being subject to the judgment and supervision of anyone.\u201d The\nOppian Law forbade matrons to have more than a half-ounce of gold,\nto wear garments of diversified color, or to use carriages in Rome.\nFollowing a revolt of the Women, in 195 B.\u00a0C., this law was abrogated.\nInspired by Cato, the Censor, fourteen years later, the Orchian Law\nwas promulgated. It limited the table expenses, as did the Fannian Law\ntwenty years after. The Lex Orchia limited the number of guests to be\npresent at a feast. The general cost of entertainment was fixed by\nthe Lex Fannia. A limit of one hundred asses was established for some\nfestivals, and thirty asses for others. Ordinary entertainments were\nrestricted to ten asses. The Didian Law extended to all Italy.\n\nIn Greece, sumptuary laws were seldom or never regarded by the people,\nwho always entered into a tacit and general conspiracy against their\nenforcement. Notwithstanding the Roman _notatio censoria_, luxury\ncontinued to increase with the growth of wealth. No law of senate or\nemperor could restrain the tendency. \u201cFrom first to last,\u201d writes\nthe historian, \u201call were habitually transgressed.\u201d In the time of\nTertullian they appear to be of the past.\n\nInstances of like legislation disfigure the statute-books of every\ncivilized country downward from the fifth century, A.\u00a0D. All sumptuary\nlaws, at Rome, were formally repealed by the later emperors; but the\nfolly thereafter re-appeared when European society began to rally and\nsegregate under Charlemagne. To illustrate, \u201cin the latter middle\nages, knights were allowed to wear gold, and esquires only silver; the\nformer damask, the latter satin of taffeta; when the esquires used\ndamask, velvet was reserved for the knights.\u201d The first legislation\nof this character, in the modern world, was enacted by Frederick II.,\nin Italy; James I., in Aragon; Philip IV., in France; Edward II. and\nEdward III., in England. Commencing in France with Charlemagne, it\nfirst became extensive and flourished under Philip IV. and Charles\nVI. From Edward III. until the Reformation, it was in great favor in\nEngland. Great was the absurdity to which legislators were carried by\nthis vain policy. In Scotland, for example, one parliament forbade\nladies to attend church with the face muffled in a veil, and another\nfulminated against superfluous banqueting and the inordinate use of\nforeign spices; while a Danish law provided that no servant girl should\nwear her hair curled. The edicts of Philip IV. related to extravagance\nat table and in dress. An edict of Charles V. forbade the use of\nlong-pointed shoes. Charles VI. allowed no one to exceed a soup and\ntwo dishes at dinner. Later French kings sought to restrict the use of\ngold, silver, silks, embroidery, and fine linen. From Blanqui we take a\nsample ordinance of the character under consideration. \u201cThe said Lord\nthe King, being duly informed that the great superfluity of meat at\nweddings, feasts and banquets, brings about the high price of fowls and\ngame, wills and decrees that the ordinance on this subject be renewed\nand kept; and for the continuance of the same, that those who make such\nfeasts, as well as the stewards who prepare and conduct them, and the\ncooks who serve them, be punished with the penalties hereunto affixed.\nThat every sort of fowl and game brought to the markets shall be seen\nand visited by the poulterer-wardens, in the presence of the officers\nof the police and bourgeois clerks to the aforesaid, who shall be\npresent at the said markets, and shall cause a report to be made to the\npolice, by the said wardens. The public shall be likewise bound to live\naccording to the ordinance of the King, without exceeding the limit,\nunder penalty of such pecuniary fines as are herein set forth against\nthe inn-keeper, so that neither by private understanding nor common\nconsent shall the ordinance be violated.\u201d During the same year, another\nordinance provided \u201cthat no bourgeois woman shall have a chariot; no\nbourgeois man or woman shall wear green, or grey, or ermine, and they\nshall dispose of those they have, by a year from Easter next. The\ndukes, counts and barons of 6000 livres, in land, or more, may have\nfour robes a year, and no more, and the women as many. A knight who has\n3000 livres, in land, may have three robes a year and no more; and one\nof these three robes shall be for summer. At the principal meals of the\nday no one shall have but two viands and a pork soup, and let him not\ndeceive about it. It is ordained that no prelate or baron shall have\na robe for body of more than 25 Tournish sous, a Paris ell.\u201d In 1294\nit was decreed \u201cthat every manner of people, who have not an income of\n6000 Tournish livres, shall not use, and will not be able to use, any\ngold or silver plate for drinking, for eating, or for other use, and\nthat no person, under penalty of fine and imprisonment, shall practice\nany fraud about it.\u201d\n\nIn France, laws of this character disappeared near the end of the 16th\ncentury. Under Louis XV. all such laws were practically a dead letter.\n\u201cThese ordinances are the history of but yesterday,\u201d says an able and\nprofound student of French legislation; \u201cbut ideas and sentiments have\ngone far in advance of facts. We have difficulty in comprehending the\ninterference of government in the domestic affairs of families, and in\ncontracts which concern only private individuals. Opinion has undergone\nan entire revolution. Sumptuary laws can no longer be proposed. We\nneed not think the change is due to our wisdom, to our pretended\nsuperiority to the ancients; let us simply recognize that the essential\nprinciple of society has changed; the world moves on another basis....\nIn no century were these laws observed to any great extent. Enactments\nof this kind were never effectual in France. Since the Revolution,\nno sumptuary laws have been enacted, and yet the luxury of attire\nwhich formerly distinguished the nobility has disappeared. A duke\ndresses like anybody else, and he would be ridiculed if he sought to\ndistinguish himself by a manner of dress different from others.\u201d\n\nIt has been observed by one of the great statesmen of England, that\nthe broad principles of freedom had been early recognized in that\ncountry, and understood by even the citizens of minimum intelligence;\nfor instance, freedom of locomotion, freedom in the disposition of\nproperty, freedom of opinion in politics and religion. But that\nother important features of the same principle were not so quickly\nand clearly understood. \u201cI refer,\u201d he continues, \u201cto such matters as\nfreedom of commercial intercourse and exchange, freedom of contract\nin the natural rise and fall of wages and in the condition of labor;\nfreedom of individual taste and expenditure, in the more private\nconcerns of life. In many cases, these were matters which affected the\npoor and rich alike, but principally the poor, who, in their meagre\nparliamentary representation, enjoyed few opportunities for effectual\nprotest. One can only account for the continuance of those which\nmaterially affected the better classes, who did enjoy representation,\nto the fact that, not being familiar with the fundamental economic\nlaws, which are now so widely understood, they were not prompted to any\npractical resistance. It is highly probable, too, that for want of this\nknowledge, most people rested satisfied with the vague idea that, in\nsome way or other, though not very clear, such restrictive legislation\nproduced some good to somebody.\u201d We pass over those legislative and\nexecutive interferences, which present \u201cevery possible contrivance\nfor hampering the energies of commerce.\u201d Purely economic questions\nare not germane to our discussion; such as the numerous and ingenious\nrestraints upon foreign trade; the attempts to regulate the rate of\nwages and the price of food.\n\nRichard II., Henry IV., and Edward IV. legislated against the liveried\nsuits of the nobility. This was also prohibited by Henry VII.; and\nyet, even under James I., says Hume, \u201cwe find ambassadors accompanied\nby a suite of 500 or 300 noblemen.\u201d During the reign of Edward III.\nit was enacted that no man should be allowed more than two courses at\ndinner or supper, or more than two kinds of food in each course. Three\ncourses were permitted on the festival days of the year. Foreign cloth\nwas allowed to the royal family alone. Unless a man possessed at least\n\u00a3100 per annum he was forbidden furs, skins and silks. During the\nsame reign, another act divided the people of England into classes,\nand prescribed the apparel of each. In the social scale it did not go\nhigher than knights, and minutely regulated the clothing of women and\nchildren. It was repealed the following year. In 1363 it was enacted\nthat servants should have only one meal a day of flesh or fish. The\nstatute of 1444 attempted to regulate the price of clothing for each\nyear: a bailiff, 50_s._; principal servant, 40_s._; ordinary servant,\n33_s._ 4_d._ James I., of Scotland, forbade not only \u201csumptuous\nclothing,\u201d but the use of pies and baked meats, to all under the rank\nof baron. The Scottish sumptuary law of 1612 was the last in Great\nBritain. The English laws were largely repealed during the reign of\nJames I. A few remained on the statute book as late as 1856. Mr. Froude\nhas exposed the folly of their existence.\n\nIt has been said of the English laws they \u201cwere at all times inspired\nby a desire to arrest an irresistible movement, resulting from the very\nforce of things--from the logical development of human activity. They\nwere, moreover, powerless, and always evaded by a sort of tacit and\ngeneral conspiracy of all the citizens, without anyone being able to\nfind fault with the principle, without anyone thinking of contesting\nthe power of the legislator on this point.\u201d\n\nRoscher remarks: \u201cIn Ireland the government had endeavored for a\nlong time to preserve that country from the ravages of alcohol, by\nthe imposition of the highest taxes, and the severest penalties for\nsmuggling. Every workman in an illegal distillery was transported for\nseven years, and every town in which such a one was found was subject\nto a heavy fine. All in vain. Only numberless acts of violence were now\nadded to beastly drunkenness.\u201d\n\nIn another place, Roscher continues thus: \u201cWhere it has been attempted\nto suppress the consumption of popular delicacies, the impossibility of\nenforcing sumptuary laws has been most strikingly observed. Thus, in\nthe 16th century, an effort was made as regards brandy; in the 17th,\nas regards tobacco; in the 18th, as regards coffee. The Hessian law\nof 1530 provided that only apothecaries should retail brandy. In 1624\nPapal excommunication was fulminated against all who took snuff in\nchurch, and was repeated in 1690. According to a Turkish law of 1610,\nall smokers should have their pipes broken against the nose. In 1634 a\nRussian law prohibited smoking under penalty of death. In Switzerland,\neven in the 17th century, no one could smoke except in secret. In its\nnative place even coffee had a hard struggle. Prohibited in Turkey in\n1633 under pain of death; it was still prohibited in Basel in 1769,\nand could be sold by apothecaries only as medicine. In Hanover the\ncoffee trade was prohibited in 1780. When governments discovered the\nfruitlessness of these efforts, they gave up the prohibition of these\nluxuries, and instead substituted taxes on them, thus aiming to combine\na moral and a fiscal end. Even Cato took this course. His office of\ncensor, which united the highest moral superintendence with the highest\nfinancial guidance, must of itself have led him in this direction.\u201d\n\nStrange it is how slowly men learn by experience. We know of the many\noppressions in England \u201cfor opinion\u2019s sake.\u201d History tells us that\nthe puritan fathers sought \u201cfreedom of conscience\u201d in the wilds of\nAmerica. Yet, scarcely were the \u201cpilgrims\u201d of New England wonted to a\nstrange and inhospitable land, than what they required for themselves\nwas denied to others. In their fanaticism, the \u201csoul liberty\u201d of Roger\nWilliams was violated in every conceivable way. Personal freedom was\nviolated to an extent that is now the detestation of right-thinking\npersons. Execrable for their tyrannical spirit, are some of the records\nof Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, New Haven Colony and Connecticut. The\nfollowing extracts are taken from the records of the General Court of\nthe Colony of Massachusetts Bay:\n\n\u201c1635: Whereas, complaints hath bene made to this Courte that dyvers\npersons, within this jurisdiction, doe usually absent themselves from\nChurch meetings upon the Lord\u2019s Day, power is therefore given to any\ntwo assistants to heare and sensure, either by fine or imprisonment,\nall misdemeanors of that kind, committed by any inhabitant within this\njurisdiction, provided they exceede not the fine of 15 shillings for\nany one offense.\u201d\n\n\u201c1669: Any person or persons that shalle be found smoking tobacco on\nthe Lord\u2019s Day, going to or coming from the meetings, within two miles\nof the meeting house, shall pay 12 pence for every such default to the\ncolonies\u2019 use.\u201d\n\n\u201c1692: All and every justices of the peace, constables and tything\nmen are required to restrain all persons from swimming in the water;\nunnecessary and unreasonable walking in the streets or fields in the\ntoun of Boston, or other places; in the evening preceding the Lord\u2019s\nDay, or any other part of the said day or the evening following.\u201d\n\n\u201c1634: The court, taking into consideration the greate, superfluous and\nunnecessary expenses occassioned by some newe and immodest fashions,\nas also the ordinary wearing of golde, silver, silke, laces, girdles,\nhat-bands, etc., hath, therefore, ordered that noe person, either man\nor woman, shall hereafter make or buy any apparell, either woolen,\nsilke or lynen, with any lace on it, silver, golde, silke or thread,\nunder the penalty of the forfeiture of such clothes.\u201d\n\n\u201c1782: Be it enacted that each person, being able of body and mind, not\notherwise necessarily prevented, who shall, for the space of one month\ntogether, absent himself or herself from the public worship of God, on\nthe Lord\u2019s Day, shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten shillings.\u201d\n\nIn old Connecticut we find legislation similar in character. In 1647:\n\u201cForasmuch, as it is observed that many abuses are crept in and\ncommitted by the frequent taking of tobacco, it is ordered by the\nauthority of this Court, that no person under the age of 20 years, nor\nany other that hath not accustomed himself to the use thereof, shall\ntake any tobacco until he hath brought a certificate under the hands of\nsome who are approved for knowledge and skill in physic, that it is\nuseful to him and that he hath received a license from the Court for\nthe same.\u201d\n\n\u201c1643: Whoever shall prophane the Lord\u2019s Day, or any part of it,\nby unlawful sport, recreation or otherwise, whether wilfully or in\ncareless neglect, shall be duly punished by fine, imprisonment, or\ncorporally, according to the nature and measure of the sin and offense.\u201d\n\nHere are some of the celebrated New Haven \u201cBlue Laws:\u201d\n\n\u201cWhoever wears clothes trimmed with golde, silver or bone lace, above\ntwo shillings by the yard, shall be presented to the Grand Jurors, and\nthe selectmen shall tax the offender at \u00a3300 estate.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo one shall read Common Prayer, keep Xmas or Saint\u2019s Days, make\nminced pies, dance, play cards, or play on any instrument of music,\nexcept the drum, trumpet and jew\u2019s-harp.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo one shall run on the Sabbath Day, or walk in the Garden or\nelsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair\nor shave, on the Sabbath Day.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or fasting day.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf any man shall kiss his wife, or any wife her husband, on the Lord\u2019s\nDay, the party in fault shall be punished at the discretion of the\nCourt of Magistrates.\u201d\n\n\u201cEvery man and woman duly, twice a day, upon the first tolling of the\nbell, repair into the church to heare divine service upon pain of\nlosing his or her day\u2019s allowance, for the first omission; for the\nsecond to be whipped, and for the third to be condemned to the galleys\nfor six months.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf any man, after legall conviction, shall have or worship any other\ngod but the Lord God, hee shall bee put to death.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf any person turns Quaker, he shall be banished and not suffered to\nreturn, upon the pains of death.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo priest shall abide in this dominion, he shall be banished and\nsuffer death on his return.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo man shall hold any office who is not sound in the faith.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo food or lodging shall be afforded to a Quaker, Adamite, or other\nheretic.\u201d\n\n\u201cEvery man shall have his hair cut round according to a cap.\u201d\n\nSuch are a few of the laws that disgrace the beginning of our national\nlife. Repealed they never were, save by the scorn of time, or the\nrevolt of the human heart, as it struggled into a wider and brighter\nexistence. They were only effective as the expression of a spirit then\nprevalent. Forward marched the soul, and behind is left the hideous\nhusk. Here and there, on the statute-books of certain states, vestiges\nmay remain of Sabbatarian legislation, but they are a dead letter, to\nenforce which is seldom or never attempted.\n\nRoscher observes, \u201cThat the puritanical laws, which some of the states\nhave passed prohibiting all sales of spirituous liquors, except\nfor ecclesiastical, medical or chemical purposes, have been found\nimpossible of enforcement.\u201d Said Dr. Dio Lewis on this subject: \u201cA\nvery striking illustration of the weakness of law, when it comes in\ncontact with the instinct of liberty, is the result of prohibition\nin Maine. I have taken pains to learn the facts in that state. I\ntraveled it throughout and conversed with a large number of its leading\ncitizens, almost exclusively temperance men, and became satisfied\n(notwithstanding the prohibitory law), that intemperance is the great\noverwhelming curse of the Pine Tree State.\u201d The Doctor then found\nfully 300 grog shops in Bangor. He says of Portland, also, the number\nof arrests for drunkenness in 1874 was 2011. He is authority for the\nstatement that, in 1873, the state prison inspectors of Maine reported\nthe enormous number of 17,808 arrests for drunkenness during that year.\n\nHon. James McGinnis, of the St. Louis bar, several years ago, gave\nthe prohibitory legislation of the whole country (and its practical\nworkings) an exhaustive consideration in all aspects. The results of\nhis study, published to the world, revealed the same condition of\naffairs in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,\nConnecticut, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska,\nIowa, and Kansas. On every hand, past and present, he \u201cbeheld the\nimpracticability of prohibition.\u201d \u201cI now appeal,\u201d he says, \u201cto the\nfair-minded reader to give his thoughtful attention to the facts and\nfigures which I have truly and fairly presented, to show that neither\ncrime, pauperism, intemperance, nor any of the ills which are popularly\nsupposed to grow out of intemperance, have been at all lessened by\nprohibition.\u201d\n\nThe political economists are practically unanimous in their\nreprobation of these laws. Adam Smith vigorously protests against\ntheir impertinence and presumption. Of sumptuary laws it has been said\ntheir enforcement is exceedingly difficult, as it is always harder\nto superintend consumption than production. \u201cThe latter is conducted\nin definite localities. The former is carried on in the secrecy of a\nthousand homes. Besides, such laws have very often the effect to make\nforbidden fruit all the sweeter.\u201d Spite of the penalties attached to\ntheir violation, and of redoubled measures of control, government\nafter government have been compelled to admit their failure in this\ndirection. Laws of this nature always involve an abridgement of\nindividual \u201cliberty,\u201d and of the natural right of every man to do what\nhe \u201cwill\u201d with his own. They involve the assumption, also, that a\ngovernment, with the exercise of paternal authority can judge better\nthan the citizen what will best subserve his or her welfare, in the\nuse of what they have. \u201cBut such action belongs more properly to the\nspiritual than to the temporal power. In ancient life, where there\nwas a confusion of the two powers in the state system, sumptuary\nlegislation was more natural than in the modern world, where those\npowers have been generally, though imperfectly, separated.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have learned to doubt,\u201d wrote Dr. Dio Lewis, \u201cwhether law is very\npotent in the cure of moral evil. Force is a good agency in breaking\nrocks and subduing wild beasts; but in curing immorality, in which\nwe strive to regulate the action and reaction of the faculties and\npassions of the human soul, force is about as well adapted to our\npurpose as a sledge-hammer to regulating a watch. Some people seem to\nhave the impression that society is restrained from evil by law; that\nour wives and daughters are virtuous because there is a law against\nprostitution; that our exemplary citizens refrain from profanity and\nexcess in gaming and drinking because they are forbidden by law; that\nsomehow society is kept in order by law.\n\n\u201cIt is not denied that Massachusetts has to-day upon her statute-books\nother laws involving the same violation of personal liberty as\nprohibition; but every law interfering with personal habits and\npropensities has no practical vitality.\n\n\u201cFor example, prostitution is an enormous evil; and we have a\nsevere statute against it; but, as a matter of fact, if a house of\nprostitution be conducted in a quiet, unobtrusive way, the authorities\ncannot break it up. If any prohibitionist can devise a method by which\nthe authorities can break up such a house, it would be easy to sell his\ndiscovery to property holders of New York City for a hundred million of\ndollars.\n\n\u201cScattered throughout this city (Boston) there are unnumbered rooms\nover stores, and other places of business, and in private houses,\noccupied by persons who are living in the relation of husband and\nwife without legal marriage. There are not two punishments for every\nhundred thousand violations of the statutes against such intimacies.\n\n\u201cGambling is very common in our city. There is a great number of rooms,\nor suites of rooms, devoted to this practice. In club houses and many\nhotels, gambling may be found every night, and often lasting all night.\nNot a fiftieth part of the gambling done in this city takes place\nin gambling rooms. Why does it never occur to anybody to attempt to\nenforce the law against gambling in our clubs and other private houses;\nshould they attempt it they would signally fail.\u201d\n\nAlthough this was said of New England, it is representative of the\nUnited States and the civilized world. A like picture might be drawn\nof every city in our land and throughout Europe. Every candid and\nintelligent magistrate, or police official, in the country will admit\nthat the law never has, and never can, prevent gaming, intemperance\nor prostitution. This has been publicly acknowledged by the most\neminent men of affairs in Europe. That it is impossible to suppress or\nexterminate the \u201csocial evil\u201d has been demonstrated by Acton, Tait,\nParent and Du Chatelet. The latter avows that \u201clicensed houses are the\nmost judicious and the most consistent with good morals.\u201d The police\nestablishments of the continent, finding it impossible to prevent\nthe existence of houses of ill-fame, realized the necessity, not of\nauthorizing, but of licensing them. The vice is now subject to police\nsupervision in Paris, Toulon, Lyons, Strasburg, Brest, Hamburg, Berlin,\nVienna, Naples, Brussels, Rheims, Bordeaux, Marseilles, Copenhagen,\nMadrid, Malta, Lisbon, Amsterdam and St. Petersburg. A like policy\nobtains in Bombay, Hong Kong, Japan, New South Wales and Cape Colony.\n\nOn the contrary, England wages war against prostitution. Is it with\nsuccess? No; in this respect her cities are the worst in Europe. In\nthat country 42,000 illegitimate children were born in 1851. It was\nestimated that within the five years preceding, 212,000 females had\nstrayed from the paths of virtue, and thus taken the first step in\nprostitution. In 1832, London had a population of 1,000,000, and her\nknown prostitutes numbered 10,000. Within her limits were then 3,300\nbrothels. At that time, in Liverpool, there were 5,000 fallen women.\nOf houses of ill-fame Dublin had 355; Edinburgh, 219; Glasgow, 204;\nLiverpool, 770; Manchester, 308; Birmingham, 797; Hull, 175; Leeds,\n179; Norwich, 194. In England, in 1865, there were 500,000 prostitutes.\nIt has been computed that the unfortunates number about 86,000 in the\nLondon of to-day. It is not surprising, then, that the constabulary of\nGreat Britain are in despair of their power for good over this evil.\n\u201cSooner or later (they realize) the principle of individual liberty\nmust triumph, and prostitution must become, under the shadow of general\nprinciples, as unrestricted as any other commerce, moral or immoral.\u201d\n\nIn New York City, also, the law has always attempted to repress the\n\u201csocial evil,\u201d but without avail. This has been openly recognized by\nthose in authority. In 1875, 1876, and 1877 licensed prostitution\nwas recommended by a committee of the State Legislature, the Grand\nJury of the City and County of New York, and the Commissioner of\nPublic Charities and Correction. The committee assumed \u201cthat houses\nof prostitution must exist;\u201d and its members, therefore, took it upon\nthemselves \u201cto earnestly recommend to the Legislature the regulating,\nor permitting,\u201d or, as they phrased it, \u201cif the word be not deemed\noffensive, the licensing of prostitution.\u201d In June, 1876, the Grand\nJury of the Court of General Sessions of the same county and state,\nmade an official presentment concerning prostitution, in which they\nsay \u201cthat however abhorrent to the views of some, any legislation may\nbe, which appears to legalize so great an evil, still the fact must\nnot be lost sight of that it is an evil impossible to suppress, yet\ncomparatively easy to regulate and circumscribe.\u201d They conclude with\na memorial to the Legislature, \u201cto adopt as early as practicable some\nsystem of laws calculated to confine houses of prostitution, in the\nlarge cities of this state, within certain specified limits, and to\nsubject them at all times to a careful and vigilant supervision of the\nBoards of Health and Police.\u201d\n\nPunitory laws never have, and never will cure the evils to which\nsociety is liable. \u201cLife is sweet,\u201d some one has said, and yet even\nthe death penalty does not prevent murder. If the menace of death is\nnot a deterrent, what can be said for lesser penalties like fines and\nimprisonment. That capital punishment is not a preventive of crime\nwas (upon investigation) the conviction of Bentham, Beccaria, George\nClinton, Lord Brougham, Judge J.\u00a0W. Edmunds, William H. Seward, Wendell\nPhillips, Douglas Jerrold, Cassius M. Clay, Dr. Lushington, Edward\nLivingston, Theodore Parker, Vice-President Dallas, DeWitt Clinton,\nVictor Hugo, Mittermaier, John Howard, Sir Samuel Romilly, Earl\nRussell, Lord Houghton, Lord Osborne, John Bright, Lord Hobart, Lord\nKelly, Frederick Robertson, Prof. Fawcett, Charles Dickens, John Stuart\nMill, Canning, Thomas Jefferson, and hundreds of other able, thoughtful\nand conscientious men. Their position was not only grounded on\nobservation, but fortified by the experience of Tuscany, Spain, Italy,\nSwitzerland, Bavaria, Belgium, San Marino, Denmark, Norway, Sweden,\nMichigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island.\n\u201cThere is no passion in the mind of man,\u201d said Lord Bacon, \u201cso weak,\nbut it mates and masters the fear of death; and therefore death is no\nsuch terrible enemy when a man hath so many attendants about him that\ncan win the combat of him. Revenge triumphs over death; love slights\nit; honor aspireth to it; grief fleeth to it; fear occupieth it.\u201d And\nif \u201cthe fear of the great future,\u201d writes Bovee, \u201cwhen painted with the\nhorrors such as only a Milton or a Pollok could depict, produces no\nmore marked effect on human action; it is hardly reasonable to suppose\nthat the menace of death by human law, will be very effective in the\nrepression of crime.\u201d\n\nThe truth is clear to Rev. Octavius B. Frothingham. He declares that\nneither crime nor vice can be prevented, remedied, or expelled by force\nof law. \u201cNature will have her way, if not by one channel, then by\nanother. She will plunge underground, and come up in unexpected spots.\nCunning comes to her assistance. She makes alliance with subterfuge\nand deceit. She is sly, swift, ubiquitous. Disappearing in New York,\nshe turns up in Philadelphia. Expelled from the cities, she takes\nrefuge in the towns; banished from the towns, she finds coverts in the\ncities; hiding in the dens and slums, creeping into the lanes, mingling\nwith the crowd of harmless things, sheltering herself behind law.\nShe is a Proteus, able to take on every possible shape of innocence.\nRefuse her brandy, she will take opium, morphine, ether, tobacco,\nstrong coffee, in quantities equivalent to the stimulant desired. You\nfancy the community becoming temperate in one respect, and find it\nbecoming intemperate in another. Opium eaters multiply as dram-drinkers\ndecrease. The propensity is alive still, and perhaps provoked to\nactivity by the efforts made to suppress it. The natural appetite being\nreinforced by anger, spite, the spirit of resistance to persecution,\nwhich grows dogged and stubborn, fortifying the sense of injustice by\nthe pride of self-will.\n\n\u201cAs if impatient at the slowness of the converting process, weary of\nthe task of planting vice out, of choking the weeds of instinct with\nthe flowers of grace, the church undertook, with violent hand, to\npull up the weeds by main force. Instead of abolishing the hydra by\na beautiful law of evolution, which should create a series of nobler\ngrowths; it undertook to cut off the poisonous heads, one by one. It\ntook boys and girls, at the tenderest age, out of the world, confined\nthem in religious houses, refused them the joy of the flesh, and the\njoy of the eyes, and the pride of life, barred the gates of every\nterrestrial garden, mortified their desires, kept them occupied with\nprayers and contemplations, and so tried to starve nature to death.\n\n\u201cChristianity, was as consistent, tried to repress the disposition\nto unbelief, in its opinion the most fruitful source of vice. The\ndisposition to unbelief was regarded as the deadliest symptom of the\nnatural, unconverted heart. To counteract it by an opposite disposition\nto belief was tedious and difficult, and the method of repression was\nresorted to. The civic power was enlisted in the work of exterminating\npernicious error. Tribunals were created, laws were passed, judges\nand executioners were appointed, penalties were devised, heretical\nschools were broken up, heretical books were burned, heretical teachers\nwere banished, silenced, incarcerated, consigned to the flames. Whole\nprovinces were devastated, towns were destroyed, populations turned\nadrift to perish; the entire field of unorthodox thought was ploughed\nover and sown with salt. And what was the result of the method, carried\nout on this vast scale, with full ecclesiastical and civil powers--the\nsacred and the secular authorities combining, the sympathy of the\nChristian world aiding, no public opinion opposing, the resources\nof wealth conspiring with the resources of fanaticism, to make the\npolicy of suppression effective? The issue is familiar to all who\ncare to know the truth, from the reports of historians, who have made\nit their business to ascertain and tell the facts. They certainly do\nnot bear out the conclusion that the method of suppression is wise,\nor even practical. On the contrary, they suggest the opinion that\nit is impractical as it is unwise. The failure of the method was so\ndisastrous that it quite defeated the ends.\n\n\u201cIf one thing is demonstrated by human history, it is this:--the\nattempt to suppress human nature, under any form, so it be nature\nthat is suppressed, is futile. The old proverbs, which say, \u2018Drive\nnature out at the door, and she comes in at the window;\u2019 \u2018You cannot\nexpel nature with a fork;\u2019 hold out a truth that is for all time....\nDeeply rooted propensities, habits which have become a second nature,\ncannot be thus dealt with. No Hercules\u2019 club will avail to kill the\nvital principle that grows venomous heads faster than they can be\nbruised. The effort to suppress nature by violent measures, is always\nfollowed, always produces a reaction, that is exactly proportioned in\nstrength to the effort, and fairly balances it. Healthy progress is\nslow, gradual, measured, according to the sure conditions of cause and\neffect. It consists of a long line of close sequences, knit together,\nnot mechanically, like a chain, but organically, like a muscle or a\nnerve. Every inch of growth implies a preceding inch of growth; there\nis no such thing as jump or leap from point to point. You do not make\nthe elastic band longer by stretching it; you but loosen the cohesion\nof its parts; the strain being relaxed, the band resumes its first\ncondition; the strain being continued, the band looses its elasticity\nand breaks. There is no more power than there is.\u201d\n\nM. Guizot, statesman and historian, thought it a gross delusion to\nbelieve in the sovereign power of political machinery. Every day\ndiscloses a failure, every day there reappears the belief that it\nneeds but an act of some legislative body and a corps of officials\nto effect any purpose. The faith of mankind is nowhere better seen.\nDisappointment has been preached from the first: \u201cPut not thy trust in\nlegislation.\u201d Yet the trust in legislation seems scarcely diminished.\nIs it not time to reject the law as a social panacea? We should now\nrealize that measures are usually quite different in effect from what\nhas been expected. It would be difficult to estimate the number of\nlegislative disappointments in English and American history; \u201cor the\namount of harm which has been inflicted on society by abortive attempts\nat statesmanship.\u201d History demonstrates the incapacity of law-givers.\nSays Mr. Jensen, \u201cFrom the statute of Merton (20 Henry III.) to the\nend of 1872, there had been passed 18,110 public acts, of which he\nestimated that four-fifths had been partially or wholly repealed.\u201d\nAnd Herbert Spencer estimated a few years ago that \u201cin the last three\nsessions of the English parliament, there have been totally repealed\n650 acts, belonging to the present reign alone.\u201d\n\nBuckle said, in this connection, every great reform has consisted\n\u201cnot in doing something new, but in undoing something old. The most\nvaluable additions made to legislation have been enactments destructive\nof preceding legislation, and the best laws which have been passed have\nbeen those by which some former laws were repealed.... We owe no thanks\nto law-givers as a class; for, since the most valuable improvements in\nlegislation are those which subvert preceding legislation, it is clear\nthat the balance of good cannot be on their side. It is clear that\nthe progress of civilization cannot be due to those who, on the most\nimportant subjects, have done so much harm that their successors are\nconsidered benefactors, simply because they reverse their policy, and\nthus restored affairs to the state in which they would have remained,\nif politicians had allowed them to run on in the course which the wants\nof society required.\u201d\n\nIn the name of \u201cliberty and equality,\u201d a brave battle has been fought\nfor individuality. Unjust and unwise interference by the state has\nbeen ably resisted. It is demanded that private judgment be released\nfrom the embrace of authority. The truth is, one man has no natural\nright to make laws for another. True, he may repel another, when\nhis own rights are infringed, but he has no right to govern him.\nThe individual is sovereign merely over himself, and not over his\nfellow-man.\n\nThe greatest minds now insist an individual will more freely act, not\nonly for the furtherance of personal interests, but also for collective\ninterests, without being constrained thereto by an external power.\nWhenever room is to be made, they say, for the advance of society,\npublic authority must retire within its narrowest jurisdiction;\nyielding, because of its impracticability, all control over concerns\npurely personal. \u201cWho remembers having done anything, or having\nrefrained from doing anything, on account of the statutes? If we could\nrealize how little civil law contributes to the good conduct and\nwell-being of society, our interest in legislators would be greatly\nlessened. Of the millions upon millions of acts of kindness and justice\nwhich go to make up civilized life, I take it that nine in ten would\nnot be performed at all, if they were required by law.\n\nJohn Stuart Mill has clearly defined the limit of individual\n\u201csovereignty\u201d--as it is termed--and where the authority of society\nshould begin. \u201cEach will receive its proper share, if each has that\nwhich more particularly concerns it. To individuality should belong the\npart of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested;\nto society, the part which chiefly interests society.\n\n\u201cThe acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due\nconsideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating\ntheir constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by\nopinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person\u2019s conduct\naffects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction\nover it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not\nbe promoted by interfering with it, becomes an open one. But there is\nno room for entertaining any such question, when a person\u2019s conduct\naffects the interest of no person besides himself, or need not affect\nthem unless they like, all the persons concerned being of full age,\nand with the ordinary amount of understanding. In all such cases there\nshould be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand\nthe consequences.\u201d\n\nEverybody agrees with this proposition, in the abstract. At this period\nof time, nobody would dispute \u201cpersonal liberty,\u201d as a \u201cglittering\ngenerality.\u201d People are too smart for that. It would be impolite and\nunfashionable. They would agree with you, perhaps, that \u201cpersonal\nliberty\u201d is the source of all progress, the lever of all conquests, the\ninspiration of all achievements. \u201cThe great, vital, pivotal fact of\nhuman life; all progress and all happiness begin and end in personal\nfreedom.\u201d O yes, they will readily agree with the rhetoric involved.\n\u201cThe prize, the precious jewel of the ages, is personal liberty. It\nhas no equivalents. Untold wealth, a mine of diamonds, a palace, are\nbaubles by the side of personal liberty. We recognize the supreme\nimportance of this principle. We are willing that all men should be\nfree--if they will only do what is best for them. We rejoice in the\nutmost liberty of opinion and action--if people will only do and say\nwhat is right.\u201d\n\nThus is \u201cfreedom\u201d trespassed upon, under pretence that is for the\ngood of the man or men whose rights are violated. Such was probably\nthe pretext for every tyrannical invasion of popular rights known\nto history. Thus was it quaintly put by Dio Lewis: \u201cThe Inquisition\nbelieved in the perfect liberty of all men to be Catholics, but if\nthey caught a man with other notions about salvation, they put a\nthumb-screw on him. Our Puritan fathers believed in personal freedom\nas no other men ever did. They left their homes, crossed a stormy\nocean, and braved a thousand dangers, that they might be free to\nthink and say what they pleased. And they were perfectly willing that\nall who came along might think and say what they pleased, unless,\nas sometimes unfortunately happened, the other men said and thought\nthings which conflicted with the things which the fathers thought and\nsaid. They sometimes came across a Quaker, whose views did not seem\nquite the thing, and they hung him. Our New England fathers believed\nin \u2018religious liberty.\u2019 Indeed, \u2018religious liberty\u2019 was their constant\nboast; but if a man did not believe in hell, they would not let him\ntestify in court.... But our fathers were always very kind about it;\nthey said he was at liberty, perfect liberty, at any time to believe in\nhell, and then he might swear a blue streak.\u201d\n\nWhat is really meant by this definition of \u201cpersonal liberty\u201d is the\nabsolute right of every individual that every other individual shall\nact, in every respect, exactly as he ought; \u201cthat whosoever fails\nthereof, in the smallest particular, violates my social right and\nentitles me to demand of the legislature the removal of the grievance.\u201d\n\u201cThis doctrine,\u201d continued Mill, \u201cascribes to all mankind a vested\ninterest in each other\u2019s moral, intellectual, and physical perfection,\nto be defined by each claimant, according to his own standard.\u201d\n\nOf this class of men Dr. Lewis well said: \u201cThey consider themselves\nborn to control other men. They are ever inquiring, \u2018What ought this\nman to do?\u2019 and if that man refuses to do it, \u2018How can we compel him?\u2019\nThey proceed thus: \u2018Resolved, That the righteous should govern the\nworld. Resolved, That we are the righteous.\u2019\u201d\n\nIn what language can I fitly designate a principle of action so\nimpertinent and presumptious? Who can deny the moral \u201cliberty\u201d of his\nfellow creature, as an abstract proposition? Is not the moral equality,\nor independence of man one of his essential rights? Neither one, nor\nany number of persons, is warranted in saying to another of mature\nyears, what the latter shall, or shall not do with his life for his\nown benefit. \u201cHe is most deeply interested in his own well-being; the\ninterest which another person can have in it is trifling, compared with\nthat which he himself has.\u201d It is time for society to distinguish,\nsharply, between the province of morality and that of legislation.\nWith the same end in view, perhaps, yet they should differ widely in\nextent. Admit that morals and the law have the same center, they have\nnot the same circumference. There may be a moral guide to the conduct\nof an individual, through all the details of life, through all the\nrelationships of society; but legislation cannot be this, and if it\ncould, it ought not to exercise a continued and direct interference\nwith the conduct of men. There are many acts useful to the community\nwhich the legislator ought never to command; so are there many hurtful\nacts, which he ought not to forbid. There is certainly a broad\ndistinction between moral and legal rights. For instance, \u201ca man has\nno moral right to hate his wife, but he has a perfect legal right to\nhate her. A man has no moral right to foreclose a mortgage on a sick\nwidow\u2019s home, and turn her and her children out in the snow, but he\nhas a perfect legal right to do it. A man has no moral right to make a\nglutton of himself, destroy his usefulness, and thus throw his wife and\nchildren on the town, but he has a perfect legal right to do it.\u201d A man\nhas no moral right to drink rum, but he has a perfect legal right to do\nso. What actions, then, may be legally punished as offenses? \u201cWhat a\nquestion,\u201d I hear some one exclaim; \u201care not all men agreed upon it? Do\nyou ask us to prove an acknowledged truth.\u201d I answer in words of the\ngreat Jeremy Bentham: \u201cBe it so. But on what is founded that agreement?\nDemand of each his reasons. You will find a strange diversity of\ninterest and principles. You will find it not only among the people,\nbut among philosophers.... The agreement which you see is founded only\non prejudices; and these prejudices vary, according to the times and\nplaces, according to opinions and customs.... People have always said\nthat such an action is an offense. Such is the guide of the multitude,\nand even of the legislator. But if usage has made innocent actions\ncrimes; if it makes venial offenses appear heavy, and heavy offences\nlight; if it has varied everywhere, it is clear that we must subject it\nto some rule.\u201d\n\nVices are not rightly punishable by law. They are amenable to education\nonly. Should A. assist B. to indulge in a vice, and A. uses no fraud\nor coercion, and B. is _compos mentis_, A. is not guilty of a crime,\nin the proper sense. Suppose A. were a cook, who compounds for B.\nrich and delicious dishes, and of which B. partakes to such an extent\nthat he sickens and dies, A. is not guilty of a crime. Neither is B.\u2019s\nindulgence in the strong food or strong drink a crime punishable by\nlaw, only a vice amenable to discretion and judgment.\n\nCorrectly considered, then, a crime is an act which one man, with\n\u201cmalice prepense,\u201d commits upon the person or property of another,\nwithout that other\u2019s consent. Crime may be subject to law. A vice, on\nthe other hand, is any act or passion in which a person may indulge\nhimself: malice, hypocrisy, pride, envy, hatred, avarice, ambition,\nprofanity, falsehood, indolence, cowardice, drunkenness, gluttony,\ntyranny, fanaticism, extravagance, etc., etc. Unless this distinction\nbe recognized by the law, there can be no such thing as individual\nright, liberty or property, \u201cno such thing as the right of one man to\nthe control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and\nco-equal right of another man to the control of his own person and\nproperty.\u201d\n\nAn eminent and respected physician once said to an enlightened\naudience: \u201cNot a person before me, but has suffered from vices; indeed,\nthat is what we mean by the imperfection of human nature. When we\ndepart from perfection it is a vice. Everybody is guilty of vices.\nThe people before me, forty years old, should not be so old at fifty\nor sixty. Their teeth are decayed, and they have imperfect digestion.\nThey do not enjoy the full and happy play of all their powers and\nfaculties, and the greater part of this waste comes from vices. There\nare certain secret vices which cannot be publicly named, which are\ndoing more to break down our vital force, make us prematurely old, and\nfetter our souls, than all the crimes committed in the country, and the\nlegislature can do nothing to cure them.\n\n\u201cWithout doubt, gluttony is the most destructive of all our vices. It\nobtains among all classes, all ages, and both sexes. Eminent medical\nmen, in England and America, declare that strong food can count ten\nvictims, where strong drink counts one.\n\n\u201cTobacco is doing more injury to the minds and bodies of our nation\nthan all the murder, theft, burglary, and arson, and yet the\nlegislature can do nothing to cure the tobacco curse.\u201d\n\nDr. Lewis wisely continues: \u201cIt is not often possible to say of those\nacts that are called vices, that they are really vices except in\ndegree. That is, it is difficult to say of any actions, or courses of\naction, that are called vices, that they really would have been vices,\nif they had stopped short of a certain point. The question of vice\nor virtue, therefore, in all such cases, is a question of quantity\nand degree, and not of the intrinsic character of any single act, by\nitself. This fact adds to the difficulty, not to say the impossibility,\nof any one\u2019s--except each individual for himself--drawing any accurate\nline, or anything like an accurate line, between virtue and vice; that\nis, of telling where virtue ends and vice begins. And this is another\nreason why this whole question of virtue and vice should be left for\neach person to settle for himself. Vices are usually pleasurable,\nat least for the time being, and often do not disclose themselves\nas vices, by their effects, until they have been practiced for many\nyears, or perhaps for a life-time. To many, perhaps most, of those who\npractice them, they do not disclose themselves as vices, at all during\nlife. Virtues, on the other hand, often appear so harsh and rugged,\nthey require the sacrifice of so much present happiness, at least, and\nthe results which alone prove them to be virtues, are so often distant\nand obscure, in fact so absolutely invisible to the minds of many,\nespecially of the young, that, from the very nature of things, there\ncan be no universal or even general knowledge that they are virtues.\nIn truth, the studies of profound philosophers have been expended--if\nnot wholly in vain, certainly with very small results--in efforts to\ndraw the lines between virtues and vices.\n\n\u201cIf then, it be so difficult, so nearly impossible, in most cases,\nto determine what is and what is not, vice; and especially if it be\nso difficult in nearly all cases to determine where virtue ends and\nwhere vice begins; and if these questions, which no one can really and\ntruly determine for anybody but himself, are not to be left open and\nfree for experiment by all, each person is deprived of the highest\nof all his rights as a human being; to wit: his right to inquire,\ninvestigate, reason, try experiments, judge and ascertain for himself,\nwhat is, to him, virtue, and what is, to him, vice; in other words,\nwhat, on the whole, conduces to his happiness, and what, on the whole,\ntends to his unhappiness. If this great right is not to be left free\nand open to all, then each man\u2019s whole right as a reasoning human\nbeing, to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is denied him.\u201d \u201cIt\nis now obvious, for the reasons already given, that government would\nbe utterly impracticable, if it were to take cognizance of vices and\npunish them as crimes. Every human being has his, or her, vices. Nearly\nall men have a great many. And they are of all kinds: physiological,\nmental, emotional, religious, social, commercial, industrial,\neconomical, etc. If government is to take cognizance of any of these\nvices, and punish them as crimes, then, to be consistent, it must take\ncognizance of all and punish all impartially. The consequences would\nbe, that everybody would be in prison for his, or her, vices. There\nwould be no one left to lock the doors upon those within. In fact,\ncourts enough could not be found to try the offenders, nor prisons\nenough built to hold them. All human industry in the acquisition of\nknowledge, and even in acquiring the means of subsistence, would be\narrested; we should be all under constant trial or imprisonment for\nour vices. But even if it were possible to imprison all the vicious,\nour knowledge of human nature tells us that, as a general rule, they\nwould be far more vicious in prison than they ever have been out of it.\nA government that shall punish all vices impartially, is so obviously\nan impossibility, that nobody was ever found, or ever will be found,\nfoolish enough to propose it. The most that any one proposes is, that\ngovernment shall punish some one, or, at most a few, of what he esteems\nthe grossest of them.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut this discrimination is an utterly absurd, illogical and tyrannical\none. What right has any body of men to say, \u2018The vices of other men we\nwill punish, but our own vices nobody shall punish? We will restrain\nother men from seeking their own happiness, according to their own\nnotions of it; but nobody shall restrain us from seeking our own\nhappiness, according to our notion of it. We will restrain other men\nfrom acquiring any experimental knowledge of what is conducive or\nnecessary to their own happiness; but nobody shall restrain us from\nacquiring an experimental knowledge of what is conducive or necessary\nto our own happiness.\u2019 Nobody but knaves and blockheads ever think of\nany such absurd assumptions as these. And yet, evidently, it is only\nupon such assumptions that anybody can claim the right to punish the\nvices of others, and at the same time claim exemption from punishment\nfor his own. The greatest of all crimes are the wars that are carried\non by governments to plunder, destroy and enslave mankind.\u201d\n\nIt has been asserted that gambling is a vice. I deny that such is the\ncase. The proposition cannot be established, as an absolute principle.\nIf a man chooses to risk his money, on a game of cards, he has a\nperfect right to do so, in the abstract, and no man, or any body of\nmen, has a right to forbid him. \u201cIt is his money, and he has a right to\ndo what he chooses with it. He has a legal right to put it in a gun and\nshoot it away, or burn it up, or risk it on a game of chance, or make\nany other disposition of it, and no man, or body of men, has a right to\ninterfere.\u201d For my purpose, as a question of law, the real question is\nwhether a man may dispose of his own as he chooses? If so, then he has\na right to wager it on a game of cards, or at dice; and it is absurd to\ntreat as criminal another man who may join in with him in gaming, as an\nantagonist. In other words, \u201cIf John has at any time or in any place,\nthe right to wager his money on a game of chance, then it is absurd to\ntreat as criminal the helping John to do what he has a right to do. If\none participant in a transaction is guilty of crime, so is the other.\nBut if one participant is guiltless, then the other is guiltless.\u201d\n\nThe keepers of gambling resorts are denounced, as though they were\nresponsible for the gambling propensity in mankind. Now, resorts for\ngambling do not cause the passion. It is a tendency to which all men\nare prone, more or less. \u201cThe essential fact is the existence of this\npassion. There can never be any great difficulty in obtaining the means\nfor its gratification.\u201d If not one way, then in another. If at all,\nattack the principle, in whatever guise or by whomsoever practiced.\nIf some methods are denounced, then should all methods be denounced.\nIf those who furnish certain \u201cmeans to the end\u201d are to be punished as\ncriminals, then should all persons who furnish any \u201cmeans to the end.\u201d\nBut to punish any such person is erroneous and very short sighted;\nfor the primary cause of the trouble, if such it be, is the desire\nfor gaming. It is impossible to prevent its gratification. As wisely\nattempt \u201cto make one\u2019s hair white or black\u201d by virtue of \u201cthe statute\nin such cases made and provided.\u201d\n\nSuppose the law efficacious, with what consistency does our\njurisprudence make gambling a crime? In general, at common law, all\ngames are lawful, unless fraud has been practiced. Each of the parties\nmust have a right to the money or thing played for. He must give his\nfree and full consent, and the play must be conducted fairly. The\nmutual promises of the parties to the wager are held a sufficient\nconsideration. A large number of such actions have been sustained by\nthe courts of England and the United States.\n\nFor example, it was held that a wager of fifty guineas by one of the\nlitigants that an appeal from a decree of Chancery would be reversed by\nthe House of Lords, was not, of itself, void, there being no charge of\nfraud. So, wagers as to the time when a railroad would be completed;\nor, as to the name of a person whom one of the parties had seen; or,\nas to the age of one of the parties; or, upon the price of an article\nof commerce; or, as to who would die first, of two persons not privy\nto the wager; or, as to whether A. would hit a target; or, upon foot\nor horse races; were held valid. Indeed, the tendency of the courts\nto discourage wagers of every nature is relatively of recent date. In\nmany of the United States, the doctrine has been abrogated by statute.\nTexas, Delaware, California, and some other states still adhere to the\nEnglish rule.\n\nSome of the judgments in England were rendered by the greatest of\njudicial minds: Lord Mansfield, Lord Holt, Lord Hardwicke and Lord\nKenyon. In the language of Lord Holt: \u201cWhen considered in itself,\nthere is nothing in a wager, contrary to natural equity, and the\ncontract will be considered as a reciprocal gift, which the parties\nmake of the thing played for, under certain conditions.\u201d Lord Mansfield\nlaid it down, that wagers are actionable: \u201cand that the restraints\nimposed on certain species, by acts of parliament, are exceptions to\nthe general rule, and prove it.\u201d And Lord Kenyon declared in Good vs.\nElliott: \u201cBeing bound by former decisions, not having the power to\nalter the law, not finding any one case against the legality of wagers\nin general, and finding cases without number, wherein wagers have\nbeen held to be good, and that the payment of them may be enforced, I\nadjudge the wager in the present case good at common law.\u201d It was a\nwager that A. had purchased a certain wagon of B.\n\nThe source of our jurisprudence is the common law of England. Gambling\nwas not a crime under this system, and here it would enforce the\ncontract of wager. I therefore denounce as incongruous and irrational a\nstatute which seeks to punish the wagerer as a criminal.\n\nCrime, at common law is something essential, so, in its very nature;\ngrounded in the Mosaic decalogue and the reason of things: murder,\nmayhem, adultery, robbery, theft, arson. The wager is akin to none of\nthese, nor does it come within their spirit. The common law branded as\na criminal him only whom God had thus branded. The wagerer was not of\nthe number.\n\nIn a word, is gambling _malum in se_? In answer, the common conviction\nof men has never so regarded it. The common law has ever recognized\na boundary line which separates the _mala in se_ from the _mala\nprohibita_. In law, a thing is _malum in se_ when absolutely evil in\nitself; \u201cnot, indeed, in a philosophical sense,\u201d says the eminent\nlawyer, James C. Carter, \u201cbut absolutely, according to the universal\nconviction, in the political society which so views it; and _mala\nprohibita_ are those things, otherwise innocent or indifferent, which\nthe legislative power, having control over the subject, may declare\nto be offenses.\u201d Although not _malum in se_, gambling may be _malum\nprohibitum_. If the latter, then it becomes merely a question of public\npolicy whether or not the state shall license gambling, subject to such\nconditions as the police power might impose. At any rate, to the extent\nthat government is a moral entity, it cannot rightfully punish gambling\nas being bad in itself.\n\n\n\n\n\u201cThe King is Dead--Long\n\nLive the King.\u201d\n\n[Illustration]\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\u201cThe King is Dead--Long Live the King.\u201d\n\n\nExpressive was the coronation ceremony in the ancient Dukedom of\nCarinthia. The ducal candidate, in a peasant\u2019s garb, and with head\nproudly erect, walked towards the marble throne of his ancestors. But\nupon it was already seated a peasant, attended by the black bull and\nthe lean horse--those sad and severe symbols of his class. Then was\ncommenced between them this rude dialogue:\n\nPeasant:--\u201cWho so proudly dares enter here? Is he a just judge? Has he\nthe good of the country at heart?\u201d\n\nDuke:--\u201cHe is and he will.\u201d\n\nPeasant:--\u201cI demand by what right he will force me to quit this place?\u201d\n\nDuke:--\u201cHe will buy it of you for sixty pennies, and the horse and the\nbull shall be yours.\u201d\n\nNowhere, in the past, was the sovereignty of the people more haughtily\ndeclared, than in this formality of the old Carinthians. \u201cIt bears the\nseal of remote antiquity--of an Homeric or Biblical simplicity.\u201d That\nthe people were the only true source of power, was admitted even in\nthe archaic periods of history. Of olden time, there were many forms\nof popular government. Aristotle made a study of their institutions.\nGreece had her democracies and Italy a great republic. In Asia, then,\nas now, the assertion of political power was the sole foundation for\nits maintenance.\n\nWith the development of Christianity, in Europe, was inculcated the\ntheoretic idea. Kings were anointed and they ruled by \u201cdivine right.\u201d\nIn the language of Mr. Tiedeman: \u201cThe king, who in theory obtained his\nauthority from God, acknowledged no natural rights in the individual.\nIndividual activity, for its room, depended upon the monarch\u2019s will.\u201d\nIn time, however, came the Reformation and political revolutions in\nEngland, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy. To-day, the \u201cdivine\nright\u201d of kings is generally repudiated. It has been displaced by the\nancient principle that all power is derived from the people. \u201cThe\npeople were once subjects of the king. The government is now subject\nto the people.\u201d \u201cThe king is dead,\u201d but his functions yet live in \u201cthe\nstate,\u201d or the people.\n\nWhile many ancient statesmen and publicists recognized the proper\norigin of power in government, their opinions as to its nature and\nextent were neither clear nor sound. Wherever lodged, in their\njudgment, power was limitless and irresponsible. Whether exercised by\nking or emperor, by an aristocracy or the people, it was absolute.\nPolitically, in other words, the individual was annihilated by the\nstate. Government did not permit the existence of any personal right\nthat it \u201cwas bound to respect.\u201d This is also true of later times, in\ncontinental Europe. True, the \u201cdivine right\u201d of kings was repudiated,\nbut not the doctrine of absolutism. \u201c_Vox Populi, Vox Dei_,\u201d became\nthe general answer to all complaints of the individual against the\nencroachments of popular government upon his rights and liberty. In the\nname of the people, atrocious crimes were perpetrated by revolutionary\ngovernments.\n\nIn its proper sense, individual liberty is a development of the\nAnglo-Saxon institutions. This doctrine is fundamental to the English\nConstitution. The principle is cardinal and vital in the American\nsystem of government. Individual rights are protected by constitutional\nrestrictions upon power, federal and state. In the United States, every\nindividual is a king. This accords with the so-called _laissez-faire_\ndoctrine, of modern development in England and the United States,\nwhich confines the sphere of government within the narrowest limits,\nand denies to it the power to do more than provide for public order\nand personal security, by the prevention and punishment of crimes and\ntrespasses. Under the influence of this wholesome principle, with us\nand in Great Britain, for one hundred years, the encroachments of\ngovernment upon the rights and liberties of the individual have been\ncomparatively few.\n\nIn other words, it has been generally admitted by the wisest and\nbroadest statesmanship, that private rights and personal liberty do\nnot exist by the permission of municipal law. They are natural and\nfounded upon the law of reason; that, therefore, governmental restraint\nshould \u201conly go to the limit necessary to a uniform and reasonable\nconservation of private rights.\u201d Municipal law protects and develops,\nrather than creates private rights and personal liberty.\n\nIn the United States this \u201climit\u201d has been generally fixed at the\npower to enforce the common and civil law maxim, \u201c_sic utere tuo, ut\nalieum non l\u00e6das_.\u201d The \u201cpolice power,\u201d it is called, and extends, in\nits broadest sense, to the preservation of peace and good order to the\nprotection of property rights, \u201cand of the lives, limbs, health and\ncomfort of all persons.\u201d Any law which goes beyond this, in the United\nStates, at least, and undertakes to abolish rights, the exercise of\nwhich do not infringe upon the rights of others; or limits the exercise\nof rights beyond what is necessary for the public welfare and general\nsecurity, is not properly within the police power.\n\nThe police power, then, is properly concerned only with crimes and\ntrespasses. It cannot rightfully invade the realm of ethics, as such.\nCrime is theoretically a direct injury to the public, and trespass,\na direct injury to the individual. A vice, on the contrary, is the\ninordinate gratification of one\u2019s desires and passions. The primary\ndamage is to one\u2019s self. In contemplating the nature of a vice, we\nare not conscious of a trespass on the rights of others. Vice does\nnot fall within the police power. Expressed in the language of Mr.\nTiedeman, \u201cthe object of police power, is the prevention of crime--the\nprotection of rights against the assaults of others. The police power\nof the government cannot properly be brought into operation for the\npurpose of exacting obedience to the rules of morality, and banishing\nvice and sin from the world. The moral laws can exact obedience only in\n_foro conscienti\u00e6_. The municipal law has only to do with trespasses.\nIt cannot be called into play in order to save one from the evil\nconsequences of his own vices, for the violation of a right, by the\naction of another, must exist or be threatened, in order to justify the\ninterference of law.\u201d\n\nThe people of this country are generally convinced of this truth. So\nwidespread is the conviction that, where a law \u201cdoes not have for its\nobject the prevention or punishment of a trespass upon rights, it is\nimpossible to obtain for it an enthusiastic and unanimous support.\u201d\nBesides, it is true of every community, when \u201cpublic opinion is aroused\nto an activity that will enforce a law for the prevention of vice, the\nmoral force alone will be ample to suppress it.\u201d But it is sometimes\nurged that an otherwise ineffectual statute may serve to direct public\nopinion in the right direction. To this I reply that one unerring truth\nis taught by the history of legislation: \u201cIt is the utter futility, in\na corrective sense, of a law whose enactment is not the unavoidable\nresultant of the forces then in play in organized society. Nothing so\nweakens the reverence for law, and diminishes its effectiveness, as\nstill-born statutes.\u201d\n\nCertain matters are generally recognized to be within the police power\nof the state. For instance, the control of infectious and contagious\ndiseases, of the insane, of habitual drunkards, spendthrifts, vagrants\nand mendicants. And finally, by forced construction, it has been\nextended to the liquor traffic. The law, it is said, may prohibit the\nsale of liquor to minors, lunatics, persons intoxicated, confirmed\ninebriates, and other persons with certain weaknesses of character.\nCourts maintain that while the liquor traffic is subject to the police\npower, yet it may not be entirely forbidden as necessarily injurious\nto the public in a legal sense. To quote the Supreme Court of Indiana,\nin Beabe vs. State: \u201cWhere injury does result (from the use of\nbeverages) it is usually caused by the shortcomings of the purchaser,\nwithout any participation in the wrong of the seller. No business can\nbe prohibited altogether, unless its prosecution is necessarily and\nessentially injurious. It is the abuse and not the use of beverages\nthat is hurtful. The use of beverages is not necessarily destructive\nto the community.... Fire-arms and gunpowder are not manufactured to\nshoot innocent persons, but are often so misapplied. Axes and hatchets\nare not made and sold to break heads with, but are often used for that\npurpose. Yet who has ever contended the manufacture and sale of these\narticles should be prohibited as a nuisance. We repeat, the manufacture\nand sale of liquors are not necessarily hurtful, and therefore may not\nbe entirely prohibited.\u201d\n\nSo much for the \u201cpolice power,\u201d generally considered. But what of its\nrelation to gambling, if any? If the practice is neither a crime nor\na trespass, then it is not rightfully subject to public regulation.\nI have demonstrated to the candid judgment that, of itself, gambling\nis not essentially wrong. I insist that, at least, in the absence of\nfraud and chicane, it is neither sinful, nor criminal. To gamble with\nanother is not to assault his person or property by main force. To\nwager or bet upon the laws of chance, deceit aside, is not to kill,\nmaim, rob, or cheat your fellow man; the players freely participate in\nthe hope of gain or for amusement. Then wherein is the action either\nfelonious or tortious? Why should the police power interfere? That\nit cannot properly do so, under our institutions, is conceded by Mr.\nTiedeman. He is an able and accomplished lawyer, and recognized by the\nprofession as an authority on the subject. But it may be said, the\neffects are injurious, and for that reason the state may forbid the\npractice. That gambling is \u201cnecessarily and essentially\u201d injurious\nto society, I deny. As a pastime, it is innocent, as a principle of\naction it permeates the business world. If an amusement, it may be\nabused to the detriment of certain individuals, but the abuse of a\nthing, innocent in itself, does not make that thing a crime. When an\noccupation, it is but natural that the laws of chance should operate\nunevenly: to the advantage of some and to the disadvantage of others.\nUniformity of success in affairs is impossible.\n\nThroughout the business world, in every department of human activity,\nthe losers but bear a fixed proportion to the winners. Some must fail\nthat others may succeed. Such is the law of existence, as society is\nconstituted to-day. We are not now concerned with ideals. The realities\nsuffice for my purpose. Chance is at present the great motive power\nof the world. It sustains hope, and stimulates endeavor. Through its\noperation men are enriched and nations aggrandized. That some meet with\ndisaster and encounter misfortune does not prove that appeals to chance\nare criminal in their nature, nor that such appeals are \u201cnecessarily\nand essentially\u201d injurious to the state. Consistently, therefore,\ngambling cannot be forbidden because in its pursuit some persons are\nfool-hardy and others unfortunate.\n\nI may be asked, \u201cWhat do you suggest?\u201d I would license gambling, and\nplace it under such restrictions as would tend to lessen its abuse. I\nam willing, for practical purposes, to concede this much to the police\npower. If this policy may be claimed for the liquor traffic, why not\nfor gambling also? Is gambling more injurious than intemperance? No,\nthe victims of alcohol outnumber the unfortunate gamblers a thousand\nto one. The habitual use of intoxicants is necessarily and uniformly\ninjurious to the individual. This is not true of gambling, as a\npastime. The player may win. Some of the players must win. Whatever\ncan be said against the prohibition of the liquor traffic, applies\nwith greater force to gambling. If there are reasons why the sale of\nintoxicants may be licensed, by the state and municipal authorities,\nsuch reasons serve but to demand a like privilege for gambling.\nBriefly, the rule laid down by the Indiana Supreme Court as to the\nliquor traffic, in Beabe vs. State, is clearly applicable to games\nof chance as a business. This is obvious from the whole tenor of my\ndiscussion. If the state is not willing to take this step, then leave\nthe matter to \u201clocal option.\u201d Leave it to the municipal authorities,\nwhether gambling is to be permitted or not, in a given locality. Let it\nbe a question of policy and toleration, if you will. Regulations may\nbe imposed, as with the saloon. Recognize the existence of gambling\nas a fixed fact, but interpose a surveillance for the prevention of\nfraud. As with the saloon, also, provide for the protection of those\nweaklings who are ever wards of the law: \u201cminors, drunkards, lunatics\nand spendthrifts.\u201d This policy now obtains generally on the continent\nof Europe, and to a certain extent in several of the United States:\nnotably, Arkansas, Texas and California.\n\n\u201cWhat! would you have gambling public?\u201d Yes, rather than private;\nand that is the alternative presented to the wise. The experience\nof California, in this matter, is that of every state in the Union,\nand all may profit by her example. In the words of Judge Murray of\nthat state: \u201cThe Legislature, finding a thirst for play universally\nprevalent throughout the state, and despairing of suppressing it\nentirely, attempted to control it in certain bounds, by imposing\nrestrictions and burdens on this kind of business. The license operated\nas a permission, and removed, or did away with the misdemeanor as it\nexisted.\u201d The issue for practical men is: Shall gambling be in sight\nand subject to control, or shall it be out of sight and beyond control.\nThe \u201csitus\u201d of public gambling is known to the authorities, and thus\nmay its conduct be supervised and regulated: its every operation may be\nhourly inspected by the police, to the exclusion of those whom the law\nmay with propriety protect from their own acts, and the prevention of\ncheating by dishonorable methods and devices. If gambling is public,\nin brief, its abuses can be reduced to a minimum. When repressed\nat known points, gambling is not thereby discontinued. It is thus\ndistributed over a wider field, there, secretly to thrive in its worst\nfeatures. Then it is that fraud and theft are triumphant: that \u201cbrace\u201d\ngamblers \u201cwax fat\u201d and their conscienceless harpies pray in secret upon\nthe unwary and the inexperienced. Public gambling is generally fair and\nhonest. Secret gambling is too often but another name for a robbery\nthat cannot be prevented by either police or magistrates. Again, the\nnumber of employees are few, comparatively, in the public gambling\nclub, and it is without other allurements than naked chance may offer.\nNot so the private institution, the patrons of which may freely partake\nof most seductive viands and expensive liquors; rents are also higher,\nand more employees are required. The private club is costly in the\nextreme: an extravagant scale is necessary to its very existence.\nThis is a severe test to the scruples of a proprietor. In some way he\nmust meet expenses and insure a livelihood. For an honest gambler the\nmaintenance of a private club is seldom possible.\n\n\u201cBut public gambling would be a temptation to the poor man. You admit\nthat poor men should not gamble?\u201d I answer, who is the \u201cpoor\u201d man?\nWhen you have found him, who is his keeper? Are you the custodian of\nhis judgment and inclinations? I am of opinion he would repudiate your\nguardianship with indignation. \u201cConsistency thou art,\u201d indeed, \u201ca\njewel.\u201d The rich and well-to-do may gamble, perhaps, but not the man\nof small resources. I ask, who has the right, for that reason, to say\nthe latter nay? Not you, rich gambler in stocks and farm products; nor\nyou, sir, who nightly gamble in the parlor of a comfortable home, or\nat the private club you assist in maintaining for that purpose. By what\nauthority were you constituted the keeper of a less fortunate neighbor?\nAll this aside, however, the suppression of public gambling will not\ndeter any man from the pursuit, whether \u201crich\u201d or \u201cpoor.\u201d A thousand\navenues are opened to him, despite the law and the authorities. In this\nmatter, society must trust to the education of individual character and\nthe gradual amelioration of mankind. Besides, if gambling were subject\nto regulation, as other pursuits, our laws could the better protect\nwhomsoever it might desire.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\nPunctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a\npredominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they\nwere not changed.\n\nSimple typographical errors were corrected.\n\nUnbalanced quotation marks were remedied when the change was obvious or\nthe quotation was found in other sources. The others remain unbalanced.\n\nThe illustration on the Title page is a decorative floral; the other\nillustrations are decorative headpieces.\n\nPage 109: \u201cthe band of fate\u201d was printed that way.\n\nPage 187: Opening quotation mark has no matching closing mark.","title":"Gambling; or, Fortuna, her temple and shrine.: The true philosophy and ethics of gambling","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":32618}